Talk:Aryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Aryan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
WikiProject Iran Aryan is part of WikiProject Iran, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Iran-related topics. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] I know you're all caught up in other debates, BUT!

The reference to Jataki being spoken in Ukraine should be cut. Maybe by a few recent immigrants, but even that I doubt.77.122.35.247 (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White People and the concept of the "Aryan" race?

Why did the Nazis use the term "Aryan" to describe white people and embrace the Aryan history as if it was part of their heritage? Aryans certainly weren't white; in fact, they were more closely related to Indians and those countries surrounding Iran (even the word "Aryan" is Sanskrit/Avestan). Present Iranians are not even considered as Aryans by white people even when they are directly related to Aryans. I thought that white people are more genetically related to Romans and particular Greeks. Were the Nazis confused? --Media Research 23:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is not a term used to descirbe a distinct race of people. Original Aryans are prehistoric, the term is used to describe decendants from this stock. It is not about skin colour. Also, the Nazis were influenced by many ideas floating around Europe at the time. There was an occult revival going on and a deep interest in the East and mysticism. The word 'Aryan' was already in popular use in Europe, it was not the Nazis themselves who borrowed it from the East. I have been led to believe the term may have had mystical conatations inspired by people such as H. P. Blavatsky. It is a very broad statement to say "Present Iranians are not even considered as Aryans by white people". Which white people? I know many white people who understand the connection. The confusion is born out of popular culture and belief to attribute the term Ayran to only people with blond hair and blue eyes. This maybe a product of misconceptions about Nazi ideology. Blond hair and blue eyes were part of the Nazi concept of the ideal German, it was never the Nazi definition of Ayran. To say that "white people are more genetically related to Romans and particular Greeks" is misguided, but yes it is true although it does not create an argument as the Greeks and Romans of ancient times could be considered white (although the to use 'white' itself is misguiding) or Indo-European. Genetically they have changed. The Greeks for example are different to the Greeks of ancient times since the conquests of the Turks. Fair skin is a result of cold northern climates. Dark skin is a result of hot dry climates. The history of the Aryan peoples is very ancient. Enough time even for many migrations to take place and features such as skin colour to change. PyrE 00:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitler apparently idolised this idea of a superior race that conquered the aboriginal races of Northern India and Iran, this was probably his basis for a superior German race for which he used the same name 'Aryan'. I wonder how Hitler would have reacted in the company of Iranians, as these are the people he attempted to use as an example to justify his master race idealogy with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.51.210 (talk) 11:49, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Aryans refer to those with Persian descent. White people (such as the Nazis) are not descended from Persians - they are more likely to be descendants of the Saxons, Normans and possibly the Romans and Greeks, but not Aryans. What I don't understand is why Nazis refer to themselves as Aryans? Where did they get such an idea from? Is it because of Central Asia's rich history with the Arabs? (This was a racist statment I removed it as it has no place in here). Nazis doesn't even consider those from Central Asia, the real Aryans, as Aryans even though they are genetically Aryan. [Actual] Aryans have distinct physical features; dark hair, wheatish light brown skin and some are gingers. Most look a lot like like Arabs, a look Nazis deeply oppose. Nazis believe Aryans are people with blonde hair, blue eyes, pinkish light skin etc. Where they got such an idea from... who knows? Will they ever believe that they're not Aryans? Probably not. They really need to be educated about their actual heritage and not choose a heritage they think is theirs. Media Research 20:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Aryans are not exclusively Persian Descent India is the land where the word Arya is featured in the Rig Veda arguably man's oldest book.And besides Persia has since the fall of the Sassanid Empire been overrun and intermixed with Arabs,Mongols etc.Whether the current Persians or high caste North Indian Hindus have more right to call themselves aryan people is an endlessly debatable question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

how about you read the article? The term was used in the sense "Indo-European". Is it possible you are beating a horse that's been dead and decayed for about 60 years now? --dab (𒁳) 22:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Media Research, you have totally misunderstood the Indo-Aryan ideology of Hitler's National Socialism. If you want to understand it a little better, try studying history a little better, and the article Indo-European languages. Indo-European peoples (that includes Indo-Aryans), are linguistically, ethnically and religiously related. Hitler was not wrong in this. Where he was wrong is that he wanted to wipe out anyone who wasn't German. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:09 16 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was obviously totally wrong in his ideology, but it was used mainly for political purposes at the time. Indo-European people and langauges are thought to be related. However these people are unrelated to Europeans. The original Indo-European speakers were close to the Afghan, Northern Indian and Iranian people of today. Some of them have quite 'medium' (as in yellow or golden) skin, and normally black hair. There is no connection to Europeans. These kind of ideas were invented by some 19th century writers in Europe at the time and seized upon by Hitler for political purposes. Although European languages of today are Indo-European, Europeans themselves are not related to the original Indo-European speakers. Rather these original Indo-European speakers of the regions of present day Iran, Afghanistan and Northern India spread their langauges westwards, and the langauges have later been adopted by Europeans, replacing the languages that Euopeans spoke before this (the 'old' European langauges). The exact time span and route of this migration and language spread is being pinpointed today. We know that the Indo-Aryan people originally were an Iranian/Afghan type of people, and that the languages spread westwards through Anatolia and possibly parts of central Asia.

Neotone 14:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. European peoples did not speak non Indo-European languages and it certainly wasn't imposed upon them by Indo-Aryans. Your theory is completely original research. — EliasAlucard|Talk 06:05 02 Oct, 2007 (UTC)
Sorry you are both wrong. They are connected by both language and racial descent. These ideas were not invented. "Old European" languages were not replaced. They just evolved differently and in isolation to other Indo-Aryan languages. The exact time span and route of this migration and language spread will never be accurately pinpointed; there are too many variables and it is much too complex and dynamic to be so exact on such an issue. PyrE 11:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps you missed that I wrote non Indo-European languages? Also, you seem to have missed my previous reply. — EliasAlucard|Talk 05:10 06 Oct, 2007 (UTC)

Just a word of caution to the legitimate 'pedians here... Some of the recent comments are apparently from editors we all know and love. Please do not feed them. -- Fullstop 04:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] self praise

((Aryan (/eərjən/ or /ɑːrjən/) is an English language word derived from the Sanskrit and Iranian terms ārya-, the extended form aryāna-, ari- and/or arya- (Sanskrit: आर्य, Persian: آریا). Beyond its use as the ethnic self-designation of the Proto-Indo-Iranians, the meaning "noble/spiritual one" has been attached to it in Sanskrit and Persian. In linguistics, it is sometimes still used in reference to the Indo-Iranian language family, but it is primarily restricted to the compound Indo-Aryan, the Indic subgroup of the Indo-Iranian branch.))Italic text

It is thus clear that Aryan is not any distinct race or category of people as it consist of all those who are noble and spiritual. An aryan means a man of good character and not a man of any specific skin colour. Everybody with long noses, wide foreheads and white or fair colour is not Aryan if he doesnot have good character and a noble spirit. It is rather funny to note that even those who have very sinister inclinations toward others's woman and property falsely think themselves to be Aryan.

The word Aryan was used in self praise by everyone as and when one was able to use it by hooks or crooks. The word Aryan is now used to to disintegrate well established societies by creating false superiority of few over others. Even chors, goondas, thieves, fraudsters, characterless people with antisocial history and instincts can be very well accomodated in the list of Aryans if they are in a position to demoralise and uproot others by their devilious activities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosserwilson (talk • contribs).

While Aryan in literal sense is a noble man,it's considered to be a race nowadays to identify the people in those time who used to call themselves noble.According to Mr S.L.Dhani(author of the books like politics of gods, pracheen bharat mein vigyan,etc),the aryans in India in those times were struggling to have authoritative power over Dravidians because they were outnumbered.So,they employed cunningness to gain power by mixing with Dravidians and gaining trust and eventually they managed to have an upper hand.The varna system,division of society into four groups viz. Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Sudras were developed by Aryans for political administration which greatly affected Indian society which is still considered in Indian Society. Dshenoy 20:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The Aryan race was a distinct group many years ago, but through years of interbreeding with other races and cultures, the term Aryan doesnt hold the significance it once did. And as for inclinations towards others women and property.... what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hemansx (talk • contribs).

[edit] Afghans, Persians or Aryan?

Afghans are considered to be Aryan or even Persian? Afghan itself means Aryan according to history and Afghanistan meaning Land of the Aryans would put us in the category of Aryan people.... Genetics show that Afghanistan has more Aryan people then any other place on the globe but yet on dictionary.com and wikipedia Persian and Aryan is specifically toward Iranians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.176.244 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

If you mean Pashtuns, yes, they form part of the Iranian peoples. dab (𒁳) 21:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Then why doesnt wikipedia and other sites say they are cuz every afghan will tell you they are aryan or persian.. America is to self centered and thinks w/e they say goes is my opinion —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.74.126.97 (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Afghan are for sure Aryan and will never consider himself Persian because Afghans are not Persian. Pashtun786 08:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Pashtun786

They are surely good people and spiritually better than many others. It doesnot matter whether somebody call then Aryan or not.

An afghan is not a iraninan or Persian person but some one descended from the people who used to habit the area of Afghanistan, or known as Aryans. The first name of Afghanistan was actually Ariana meaning land of Aryans. But over time different cultures have made up stories and theologies of how these people migrated into Europe and how they were a master race which there is little proof for.

First of all the word "Afghan" refers to a very divers ethnicity of people. (Including Hazara, Tajik, Pasthun, .......)Most Afghans have been largely been mixed with mongols, also those pashtun ones are more related to pakistan and India than Iranian origin, some Afghans have kept their Persian roots but most of them are new comers or mixed people. John

As a Persian, Iranian or Aryan! I believe noble people are good people of every race and ethnicity. It's really absurd that one Afghan says that he is Aryan, another one approves it and finally they conclude (by their own claims not facts!) that Persians are not Aryan becuase perhaps some Pashtuns(people who are hostile to Persians, coz they believe Iran helped America to eradicate Taliban, the group highly supported by most of them) think they are! Perhaps we are all better to look for good humans rather there some genes. Thanx 195.146.46.15 21:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Afghan means what?! who told you Afghan means Aryan!, some people need education!!!! Read this link to at least have some information about the name of your own country! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_name_Afghan Maziar

Afghan means Aryan !!! why dont u do som reaserch

Quoted from Michael Cheilik's Ancient History: From Its Beginnings to the Fall of Rome, the author explains:
Pg. 18:

"Members of this group (Aryans), perhaps originating in the steppes of Central Asia, conquered India; others included the Hellenic, Italic, Germanic, Celtic, and Slavic invaders of Europe. Among them were also the Hittites, who, together with the Kassites, conquered and destroyed Babylon (c. 1600 B.C.). (The origin of the Kassites is unknown. Some scholars believe that they also were Indo-Europeans.) Civilization was not destroyed, for eventually the newcomers were absorbed into the nexus of Mesopotamia. The Kassite kingdom lasted until the twelfth century B.C., when it was overthrown by Elamite invaders from the east."

To the tow idiot Afghan posters in here. Check your idiotic racism at the door and stop spitting your vile hate filled messages here. You two are reenforcing some Persians beliefs that Afghans are "DAHATY" and not very well cultured. If you want to make those stereotypes about you dissapear, then live up to the expectations that you have of yourselves and the way you want to be see. This We ar Aryanb you are not childish crap just shows you as clows —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.163.87 (talk) 05:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

right now you're acting like an idiot as a 'clow'. by saying that. Man who cares what we are as long as were human i don give a shyt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.84.93 (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] European/Aryan

This artical states "The "Aryan race" is a concept revitalised in European culture by Hitler’s obsession with India", which could be considered erroneous and misleading. Hitler was influenced by the trends and ideas of his age. The concept was already alive and well, as one could recognise in the writings of H. P. Blavatsky and Edward Bulwer-Lytton and many others. I believe to state that Hitler is responsible for the "revitalising" the concept is wrong, as it is wrong to place all the emphasis on Hitler as the one man who brought the concept into western culture. Also, the term "Aryan-European" was commonly used and is now replaced by the term "Indo-European" and they both share the same meaning. Aryan refers to Western Europeans AND Persians. Also, Indians and several other racial groups of the near east and the sub-continent are considered to be Aryan. PyrE 09:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, the definition of what an Aryan is should have no basis on what Hitler said or believed, he had a very strange understanding of the term Aryan and it's pretty obvious his head wasnt fully screwed on. Its quite frustrating, as an Iranian, if I tell modern people that my ancestors were Aryan, they dismiss it, as they think Aryan is blonde hair blue eyes and all of Hitler's other ideals.

Obviously you people are passing judgement and making assertions when you're just Pseudo-Intellects. He actually stated in Mein Kampf that India was INVADED by the Aryans and that their racial stock was CORRODED by the locals. He used this as his basis for preserving Europe's white racial purity.

*you people* ??? Who do you mean by this precisely??? Pseudo-Intellects??? In my above statement have I endorsed Hitler or his ideals??? I think you have mistaken that I have.
"Its quite frustrating, as an Iranian, if I tell modern people that my ancestors were Aryan, they dismiss it, as they think Aryan is blonde hair blue eyes and all of Hitler's other ideals."
As a human, this makes me frustrated:) Are you not a modern person??? Are not your ancestors Iranian? Or Persian? Is your desire to claim aryan ancestory based on your own ideals of racial superiority???
Hitler did not use blonde har and blue eyes as a definition of what is aryan. It was his ideal German, not, as commonly believed, the definition of Aryan used by the Nazis.
Frankly I feel offended by your *you people* and your so-called *Pseudo-Intellects*. I think you should re-read my first statement and then maybe explain yourself. PyrE 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I always thought that Hitler wanted to create a "Perfect race" by killing all the jews and others that werent "acceptable" and only wanted people with blonde hair and blue eyes, I read about this in a book so please tell me if I'm wrong.Atomic45 (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You are over-simplifying, but not entirely wrong. Read the article Nordic theory. Paul B (talk) 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vndalism in this article by phycick editors

You all peoples outside India are rich in money , resources , science etc . As a Maratha i can't do nothing but to watch helplessly at your vandalism , as i have paid the price for telling the truth in my article at Maratha clan system. I can only suggest you that all we editiors that we claim to be the origanal arya, lets do one simple thig that all we performed the DNA test , and other all test to confirm the origanality. I Vishal Prakash Dudhane -- User Vishal1976 present myself as the first candidate , volantier for this test. O.K

What? PyrE 11:20, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but there is no known DNA footprint for the Aryan race, although the 'Aryan' races such as the Indians and Iranians may share similar DNA patterns, there is no confirmed 'Aryan Gene' so a DNA test wont be able to prove much.

A better grip of English is advised, before contributions to the English langauge Wikipedia are made, so as to aid in clear communications. Else, seek out a portal from wikipedia.com to one's native language, if such exists. 76.179.150.59 04:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Purest of Aryan races

The purest Aryan races according to me are Persians, north Indians(only some, mainly from kshatriya(warrior) and Vaish(merchants/agriculturists) groups) and Afghans(not all tribes like Afridis, Khattaks etc. trace descent from Arabs). These are the purest of all aryan races because of the fact that original Aryan homeland was north Iran and nearby regions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.186.154 (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Marathas are not Aryans

For your kind information Mr Vishal, Marathas are not aryans. They were dravidian sudras but they started calling themselves Kshatriyas after that Shivaji. Their ancestry was doctored by Brahmins. Marathas have prominent south Indian/Dravidian features. They are short heighted, they have low cheek bones and they are physically weak. Another fact is that their homeland is located in Maharashtra, that is south India and South Indians are Non-Aryans. Marathas are not part of RAJPUTS! and remove many rajput clan names that you have added in Maratha clan system! Dont insult them by calling them marathas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.186.154 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Armenian ariun

Armenian, ariun meaning blood is not cognate with the Indo-Iranian term Aryan. Azalea pomp 05:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is the discussion, please dont remove cited info. Armenia, a scion of the "Aryan" stock, has for four millenniums and more, through two or three revivals and through some of the most devastating misfortunes that ever beset a people, been an advanced post of civilization. [1][1]--
The page is http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/Preface*.html66.217.80.134 16:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I copied the above from my Talk page. Note that the citation is wrong, since the article title is given incorrectly. Nowhere in this quatation is there evidence concerning Armenia cognates of Arya. Paul B

Armenians are of Aryan stock. Not pronounced Arya here. 216.175.66.171 16:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In Armenian, we call ourselves Aryatzi or Aryaee. This is referring to Aryan. The scholars reveals it clearly we are from "Aryan" stock. I didnt say Arya, please dont play word games here, even though Arya is the same as Aryan. Either way we are Aryan also known Arya. 216.175.66.171 16:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about the Armenian word for blood "Ariun", and this cited info and page is not talking about "Ariun" (blood) either.

You are the one playing word games. What is the point of this passage? Lots of people are "Aryans" in the broad sense. There's no point in listing them all along with self-glorifying assertions about their greatness. Paul B 16:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Its cause we call ourselves Aryatzi or Aryaee, and even Aryagan Hye. 216.175.66.171 16:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention there are Aryan swastika symbols found in the Armenian Highlands dating back to 4th and 3rd millennium BC. Swastika by the way is not a German or English word origin. Its Sanskrit and roots are Armenian according to those linguistics I mentioned in the sources 216.175.66.171 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide the word in Armenian letters. There needs to be a correct transliteration of the Armenian. Also, Armenian is in its own branch of Indo-European. Aryan is restricted to Indo-Iranian. Azalea pomp 17:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is not restricted to Indo-Iranian, the term "Indo-European" or "Indo-Iranian" didnt exist a 100 years ago. We have always called ourselves Aryaee or Aryatzi. The site is a well known WIkipedia source also. Please dont remove ignorantly. 216.175.66.171 18:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to provide the word in Armenian. Your transcription of the Armenian is not correct. Azalea pomp 18:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The article you are quoting is old, from the 1950s. At that time some linguists were using the term Aryan for Indo-European which now linguists no longer use as Aryan is now known only to be used in the Indo-Iranian branch. Please provide a new linguistic fully academic source. Azalea pomp 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The word is not provided in the Persian or German or any other language on this page, except Indian Sanskrit. So we should remove the other ones then also? No. Im giving cited sourced info here, you cant remove something just cause you "feel" like it 216.175.66.171 18:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The only reason for incuding reference to Armenians would be if the terms you refers to are indeed cognate to Arya/Aryan. The refence makes no such claim. BTW, we don't need three notes to the same webpage. As I have already said, there is no article called "The Early History of Indo-European(aka Aryan) Languages", Scientific American, March 1990. There is no "(aka Aryan)" in the title. Provide evidence that this article makes claims about Armenian cognates to the word. Paul B 19:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
You have provided no evidence whatever to anything other than the fact that Armenians are "Aryans" in the broadest sense - that is Indo-Europeans. So are huge numbers of ethnic groups. Paul B 20:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Can you understand that there is no point including statements that Armenians are Aryans, along with statements about how wonderful Armenians are. We could equally have sentences saying "The Scottish are Aryans" (followed by a quote extolling the Scots); "the Danish are Aryans" (quote on the gloriousness of Danes) etc etc. Paul B 21:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is an encyclopedic article and you need an academic source. Find me one academic source or even an Armenian dictionary with a cognate of Aryan. Azalea pomp 03:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Since it seems that "Ee" "Ssssssssss" and others are all avatars of banned user Ararat arev, and since they all employ the same tactic of footnoting claims to a variety of obscure texts in the hope of getting away with blatant falsehoods, surely all such edits should be treated as pure vandalism. Paul B 11:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert or nothing but it seems to me that something is not right here. First of all you claim in your article: “There is evidence of speakers of Indo-Aryan in Mesopotamia around 1500 BC in the form of loanwords in the Mitanni dialect of Hurrian, the speakers of which, it is speculated, may have once had an Indo-Aryan ruling class." Then on another page (I don't know if it's you're article) someone states the following: "The Hurri-Mitanni presumably entered northern Mesopotamia from Armenia." In this article they also make a couple other statements that connect the Metanni culture to the Armenians. So if I would put these two together this would make Armenians Aryan right? Something is inconsistent with what you guys say and write. If there is evidence for the two above, then it is evidence for what the Armenian guys is saying right? Any clearification …..?

No-one is disputing that Armenians are "Aryans" (Indo-Europeans),. The dispute is about the claim that a particular Armenian word for themselves is linguistically related to the word "Aryan". Paul B 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

HAHA then that would be really absurd to debate about that not? I mean for example what is Persian word for cheese? Does it matter how it is pronounced for the reason that it means a product made out of milk? If Aryans mean "noble people" or anything ells, then there is surely a word in Armenian meaning the same thing. As it is in probably every language. I don't understand what you are debating over. Are you trying to say that in Armenian there is no word for "noble"? This seems really absurd. Isn’t every word linguistically related? I mean Armenians have A, R, Y, A, N, in their linguistics. So what is the problem? In Armenian there are a lot of words resembling Arya. Arev =sun, Ariun= blood, there are much more (don't know Armenian my self sorry). Or are you looking for a word that means about the same and also resembles linguistically? That might be harder to find, but I don't see how that would be relevant to anything. If you would find a Chinese word (that may be by chance) resemble "Arya" meaning "aristocrats" or something, would that make them more Aryan? Also isn't it just as hard to find out the original meaning of the word Arya (in any language) as to find it in Armenian? I read that Arya ment diferent things to diferent people. Like according to someone it ment "farmers" etc... Nowerdays we might have given it a very diferant meaning, no wander you can't find it in Armenian. It seems to me really unacademic to be looking for words that resemble each other in their pronunciation and (current)meaning, then go and assume any relation between peoples of the languages. I can understand if a considerable amount of words have that connection. That would at least mean that there was some interaction. But I can't understand what assumption can be made from one individual word that in it self isn't defined that well. But oke don’t get me wrong I am not discrediting your article. In fact my complements on it. I really enjoyed reading it! BYE

[edit] This page needs Mediation or an expert in the field

There is an edit war and the one editor will not list any academic sources. Azalea pomp 04:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it pathetic how Iranian, Armenian, afghans etc begged to be considered as aryan. --58.107.1.58 14:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

No one is begging to be considered Aryan, I mean I'm light skinned I'm tall, have blonde hair and green eyes, but I am not going around everywhere saying "Oh look at me I'm Aryan" or any stupid shit like that. I think some topics on this discussion page are ridiculous, and many arguments being made are critically flawed and contain many errors in them. Anyways the word Aryan became distorted, misused, and has changed its meaning several times. I am mostly Armenian, so I was interested in the topic, but I also, found no point in the topic, or why it was even posted up there. From the beginning of time Armenia has always been a crossroads and has always been a very racially and ethnically diverse country. The Hurrians and Mittanis were just two groups of people that contributed to the ethnogenesis of the Armenian people. I am an Armenian, but I my family mixed with different races also: Greeks, Assyrians, Persians, White Russians, Polish Jews, Estonians, and Georgians. This just goes to show how a race or a people can change over time.

Before modern Armenia came to exist, thousands of years ago the original Armenians, or Armens, were all described as being solidly built, tall, thick bone structure, being light skinned, and having blonde hair and blue eyes. However, we eventualy got mixed with Arabs, Romans, Perisans, Greeks, Russians, Turks, Bulgars, and with many other races and now most Armenians look completely different (there are some exceptions). The reason for me saying this is to show that something thousands of years ago, does not pertain to history and ethnology right now. So I disagree with that Armenian Wikipedian's comments, I do not want Armenians to be considered as Aryans (though technically we might), and I just hope someone deletes that topic "Armenian Ariun", its a shame how one bad person, represents so many Armenians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.221.109 (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's your ancient documents to prove the relation between "Aryans" & "Europeans or even Indians"

In my country "IRAN" we have lots of inscriptions belongs to thousands years ago in which have been explained clearly about ARYANS so what is all this nonsense about the fake relationship between European and Indians to Aryans, Do you have also such a supported evidences to prove it? We can even ask for compensation since some have made our respectful and positive symbol as a goodluck symbol_SWASTIKA- to a negative one.

I HOPE YOU HAVE AN ANSWER NOT JUST DELETE MY COMMENTS! [2]

--213.207.219.165 07:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you bother to READ the article you might find out. Paul B 10:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Buddy Iran and India were mirror images of each other in ancient times:
Indra was the king of gods in vedic times in India but you referred to him as a demon.
Similarly ahura is sanskrit for asur or demon.
Iran means land of aryans
Aryavarta is the ancient name of north India.
On a personal note I have been confused for an Iranian several time even though I am a north indian brahmin :)
And yeah aryan if it means any physical descrption at all has nothing to do with blue eyes and blond hair which were the features of savages when Indian/iranian sacred texts were written.
When did I refer to him as a demon? He is referred to as such in some Zoroastrian writings. I think you will find that editors here are familiar with your information. Read Nordic theory to understand how Aryan came to be associated with blondness. Paul B 08:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. You were obviously replying to Mr Iranian. Paul B 12:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

you all are so funny! you talk about words like (indo-european,indo-iranian,..) that was created just 100 years ago,talk about academic sources dated back to 70 yeras ago and then ask for academic sources from an armenian who call himself as an aryan and ofcourse tell the truth because they are more than Indians related to Aryan.BTW better to know that i'm an iranian with light brown hair and green eyes and i have a daughter with blue eyes,besides we don't call ourselves European and we have never called people as savages in our history, PLEASE STUDY A LITTLE BIT MORE.--213.207.219.165 08:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Try it yourself. Your hair colour is irrelevant, as is whether or not you think of yourself as European. The distinction between East/Asia and West/Europe is more a construct of history than of either geography or genetics. Paul B 08:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that if we didn’t have inscriptions you even ignore the fact that we are Aryan. Paul I don’t know where you from are but let me tell you something, you seem to me smart so you definitely know about history and know that Europeans’ sources aren’t trustworthy since it’s been years that they change names, borders and make fake history for countries.--213.207.219.165 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am English. No-one disputes that Iranians are Aryan (after all, it's just the same word spelled differently). It just so happens that most people in the West just don't happen to know that, because most people don't know much about ancient history. They associate the word "Aryan" with Nazis because they only normally hear it in that context. However, in fact the word with its Indo-Iranian meaning is all around us even here in England, but is often spelled differently. I live in the North East of England, near Newcastle. I regularly see a van delivering food from a company called "Arya Foods". Its logo is a Faravahar. Here's their website [3]. The Persian restaurant a few feet from my house was called "Arian" until very recently, when it changed its name to "Persepolis". Its not the only one [4]. Paul B 12:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr Iranian Iranians are Elamites+Aryan,Indians are Dravidian+Aryan.The Aryan speaking people entered both Iran and North India roughly the same time.There are plenty of green eyed and sandy/reddish black haired people in North India too. If you go on and on about iran being the 'homeland ' and so on there are plenty of clowns all over the world from Sweden to India who would say pretty much the same thing about their countries respectively.You are welcome to join them. BTW swastika is a sanskrit word though the same symbol may have been independantly created in more than one place but it is definately not an exclusive iranian symbol

This last comment is a fair point, there has been so much mixing with the ancient indigenous inhabitants of Iran and India that appearances will be very different, defining an Aryan now days through physical characteristics is basically impossible.

well not fair enough! coz Iranian people in today Iran are genetically very similar to Iranian People in other reigions far away from were Elimates lived! ( like Tats who are genetically regarded as Iranian People Living in Azarbaijan Republic yet thary have brown hair and not very whitish skinned people ) another obvious mistake made by two comments above is denying Swastika to also be present in Iran's history. It think this picture ( a necklace found in Iran dating back to 1st BC!) shows everything. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Swastika_iran.jpg. Btw, Swastika is a heritage sign, and Iranians have always disliked racism, as the founder of Iran, Cyrus the great, 2500 years ago, called for equality of all human races and called himself a True ARYAN (which means Aryan is not only about racism but against it). Farshad, from Esfahan, Iran.

The ancient Aryans were not related in any way to Europeans. The original aryans would have resembled northern Indian and Iranian people of today. It has been proven that these populations have remained largely stable for the last 10,000 years, far encomapssing all of their arya history. The Aryans are likely indignenous to Iran and northern India, they are not 'mixed with' the indigenous population. Even if these populations are found to have migrated into northern India, the population group is still unrelated to Europeans. Confusion only arose when Nazis misused the word. Blond haired people are not aryan in the slightest. They are the descendents of early European natives. Since the original Aryans had black hair and medium golden skin, the only europeans with any 'aryan' descent are those who have mixed with the real arya as they migrated westwards. These people are most often found in Anatolian regions or the mediterranean. The entire falsity of the 19th century european ideology that spawned nazism, was when they stole the word arya which refered to the dark haired medium skinned man of ancient India and Iran, and labelled it onto northern europeans. The misunderstandings that have arisen since then are primarily down to this.

Neotone 19:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Mr Iran there are many Aryans present in North India(including north Pakistan). The Aryan invaders in India used Swastika symbol(an Aryan symbol). Besides the Indian Gods and Language is related with ancient Aryans. The Aryan conquerors of India settled their and invented a cast system that prevented the intermarriage between the local Dravidians(Dasus) and Aryans immigrants. The dravidians were included in Sudra(peasant/labour/slave) cast systems and Aryans considered them repulsive and low class. I am living in Pakistan(which was part of north India in ancient times) and i belong to a rajput Aryan clan(my ancestors embraced Islam in 1600 A.D, before that they were Hindus). Speaking of hair many people in India(including) myself have brown hair and during my childhood i had Blonde hair! but due to climate my hair changed their colour to light brown and my complexion is also fair. Having brown hair or blonde hair does'nt mean that you are pure Aryan, your hair and skin colour changes due to the climate of the region you are living in. My cousin had a DNA test in England and the result suggested that his DNA structure resembled that of Iranian and Germanic peoples! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.186.154 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.178.74 (talk)

I totally agree with the previous comment infact new evidence suggests that the aryan invasion of India happen much before the current 1500-2000BC that is assumed according to Nat Geo human Genome project and the discovery of tablets containing the swastika in the IVC and the fact that aryan devas were worshipped in pre zorastrian Iran(feel free to look this up) and are still worshipped in modern day India means that the IVC of Ancient India and not some mythical central asian lake was the true source of a Aryan civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.8.198.65 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never said that swastika is not in iranian history but it is most prominently featured in Indian history similar signs such as the Gammon in Greece and the Norse Cross in scandinavia exist however swastika is a sanskrit word and it has existed in India from time in memorium and there are artifacts such as Mauryan coins(300 BC)which feature this design prominently,it is present in practically every important occasion in India and has been since vedic times.Aryan has nothing to do with race in India too it means noble and if anything refers to a speech group not a race group.Aryavarta (north india's ancient name )means land of noble people nothing to do with race in India.

The swastika pops up all over the globe in various forms. Also, Farshad, to state that any heterogenous body of people have a distinct and common opinion regarding racism (or anything else for that matter) is clearly false. But dont get me wrong. I am not saying anyone is racist or not. That is not the point. Although, making broad encompassing statements like that does not help anyone. Hitler and his associates attracted to the hook-cross (swastika) or whatever you wish to call it because of their belief in the connection between their heritage and the symbol; although, it has been used in Northern Europe for thousands of years. From ancient Nordic times to Medieval heraldry. It has never necessarily been a symbol for racism, ever. The list of its use goes on though: South Anerica, Japan... etc.. ad nauseam. People, if they wish to know more about this subject, should also be aware of H. P. Blavatsky and her influence on the use of the term ayran and the swastika. Also, even before the National Socialists came to power in Germany, the swastika was a very popular charm worn by people. During World War I, second, I have heard, only to the crucifix. This is most likely associated with the phenomenon of the occult revival in Europe in the early 20th century. Regarding the relationship between the Iranian, Afghans, Arabs etc and the various European races; people should be aware that they mostly belong to a commmon group, know to anthropologists as Caucasoids. There is a distinct relationship between these peoples. They are associated and related to each other in regard to various migratory periods through human history. One other point, it is only the result of assumed opinions and misinformation that the NSDAP (Nazis) only regarded blonde, blue eyed people as Aryan. That was their ideal "German", although, not the definition they used for ayran. I little extra bit of useless (although interesting) information, is the existence of a Muslim division of the SS that served in Bosnia during WWII, fighting for the Germans. They were the first or only ( I can not recall) SS division to mutiny or desert or the like. PyrE

[edit] Aryan does not mean "noble"

This article really needs to emphasize Paul Thieme's research more. His 1938 study shows that it means something like "hospitable". The Aryans were originally strangers in the lands into which they migrated. The noble trait by which they saw themselves distinguished from the other population was their hospitality, on which they also depended themself. Within linguistics, Thieme's study is not seriously contested, as far as I know. If you find dictionaries that still state "noble" that is because some have not reflected this yet! One of my books on Nazi mysticism criticizes some dictionaries clearly. -Zara1709 00:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What it means and what it once meant are two different matters. Are you saying that "noble" is not an established meaning? Thieme's ideas are discussed in the section "Semantics of Sanskrit arya". Paul B 10:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Do I understand you correctly? You do not propose that there is a word 'aryan' meaning "noble" in contemporary English? Because I suspect it would be used only by far-right activists. That aryan would mean "noble" was once the established opinion in the relevant field of linguistics, I guess, but Thieme's 1938 study is the current state of the research. I can base that on literature. -Zara1709 11:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
You are not making any sense. The meaning "noble" has nothing to do with "far right activists". You seem to be confusing the Nazi concept of "Aryans" as a master-race with the meaning of the word "Aryan" (Arya) in Sanskrit. Or do you think the article on the Buddha's Four Noble Truths should be renamed the Four Hospitable Truths? The point is that it means noble in classical Sanskrit. Thieme is posulating an earlier meaning that evolved into the classical one. Paul B 13:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I apologize, I probably have been reading to much on Nazi occultism lately. There is this, in some aspects, really good German book Die Gnosis und der Nationalsozialismus. The author summarizes Thieme's research, and then quotes a German dictionary from 1972 (!) :
"Arier... arisch Adj. Indoiryan. arya- Adj. "rechtmäßig, edel" wird zum Namen der idg. Einwohner auf pers. und ind. Boden im Gegensatz zur (farbigen) Urbvölkerung."
This roughly translates as: "Aryans, ..aryan. adjective, "lawful", "noble" becomes the name of the people in Persia and India in contrast to the (coloured) original inhabitants" (german: 'Gegensatz' can not only mean 'contrast ', but also 'antagonism')
Here 'aryan', meaning noble, has obvious racist overtones. If one is not familiar with the field of Ariosophy it might be hard to see why one would jump to the conclusion that aryan=noble indicates the notion of racial superiority, but if one of those racists speaks of 'Nobility' he most often means 'Superior Racial Heritage'.
Of course, that can't possibly be the meaning of 'noble' in the Four Noble Truths. I didn't know that the original uses the Sanskrit 'arya*' for noble here, because I'm not familiar with that field. -Zara1709 16:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
you are right that Thieme's study is important, but you are quoting it out of context. Thieme is interested in the 'original', Proto-Indo-Iranian meaning of the term (2000 BC). Paul is still correct when he tells you that the term historically came to mean "noble" in Classical Sanskrit (500 BC, fully 1500 years later), indeed in contradistiction to what had by then become the lower caste population of India. Thieme's research is indeed important for the study of the evolution of classical Indian culture out of Vedic and pre-Vedic Indo-Iranian culture, but it obviously doesn't change the fact that arya in the later Iron Age assumed a meaning of caste and/or racial supremacism. dab (𒁳) 20:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I had tried to get Thieme's study from the library, but there is just one copy and it is currently borrowed by someone else. For that paragraph I basically paraphrased Die Gnosis und der Nationalsozialismus. I did not have the intention to take Thieme out of context, I just confused 'altindisch' and 'altiranisch' in the translation. The book unfortunately is so not specific on the point that the immigration of the "Aryans" to India and Persia had taken place before 1000 BC and does not mention how the word later came to mean noble. However, it is in the context of these migrations, that is important to emphasize that the "Aryans" did not have the notion of racial superiority. (Because there are people who would like to believe that the Aryan race set off for their quest for world domination 10000 BC in Atlantis, and the only reason why they did not achieve this was because they interbred with other races.) As I said, I have been reading too much on that field lately. -Zara1709 01:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We are not in the business of trying to prove something right or wrong. We don't know whether the Aryans (in the sense of "Vedic people") conceived of themselves as in some way racially different or superior to others. In part that depends on how you define "race", since obviously lineage was important to caste. The common view in the early 20th century was indeed that the Dasa were visibly racially distinct from the Vedic Arya, which is the position that the passage you quote refers to. The view was still quite common in popular culture until quite recently (see The Venus of Konpara). If you go to Jats and Indo-Aryan origin of Jats talk pages you will enjoy the experience of editors there still arguing that their "nasal index" is "nobler" than that of other groups. Paul B 07:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
o_O -- yes, if I have learned one thing on Wikipedia, it is that the discourse on race and ethnicity in India is stuck in the 19th century, in a way that would be comical if it was not so dangerous. "Race" is a modern concept, of course, see below. Iron Age ethnos was much more clear-cut, you didn't theorize about it, you essentially knew everyone who was in personally, or at least a few of his cousins. dab (𒁳) 10:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides, it is immaterial whether the Nazi's interpretation of the Sanskrit term was incorrect. What makes the Nazis evil is not their shoddy scholarship, but their cruelty. If their cruelty had been based on meticulous scholarly reconstruction of Bronze Age cruelty, that would not have made them any less evil. In fact, much of what makes the Nazis stand out above more common evils is their reenactment of regular Iron Age cruelty in a modern industrialised context. In Iron Age / Vedic times, it may have been a matter of course to slay, maim or enslave the entire population of a conquered city. What we are to think of this in moral term is an academic question. But to try apply Iron Age behaviour in warfare to modern times is clearly madness, and the Nazis are of course a textbook example of that. Values of Vedic culture, and of any other Iron Age culture you care to name, would of course have to be considered "racist" if acted out today, while it is obviously an anachronism to apply the modern concept of "racism" to ancient times. This is at the root of the clear and present danger of "antiquity frenzy" and religious fundamentalism, both in Christianity and in Hinduism, as well as in various national mysticisms or supremacisms non-religious at the surface. dab (𒁳) 10:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course you're right. Even if one does not have the knowledge to falsify Nazi ideology factually, one should see that antisemitism is wrong. However, as Hannah Arendt as demonstrated in the case of Eichmann, one can't build on moral judgement. Some people have such a confused sense of morality that they don't see that the holocaust was evil (take Varg Vikernes for example.) So the only argumentative strategy that is left against fascism is to show that this ideology is factually wrong, which is quite easy since those Nazi occultists are completely out of touch with reality when it comes to their 'glorious aryan past'. With Wikipedia as the ultimate online reference this only works, of course, when the respective articles are good articles and point out the relevant facts.
If I find the time to actually read it, I will see if I can add anything more from Thieme's study. (Since my other literature does not seem to be exact enough.) Until then I am grateful for your recent edits here. -Zara1709 00:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thiemes study is dated. It is also a hypothetical proposition. It is known that 'Arya' meant noble in Sanskrit. Where this original meaning stems from is still debated. 'Hospitable' is a very speculative hypothesis and I would surely like to see on what sources Thieme based it on. More importantly I would like to see what modern linguistics has to say. References to the Nazis is not necessary. Aside from the evils of Nazism, they were floored in their ideology of trying to muddle the concept of Nordicism with that of Aryans. This has always been the ridiculous nature of their 'ideology'. If the original Aryans were noticeably lighter skinned than the original inhabitants of India, they resemble current North Indian and Iranian people of today, who are stilll considerably darker than northern Europeans. Of course the racialist theories of the 19th century in Europe often would bypass the fact that the historical Aryans themselves would most likely have considered the pinkish fair haired northern European to be likewsie savage and 'un-arya' when they encountered them, much as the ancient Greeks are recorded as doing. Of course, when the term Arya was misused and falsly applied to Northern Europeans, the real arya were not considered.

Neotone 18:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aryan does not mean "noble": Starting again

I just picked up on this discussion, and would like to bring it back on track.

Precis: ārya- does not mean "noble".
Correct, ārya- did/does not *generally* mean "noble" (not however for of any reasons previously mentioned) and since it does not *generally* mean that, it should not be in the first sentence of the article (or anywhere else in the lede).

Further, the word "noble" is highly misleading because it is much too nuanced a term to be placed without explanation in the first sentence of an article. To underscore this, I'll pick the meaning of the term that is at #1 in every dictionary: "of noble birth" (which is absolutely not what arya means in a general sense):

  1. it is a continuation of the perversion that 'arya' means aristocrat just because arya and aristos are etymologically related.
  2. it cannot adequately explain anarya (which definitely does not mean lowborn). Just as arya was originally a self-designator meaning "my own kith and kin", its antonym - anarya - meant the "other folk." The implied meaning of "community" is also reflected by the root *ar- well-joined, best-fitting etc.
  3. even when it specifically means "of noble birth," it assumes the reader will be aware of the historical context.
    which is: every unsophisticated community considered/considers itself superior to others. Very often, on religious grounds alone (hence also another attested meaning of arya as "righteous [people]"), but that the authors of the classical Sanskrit texts saw the Dravidians as inferior to themselves is completely consistent (nachvollziehbar) with the notions of "us" and "them." Such overtones exist in Iranian sources as well, but thats another story.

So folks (aryas ;), please

  1. either please pick another word that adequately explains arya without ambiguous words and in general terms,
  2. or don't attempt to qualify it at all in the lede.

IMO, it is quite acceptable to say arya has "a wide range of meaning". Wikipedia is after all not a dictionary. -- Fullstop 21:25, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

ps: Kudos to whoever wrote the lede at arya. Good job. But how can that arya there have a "variety of meaning", while arya here ("derived from Sanskrit and Avestan ārya-") does not? Am I the first person to notice the discrepancy?

Here is Monier-Williams:

  • a respectable or honourable or faithful man, an inhabitant of Âryâvarta; one who is faithful to the religion of his country; N. of the race which immigrated from Central Asia into Âryâvarta (opposed to an-aarya, dasyu, daasa); in later times N. of the first three castes (opposed to shuudra) [Vedic: RV. AV. VS.; MBh. Yâjn. Pancatantra. &c.;] adj., Âryan, favourable to the Âryan people [RV. &c.;]
  • a man highly esteemed, a respectable, honourable man [Pancatantra. Shak. &c.]; adj., behaving like an Âryan, worthy of one, honourable, respectable, noble [Ramayana. Manusmrti. Shak. &c.]; of a good family; excellent; wise; suitable;

the basic meaning of the Sanskrit term (never mind Greek, and never mind semantic shifts in Hindi) is "respectable, honourable, noble", and later "upper-caste". These meanings are not under debate. The meaning "name of a people, as opposed to dasyu" is somewhat of a reconstruction, but nevertheless is still the mainstream view of the Rigvedic meaning (Thieme, Fremdling im Rigveda). We can replace "noble" with "respectable, honourable" if you like, but English "noble" best catches the overlapping meanings of moral superiority and 'high' birth. I don't see your problem. Your point that it is perfectly common that a group should consider itself superior to 'them' is indeed trivial. Thus, I don't see why anyone should have difficulties in grasping the historical situation. dab (𒁳) 14:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. You're thinking like an well-informed adult, not like the average person who is likely to Google "Aryan." Those people do indeed "have difficulties in grasping the historical situation."
    Or to put it another way by asking a rhetorical question, since Arya and Aryan are two different articles, why does etymology have to appear on the first line of the Aryan article? The answer is of course because of the unawarness of the historical situation.
  2. Even if the "basic" (?) meaning of the Sanskrit term were X, what relevance does that have for a word <quote>"deriving from Sanskrit and Avestan"</quote>? What relevance does MW have in such a shared context? Even for Sanskrit, is the selective reading of MW valid?
    On the other side of the coin, I don't see "respectable, honourable, noble" as a shared meaning in a tertiary source that compares Sanskrit/Avestan usage.
    So, yes, if at all providing a meaning, it will necessarily be a *shared* meaning, not a *selective* 5th c. BC+ Sanskrit one. (ps: I can quite imagine that my insistence on proper scholarship be misconstrued to be something else. But no, its not that.)
  3. >> We can replace "noble" with "respectable, honourable"
    I'd rather link to arya and say precisely the same thing it says there: "It has a variety of positive meanings."
    Its simply inconsistent to have an article that actually deals with the subject say one thing, and another article that effectively depends on the first selectively say something else.
-- Fullstop 19:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
"it has a variety of positive meanings" is not very useful. The topic is a bit complicated, and you cannot hope to present the case for the casual reader to grasp in five seconds, but we are not doing such a bad job. Your reference to the EI is useful. The Iranica does, however, translate arya as "noble", I fail to see how you can claim I don't see "respectable, honourable, noble" as a shared meaning. "respectable, honourable, noble" is the meaning in Vedic Sanskrit. MW is an excellent dictionary, and I don't think that any other dictionary you are likely to consult will differ much. The "shared" or inherited meaning is a reconstruction. The interpretation of an ethnic meaning in Rigvedic arya is informed by the Avestan/Old Persian use. We do cite the relevant references. I am sorry, but I think I really fail to see what you are trying to say. Our "arya" article deals with the set of meanings associated with the term in current Hinduism (Buddhism, Jainism; also Hindu nationalism etc.). I am not qualified to judge on that, and frankly I am not very interested. But I fail to see how these meanings have any bearing on the discussion of the historical meaning discussed here. dab (𒁳) 07:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  1. uh, you're contradicting yourself. If it is complicated and if it isn't possible to present the case for the casual reader to grasp in five seconds, then how on earth does "noble," which has a slew of meanings, improve the issue? It doesn't. You understand it. The average reader will not.
  2. >>"respectable, honourable, noble" is the meaning in Vedic Sanskrit.
    Nice try. ;) Have you forgotten that the issue is that "noble" can be misconstrued to mean "high born," and that that is not the general meaning of arya? Have you noticed that you just said "Vedic Sanskrit" but MW does not cite a Vedic source for "noble"?
  3. >> I fail to see how you can claim ...
    In the context of "Aryan" (this article) I can claim that just fine (read on). The MW's "noble" on the other hand that you are conflating with the MW's other meanings of arya is a confusion of apples with oranges.

    "Accepting the interpretation of arí- and arya- by isavara- “possessor,” these words were traced to a base ar- well attested in Iranian in the sense of “get” and “cause to get, give.” Avestan has ar- and Ossetic ar-; cf. Greek arnumai “to get,” and Armenian arnoum “to take,” hence Indo-European ar-. (The word ari-, ari- “enemy,” however, was connected with Rigvedic ráti- “attack,” and Iranian Pahl. artak “attack,” and so to Indo-European er-.) For arya-, the Iranian ethnic name, it was proposed to start from the sense of “good birth” and so with Ossetic ar-: ard “to bear young,” a specialized meaning of the same IE. base ar-. Cf. Old Norse geta “to get,” also “to bear young,” getinn “born.” The stage of society represented by the word was the oikarkhia, birth into which gave nobility; this is expressed by the later use of a-zan- as in azata- “born into the House, noble;” in the Indian tradition it is expressed by ajaneya- “well born” (said of man or animal). This arya-, Indian arya- “noble,” was thus an excellent name for a people; and it favored the further development into an ethical concept of “excellence, nobility.”"

    Not quite in line with Aryan=Indo-Iranian and "from *ar 'to assemble skillfully'" eh?
    The arya=get/give->birth->noble is the one related to Zoroastrian ashi and quite distinct from other words deriving from *ar (eg asha/rta). For chuckles, cf the absurd translation for Hindu aarti.
  4. >>But I fail to see how these meanings have any bearing on the discussion of the historical meaning discussed here.
    perhaps because you've arbitrarily chosen a point in history as your base and defined that as *the* historical meaning. Which is of course {{OR}}.
    But perhaps also because your use of MW is a triple whammy: one {{OR}} for using the MW when stating "Avestan." Again {{OR}} for selectively picking a word out of MW (there is a significant difference between "says" and "also says"). Third {{OR}} for representing that one word as the distillation of MW.
  5. >> The interpretation of an ethnic meaning in Rigvedic arya is informed by the Avestan/Old Persian use.
    Since - with "noble" - you've excluded *general* Avestan, Old Persian and RigVedic use and completely unrelated to Aryan="Indo-Iranian", I don't quite see what your point is.
  6. >> The "shared" or inherited meaning is a reconstruction.
    a) "Shared" does not mean "inherited" b) the shared meaning is not a reconstruction.
    And if you mean "interpretation" instead of "reconstruction": *all* meaning is a matter of interpretation, that occurs when *all* instances of the word are collated and a common meaning is distilled from it. And "noble" does. not. figure.
    When referring to an ethnic group, the shared meaning of arya is: a self-designator, and consequently as any positive epithet for oneself/one's community/one's beliefs.
    This is consistent with all meanings in MW, all in Bartholomae and effectively summarizes the EIr. It covers all "historical meanings" of the term, all shared meanings of the term, and is the "basic" meaning from which any more specialized meaning may be inferred (including respectable, honorable, righteous etc, etc).
-- Fullstop 12:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
1. I am not. Read again.
2. I am "trying" to figure out what you want. Yes, MW has 'noble' only for the Ramayana, and 'respectable, honourable' for Vedic. The comparative Indo-Iranian reading (Thieme) gives, again, "noble, of high birth".
3. the EI reference to a connection with rcchati "reach, obtain" is interesting, but this is clearly marked as a minority opinion ("A different explanation was proposed by the writer in “Iranian arya and daha-,” TPS, 1959). This is not tenable, and can at best be mentioned as a curiosity.
4. This is nonsense, and I don't feel I have to reply to it.
5. how about you address this question to Thieme instead of asking me to rehash the topic here? WP:ATT, after all.
6. "a self-designator, and consequently as any positive epithet for oneself/one's community/one's beliefs." isn't so bad as a summary, but if fails to account for the Fremdling.

I am dimly aware that you are trying to push some viewpoint, but I still cannot figure out what it is. How about you tell what you want plainly? We might make some progress once I understand your motivation. As long as you are just trying philological tricks on me, I'm just slightly annoyed because of the time wasted replying to them. dab (𒁳) 13:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

0a: Isn't everything a viewpoint? Like "noble" being the "basic" meaning?
0b: My viewpoint is quite simply: 'noble' is not an appropriate description in the context of this article that deals with how a) Aryan originally meant Indo-Iranian, b) how the ethnic self-designator was misinterpreted. Those two points are the subject of the Aryan article, and (presumably) also the reason why the arya article is distinct from it.
1./4. Whatever. Or is that an oblique allusion to another meaning of arya as "highest, self-evident (truth)"? If it is, its very clever.
2. See 6. below.
3. The EIr quote is indeed a minority opinion, but although I do agree with you on that, it is neither for me or for you to say so. Since the EIr states it without qualification, to brush it off as "minority opinion" would be OR.
Anyway, this (minority) opinion is the only one supporting "high-born" in both Indic and Iranian sources, and hence the only opinion that supports your assertion that "high-born" is a "basic" meaning of arya in both Sanskrit and Avestan sources.
If Avestan ariya were "basic"ally applied to nobility, then every peasant who lived in Aryanem Vaejah would be nobility.
4. See 1. above.
5. As for addressing Thieme, why should I? Your WP:ATT is a synthesis of MW, not of Thieme. And besides, I have no issues with either the MW, or of Thieme. Your choice of words is what I have an issue with.
6. "self-designator" does not in fact contradict Fremdling. Further, to quote your summary of Thieme in the Aryan article itself:
<quote>"stranger" in the sense of "potential guest" as opposed to "barbarian" (mleccha, dasa), taking this to indicate that arya was originally the ethnic self-designation of the Indo-Iranians.</quote>
--
I'd like to (again) draw particular attention to the fact that the subject of the Aryan article is an 19th century <quote>"English language word"</quote> used to refer to the Indo-Iranians, and that the Aryan article is distinct from the arya article that appropriately deals with the Sanskrit/Avestan term.
That 19th century anthropologists used "Aryan" to denote the Indo-Iranians (second sentence of article) cannot even remotely be explained by the translation as "noble".
It may also be noted that "noble" is wedged in between "derived from" and "it is widely held" (to have been used as a self-descriptor), and that the latter weaseliness is purely to accomodate a bridge from "noble" to the actual subject of the article. "It is widely held" is also a flat-out "push" of "point of view". It *is* the established opinion (off hand: SchmittBaileyBoyceGignouxBrunner, I could go on) that arya was used as a self-descriptor, even if the MW (another 19th century source) doesn't mention it.
That Thieme updated his "Fremdling" hypothesis in ZDMG 107 1957 (pp. 72-80, 95ff) is presumably well known.
It may also be noted that "of high birth" reinforces (and was a cornerstone of) the Heldenrasse argument *is* noticed and/or misinterpreted by readers. If it hadn't been the subject of a recent (real life) discussion of the subject, I would not myself have been aware that the article's use of "noble" is subject to misunderstanding.
-- Fullstop 15:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I am beginning to see what you are aiming at. Of course there is a long way from "noble" to "Indo-Iranian". But there is no way we can explain this without giving a detailed explanation of etymology, and the history of scholarship attached to it. Obviously, the "noble" applies only to the ancient term, and I think the article makes this very plain. I am open to further improvements, but there is really no way around the fact that this is an involved topic that cannot be made sufficiently clear in the lead alone. The lead needs to give the main cornerstone facts, and for the full explanation, there is no way around reading the entire article. dab (𒁳) 21:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] links

Could someone Please Add [[Haryana]], [[Aria (satrapy)]], [[Arran]], and [[Albania (satraphy)|Arran (a.k.a Caucasian Albania)]] to the "See Also" list?

why? Haryana and Aria are manifestly unrelated, as can be seen by the Old Persian h-. THere appears to be no reason to believe that Arran is related either (but cite your sources if you think it is). dab (𒁳) 08:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sneer quotes.

In my opinion this article utilises sneer quotes for the following words, bringing into question their reality:

"Gentile" "White person" "Caucasian"

Suggestion: Removal of quotes.

the reality of the "Caucasian race" is indeed called into question, as is well referenced in the article linked. The quotes reflect this reality. The quotes around "gentile" and "non-Jewish white-person" merely mark the meaning given to "Aryan" by a fringe group (white nationalists), and mark that this is not widely accepted usage. Nothing wrong with these quotes. We reflect common usage, we do not "sneer" in Wikipedia's voice. dab (𒁳) 09:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Passage

Neotone, I don't 'visit' the page, I visit my watchlist. It's on the list. OK this is what you wrote, and I'll exlain why I deleted it:

This was the first phase of the revised aryan concept. Instead of identifying the original aryans as ethnically Iranian or Pashtun (that is black haired and yellow or golden skinned), the aryan identity was shifted to Northern Europe and postulated as being fair haired and pinkish in skin tone. Their opinion was received critically at first, but was widely accepted by the end of the nineteenth century. Much modern day confusion about the term stems from this historical era of writing.

1. The stuff about skin tone - including bizarre phrases like "yellow or golden skinned" is wholly inappropriate and unencyclopedic in language. I know no-one who refers to Iranians as "golden skinned".

2. The phrase 'revised aryan concept' is very misleading. There was an expansion of usages over time, not a single concept that got 'revised'.

3. The assertion that 'the aryan identity was shifted to Northern Europe' (by a mysterious ungrammatical "they") implies that Iranians et al no longer had this identity, which was never true. So the identity was not 'shifted', rather, there was a (fairly brief) period when the view that PIEs were Nordic was common. Paul B 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


Okay, so you agree with general content of what I wrote, but feel it needs to be expressed slightly differently to avoid ambiguity. Surely then a compromise can be reached, as this point is indeed vital and the discussion of racial use of the term 'aryan' is meaningless unless the Iranian use of the term is discussed and the misappropriation by 19th century 'scholars'/propaganda.

The mentioning of skin tone can be relvent to further detract from confusion, however I accept that just putting 'ethnically Iranian or Pashtun' will suffice without the references to skin tone. Iranians are sometimes describes as yellow/golden skinned, and Pshtuns are also frequently described as golden/light brown skinned. I cannot believe you have never heard this term, it is used and is also clear from seeing an Iranian. This was a descriptive text I used as many people do not know what Pashtuns look like.

I feel that the phrase 'revised aryan concept' is accurate, as that is what was happening at that time. There was indeed a short periord when the PIE were imagined to be 'nordic' in appearance, and this view was of course famously perpetuated with no basis by Hitler at el. It was also intially met with resistance in Europe. Therfore it is indeed a revised version of the aryan concept, and this is the historical era it took place. It also includes the idea that the 'PIE' where also the 'aryans'. I have no idea the extent of the muddled ideology of this time, but it was in essence attempting to steal the identity from the Iranians and Pashtuns, who are known to have used the term 'arya'. Or are you saying that the 19th century 'scholars' in Europe imagined that the original aryans were indeed of Iranian appearance with black hair, and that a branch of these people later became 'blonde' when they migrated to Europe? I don't remember reading that 19th century 'scholars' or Hitler said that they must pay homage to the original black haired aryan of Iran. If so why was 'blonde' emphasisied other than perhaps that it it looked 'non Jewish'? The entire ideology was based in nonsense, so it is unsurprising that the views that emerge from it are confusing and nonsensical. But it can generally be stated that there was a 19th century shifting of the 'Arya' identify away from Iran and Afghanistan and into northern europe, perpetuated with no basis by writers in Europe at the time.

Maybe a better way to put it would be 'a further revision of the aryan concept', or a 'revision of the term of usage of aryan as a racial concept'. Either way, some further mention of it must be made in the racial section. Neotone 16:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term by scholars in the 19th C to mean "Indo-European" was not a "misappropriation". It was based on the belief that a precursor of the word "Aryan" was the closest one could likely get to a self-designation of the PIEs. The use of the word in this sense is no more problematic than the use of "Celtic", "Germanic", "Italic" or other similar examples of terms that have been taken from a specific group and then used in an expanded sense for peoples linked by language, who may never have called themselves by that label. It had nothing whatever to do with "attempting to steal the identity from the Iranians and Pashtuns". If we can get away from such ethnic point-scoring and obsession with alleged "misappropriation" asnd "propaganda" things will be a lot easier. A comparable example would be the fact that the people of Ireland consider themselves to be "Celts", even though the name Celt was almost certainly never used by ancient Irish peoples. It was probably a central European tribe. But the adoption of the word had nothing to do with the Irish attempting to "steal" the identity of central Europeans, it simply arose from the linguistic extension of the word "Celtic" to cover a large ethno-liguistic grouping.
In the 19th century there were several different theories about the origins of the PIEs. Central Asia was postulated by Muller and others. For example Thorstein Veblen believed that the PIES were of the Asian "Alpine race" and that the "blonde race" were pre-Aryans [5]. The Nazis used the word Aryan to mwean non-Jewish, that included people all over Europe. Though it was common to claim that the PIEs were from northern Europe, thus merging the 'Nordic' abnd 'Aryan' concepts, it wasn't Nazi dogma. It was possible to believe, with Veblen, that they were originally Asian. The claim that the blond "Nordic race" is superior is not dependent on the Aryan concept.
IMO, these conmplexities can only be properly understood by the rwader if the racial section appears at the end, when the multiple usages of the word Aryan have been explained.
I have never heard of any Afghans or Iranians being called 'yellow' or 'golden', no. Paul B 17:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Swastika necklace

Does anyone else find this a wildly offensive picture to start the article? How about a public domain painting showing an imaginary early Aryan person? Steve Dufour (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Offensive? How is an ancient necklace offensive? It has the advantage thsat it provides a link between ancient and modern meanings. I'm not sure what a painting of an "imaginary Aryan person" would be. Arvidson's book Aryan Idols uses Fidus's painting Lichtgebet [6] on the cover, which might be described as an "imaginary Aryan person", but that would only represent European mystical Aryanism. Fidus was a theosophist. Paul B (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I am well aware that the swastika is an ancient and honorable religious symbol. A few years ago I visited a Buddhist monestary in Korea and the buildings were decorated with them. However for most people in the West they bring to mind the Nazis. I think this is a very offensive way, and one giving undue weight to one aspect of the subject, to start off the article. Anyway, the article is about people so I think a picture of a person would be the best way to start it off. I wouldn't object to a photo of a modern Iranian, but a painting would show the Aryans as both real and imaginary. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
For most people in the west the primary meaning of the word "Aryan" is associated with the Nazis, so I don't think anyone will be surprised by an image that is relevant to them. The fact is that it is Iranian and so also links to the origin of the word. For thyat reason, I don't think it is abou just one aspect of the subject - but rather the whole subject. I think an image of a person, whether real or imaginary, is actually likely to be more controversial. Paul B (talk) 21:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Paul, I found the swastika necklace odd too. Not offensive per-se, but very wierd nonetheless. The identification of the swastika with "Aryan" is AFAIK post-1935 (perhaps though as early as Blavatsky, but not before), and a piece of jewelry to represent an article on an abstract concept is anyway a far cry.
Of course, the description as "the original Indo-Iranian meaning of good luck" is flat-out OR too.
In any case, in this case the picture does not actually serve any purpose related to this article, so (also in light of Steve's comment) I don't see any reason why it should be retained.
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The equation of the swastika with Aryans dates from Schlieman's book Ilios. Can't recall the date exactly: 1870s, I think. It long pre-dates the Nazis (who cames to power in 1933, quite a while after they had adopted the swastika, so I don't know where the significance of 1935 comes). I don't think it's OR to say that good luck is the "original Indo-Iranian meaning". That's one theory, I guess, though I've no idea who added those words. But I think probably a mistake. Probably the author meant to refer to the Indian meaning and extrapolation from that by early theorists to suppose an earlier II, or even PIE meaning. Paul B (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Aah, Schlieman is it? The sod. :) What did the Swastika have to do with Hissarlik?
Yeah, whoever added that "original Indo-Iranian meaning" bit seems to have extrapolated. There is no native Iranian word for 'swastika' and no indigenous Iranian texts or inscriptions either refer to it, describe it, or represent it. The closest connection is a set of Achaemenid era coins that were minted in and for use in the northeastern corner of the Indian subcontinent.
Anyway, there is no historical/anthropological relationship between 'Aryan' and the swastika. The connection in the mind of the editor who added the picture is presumably the Nazi one, which has however unfortunately found a new life in recent times among (and popularized by) the Hindutva fringies.
-- Fullstop (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Schliemann was looking for archaeological evidence that would fit the model of IE migrations. He found swastika-like shapes on objects in Hissarlik and concluded that the swastika was an IE symbol, which he compared with similar motifs in ancient Germany. He consulted Max Müller and - rather unfortunately - Emile Burnouf, who devoloped a bizarre theory that the swastika was a stylised depiction of a fire-altar. Burnouf was also an antisemite, who had some even more bizarre ideas about race, such as the following, "a real Semite has smooth hair with curly ends, a strongly hooked nose, fleshy, projecting lips, massive extremities, thin calves and flat feet…His growth is very rapid, and at fifteen or sixteen it is over. At that age the divisions of the skull which contain the organs of intelligence are already joined, and that in some cases even perfectly welded together. From that period the growth of the brain is arrested. In the Aryan races this phenomenon, or anything like it, never occurs, at any time of life." Paul B (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The world is small: Only yesterday I had reason to check something in the Golden Bough (ick!), and came across that swastika == fire-altar thing. It was the abridged version of Frazer's text, so there were no references, and you just added a valuable piece to the picture. Was nutty before, its a veritable chipmunk now. ;) -- Fullstop (talk) 23:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It must be synchronicity. Paul B (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
If it's decided to use a picture of a person, I was just checking out the Indian art on Wikisource. Some of the people pictured did look like Aryans but I couldn't tell for sure. Maybe I will check out the Iranian art. Steve Dufour (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
How do you "look like" an Aryan? Paul B (talk) 22:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe if you were riding a horse while invading India. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Like this guy: Image:Qahveh rostam.jpg
(edit collision)
No anthropomorph pictures please. If we have a picture of something related to "Indo-Iranian" (a map for instance) fine, but lets not make anything else up either. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess my concept of "Aryan" is a semi-mythical ancient "race" which founded Persian, northern Indian, and maybe European civilization. Hence an imaginary picture works for me. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to mean the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Oddly enough, there are very few such images. Even at the high-point of obsession with this theory of, as you rightly say, 'a semi-mythical ancient "race"' there were very few attempts to depict it, at least not that I've ever identified. I've never understood why that is. Paul B (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not any kind of expert, although it is an interesting topic. BTW I came to this article because I wanted to use it as an example in another discussion. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] borderline vandalism by established editor

Cyrus111 (talk · contribs), it is bad enough to protect this article from confused drive-by edits. If you now start pushing nonsense breaking long-standing stable consensus, we'll have to lock down the article. dab (𒁳) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arrogance surrounding article

You have funny little remarks here and there but blind arrogance will not improve the quality of the article. Aryan is not an English word, the word entered Europe in the 17th century, its a Persian Parthian word,from antiquity. even "an" is an Indo-iranian suffix. Please do some more studies on this without accusations and threats of locking down the article for other editors? [7] [8] Cyrus111 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyrus, the ignorance is entirely yours. The article states it is a loanword, from Sanskrit and/or Old Persian ar(i)ya. The -an is the English adjectival suffix (itself loaned from Latin -anus, as in pag-an). It is true that this suffix is indeed cognate to the Iranian suffix found in Ariana. However, English aryan does not mean "from Ariana", it is an adjective "pertaining to the arya [people / linguistic group]". Now please, considering all the time you have spent here, isn't it time to actually pay some attention and read the article as it stands before complaining? dab (𒁳) 13:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish etymology

Does the Turkish word ari, meaning "pure" have anything to do with it? If so, it deserves a mention. --Adoniscik (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Paul Barlow's vandalism

user Paul Barlow has been reverting changes due to his racism against my edits. He keeps comparing me to a banned user although I've had this account for almost a year. Worst of all, he is deleting completely sourced material! - Rebel XTi —Preceding comment was added at 06:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rebel XTi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is apparently a sock of a banned user. I'm not sure if I can be bothered to figure out which one precisely. His very first edits to Wikipedia concern an edit-war at Buddhism and Hinduism [9]. Things get worse from there. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Fullstop seems to think Rebel XTi is Goldenhawk 0 (talk · contribs)[10]. I'm not certain enough to do the ban myself right now, but if he is, he should of course be indefbanned without further ado.
His editing pattern is identical. Goldenhawk was obsessed with the idea that the true Aryans were a "brown race" and that they engaged in an ancient war with an evil "white race". His method of research was to type "Aryan" into Google books and then throw together all the passages he can find to fit his POV, jumbling up modern and 19th century literature, guide books, texts by gurus, etc. He invariable writes "scholar X" states and then quotes out of context. He also footnotes in the same way, putting the page number first with a capital P and using only the title and author of the book (e.g. P. 139 Changing Face of the Law: A Global Perspective By Riddhi Dasgupta ) . Paul B (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
hm, what about SeventhMoon y (talk · contribs), author of Aryan invasion theory (Europe)? His "research" method appears to be typing "Aryan" into a search engine as well. dab (𒁳) 13:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is this article really moving towards factual and historical accuracy? Yes it is, and I cannot still believe it!

This article has been edited to better reflect the historical facts and origins of Arya. No more co opting of the term and glorious and ancient past associated with the term by Europeans or Iranians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.131.92.51 (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aryans

The 'Aryans' were a post-neolithic population whose genetic origins can, generally, be traced to a peoples at the foothills of the Zagros mountains of the Iranian Plateau. These people dispersed (in all likelyhood, peacefully) throughout Iran, India, the Caucauses, and Europe. Y-Chromosome haplogroup J2, shows the most significant omni-directional cline through the Zagros. In addition, the haplotypic diversity is highest in this region (along with R1b). Both of these facts suggest that the orgin of HG J2 was Iran.

A later descendant of J2, J2a re-expanded in an area at the intersection of Turkey, the lower Caucaus states, and Northwest IRAN. This distribution supports the Ivanav theory of IE origins. Additionally, Haplogroup J2a is more than twice as frequent in upper caste Hindus over lower caste Hindus.


MAP OF HAPLOGROUP J2: [11]

Note that the expansion of J2 correlates with the expansion of R1b. Thus, R1b and it's derivatives may also be considered Indo-European markers.

The distribution of J2 is not too consistent with the neolithic movement. It does not exhibit a smooth distribution from the fertile crescent (Between the Taurus and Zagros mountains), into the Near East, Europe, and India, like it's immediate ancestor Haplogroup J. Rather, it seems that founder populations are responsible for it's distriubtions.


Now one can make a subtle stretch, and make the claim that Turkey, or the Caucauses were the origin of 'Aryan' J2/J2a. (this section added by [[User:99.151.173.140] on 20 April 2008 [12]--Doug Weller (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)