From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This redirect is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Hinduism (Rated NA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Zoroastrianism (Rated NA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Zoroastrianism, which is a collaboration of editors who thrive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zoroastrianism-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.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Jainism (Rated NA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is part of WikiProject Jainism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Jainism. Please participate by editing the article Arya, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Buddhism (Rated NA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article Arya, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
 NA  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Redirect-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


Care is needed that this doesn't develop into a pov fork of Arya. The scope of this article should be to discuss the meaning of Sanskrit arya in Hinduism/Buddhism. Nazi stuff and ethnic interpretations belong on Arya. dab () 06:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding this article is a great idea. Do you mean a "POV fork of Aryan"? Nazi stuff should be confined to Aryan and Aryan race for sure, but I think it's reasonable to included discussion of the Vedic peoples and Iranian peoples here, as sources of the Sanskrit term "Arya", as long as it does not become the principal content of the article. Some overlap between articles is surely not a problem. Paul B 15:26, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it is unfortunately not always clear what belongs in which article. I think there is a lot of information that is specific primarly to the Sanskrit term Arya and that should be put in an "Arya" article, and not necessarly in the more general Aryan article, that also discusses linguistic and ethnical/racial uses of the word. But unfortunately there's also a lot of information that could belong to both articles (Aryan or Arya). Aryan has three main meanings, a religious/spiritual, a linguistic, and an ethnical/racial meaning), and some of these interpretaions could belong to both articles. (Probably, there should also be a section on Avestan/Iranian meanings of "Arya" in the Arya article. However, in the Avesta Aryan seems to be spelled as airyanem [airyana] or airyanãm [airya].)
Obviously, the Arya article should include information that is specifically related to the Sanskrit term Arya, especially Hindu, Buddhist and Jain uses and meanings of the word.
Maybe the Arya article should also include the information that refers specifically to the "Vedic Aryans", i.e. the Aryas of the Rig Veda and later texts. The ethnical interpretations in the Arya article refers specifically to the "Vedic Aryans" or Aryas of India, but they could also be put in the Aryan article because (more general) racial connotations (of Indo-Europeans generally) are already discussed there. Thus maybe it is better if the ethnical interpretations would be merged with the Aryan article, so they would be in only one instead of two articles. So I think it is not not easy to decide if such information (on ethnical interpretations of the Aryas) should belong to the Arya article (which already discusses the Vedic Aryans) or to the Aryan article (which already discusses racial connotations), but I wouldn't object to merge such information in one single article, if it should be necessary. --Machaon 12:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you think that the "ethnical" information should be merged into one single article, that would be ok with me. I placed it in this article, because this article concerns itself more with the Vedic Aryans and the Aryas of India. The Aryan article is, I think, generally more focussed on Indo-European topics, including IE-languages, while the AIT article is more focussed on the origin and age of Vedic culture than on "racial" interpretations of the term Arya. But I think that "Arya" should be more than just a redirect, especially information regarding Hindu, Buddhist, Jain and Zorastrian uses and meanings of the word, that would be too detailed for the Aryan article, could be further elaborated in more detail in a "Sanksrit" Arya article. Regards, --Machaon 15:35, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well - having now read this article, I see that the great majority of it seems to be taken up with debate about such matters as the hair-colour and skin-colour of the Vedic Aryas. Surely the whole point of this was to discuss the spiritual and social meaning of Arya, rather than the issue of race. Most of these speculations should be in the Aryan race page. I think it's reasonble to have a section on the Vedic Arya, but not all this stuff, especially when the likes of Talageri are quoted as authorities! I'm a little confused by this sentence placed in the intro "It means "master, lord" or can refer to any Vaishya." My understanding is that it refers - in this usage - to anyone who is "twice born", that is, to anyone who is a Vaishya or above in the Varna system. Is that what is meant? Paul B 16:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If it should be moved to Aryan race, it should be taken care not to suggest that the ancient aryas had a conception of "Race" that is similar to the modern usage of the word. As I noted above, if it should make more sense to include it in the article Aryan, Aryan race (or AIT), I wouldn't object to such a move, although I don't think it would be entirely wrong to have it in this article. So if someone considers that it should belong to one of these articles, please move it there. Regarding Talageri, I only cited him in this sentence: "According to Talageri (2000) "the particular Vedic Aryans of the Rigveda were one section among these Purus, who called themselves Bharatas." Thus, it is possible that at one point of time, Arya did refer to a specific tribe.", and I don't know why you consider him as a "bad" authority. I don't know his works very well, but his suggestion about the rigvedic Aryans being primarly a term that did refer in the Rigveda to one section among the Bharatas is I think noteworthy, even if others may come to different conclusions. As to the reference to Vashya, I think that Arya refers to the three upper castes, but this is only according to some Smritis, and not according to the Vedic texts (Srutis). I think the meaning of Arya as "master, lord" should be explained in more detail, because I think this meaning is much less well known than the meaning of Arya as "noble". Regards, --Machaon 17:52, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

within Indian culture the meaning of arya changed over time too. In the Rigveda it still means "one of ours", and also "stranger", as in "stranger, but a possible guest, one of our tribe", as opposed to "Dasa scum". In Hinduism, it took on social tones, I don't know the details of that, but this is what the article should be about, arya as a social term in India. Today, the Indians are heavily influenced by the Western/Nazi/19th century ideas of "Aryan", and they all feel compelled to explain stuff about hair and eye colour. This should go on Aryan race. This article should focus on arya in Indian texts, in which ones does it refer to the upper castes, in which ones to the Vaishya caste etc. I.e. we need some genuine scholarship here, giving references to the differences among native texts, and not sweeping statements about hair colour. "master, lord, one of the Vaishyas" btw is Monier-William's dictionary definition. dab () 19:22, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "sweeping" statement on hair color is according to Michael Witzel, and is cited in the book "Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia" and in a book review by Elst on this book: "Reference to fair hair would certainly qualify, but according to Michael Witzel, there is in Sanskrit literature exactly "one 'goldhaired' (hiranyakeshin) person that is not a god, the author of HShS", i.e. the Hiranyakeshin-Shrauta-Sûtra named after him. (p.390, emphasis in the original)" Cited from a book review by Koenraad Elst titled: "A review of the Aryan invasion arguments in J. Bronkhorst and M.M. Deshpande: Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia" [1]. Regards, --Machaon 19:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly! Witzel is not smrti, and he is talking about Aryans, and about the Aryan invasion. This article, on the other hand, is about the word arya in Sanskrit. The Aryan racea article may in part be based on things related here, but this article should not include post-smrti stuff. Let's be very clear on how we divide the material:
  • Aryan: use of the term in English (PIE, Indo-Iranian, racialist theories)
  • Aryan race: racialist theories and their basis (or lack of) in genetic research.
  • Aryan invasion: suggested migration of a prehistoric people. Should be renamed to the more neutral and modern, and less inflammatory, Indo-Iranian migration.
  • Arya: The Sanskrit word, as used in Vedic texts, other shruti, smrti, and in modern Hinduism. I'm not sure if hair colour is even an issue in these texts. Discussion of references to hair colour in ancient texts should be discussed on Aryan race, or Aryan invasion, as long as it is not related to the native concept of arya.
This article is not about a people or a race, it is about a concept of social stratification in Hindu culture. dab () 20:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree to move the relevant material to one of these articles. (see also my above comments) Unfortunately I don't think it is 100 percent correct to have it in "Aryan Race", because this could suggest that the Vedic Aryans had a concept of "race" rather than something like tribe or religious affiliation, which would be maybe at least slightly pov. However, it may be the best solution. Probably it shouldn't be moved to AIT, because this article's focus is mainly on the origin and age of vedic culture and migrations and also this article is already very long. I'm not sure if should be moved to Aryan or to Aryan Race. Since I think you and Paul suggest to move it to Aryan Race, it should be moved there. If nobody else moves the text, I will do so in about one hour. The suggestion to move the Aryan Invasion theory article to Indo-Iranian migration is a good idea. It would be less pov than AIT or IUT (Indian Urheimat Theory) and should maybe be discussed on the AIT talk page. Regards, --Machaon 20:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

which text exactly are we talking about here? The hair/eye colour stuff? Maybe it should be moved and verified/npoved. It is certainly alright to say that there is only that single reference to "golden hair", but to go on about what Indian tradition doesn't tell us too much may be problematic, and may just sound unnecessarily defensive and/or agenda-encumbered (of course it's silly to suggest the Aryans were blond. Nobody except some crazy Nazis even believes that, so it is misleading to use it as an argument against Indo-Iranian migration, and it is useless as an argument against Nazi race theory, too, since that was based on different assumptions altogether) dab () 20:55, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lack of Zoroastrian info[edit]

This page looks like its totally a Hindu page, with a hindu template..why is there no Zoroastrian template? POV of contributers? --Kash 00:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Arya is also a Persian term meaning noble (as well as a common first name). SouthernComfort 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
There was no Zoroastrian template because nobody created one. I now did Template:Zoroastrianism. I don't think it is pov of the contributors, just that more Zoroastrian editors are needed on wiki. --Machaon 11:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Great job with the Zoroastrian template! Keep it up!! deeptrivia (talk) 06:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't Shudras considered to be a part of the Arya fold?[edit]

According to Dr. Ambedkar's book Who were the Shudras, Shudras are to be considered as a part of the traditional fold. Can someone confirm this and make the changes to the article?

Well unlike the "untouchables" they are casted, but not "twice born". Paul B 13:11, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


The word arya is earliest derived from the Aramaic/Assyrian word for "Arya" which means "Lion" as the lion was depicted as being the most highly respected animal in the persian empire thus leading to the modern definition for Arya due to alot of influence by the Aramaic words. It is not originally of Indo-Iranian origin but mainly of Semitic.

This is a distinctly idiosyncratic view to say the least. What is your source? According to Strong's Hebrew dictionary, the Aramaic 'ariy (Lion) is derived from the Hebrew 'aryeh, from the root 'arah. Paul B 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hebrew actually derived off Aramaic and is a form just like Assyrian. iLLeSt 19:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes the Aramaic language was introduced into the Persian language, the source "Additionally, many words were introduced from neighboring languages, including Aramaic and Greek in earlier times, and later Arabic and to a lesser extent Turkish." Wikipedia, Persian Language Aramaic-Assyrian Animals
Wikipedia articles are not sources. Anyway, this is not a source for this specific claim. Yes, Hebrew does not have priority over Aramaic, but that does not make Hebrew derived from it. Your other source provides no evidence whatever of the derivation you claim. Please sign your posts. Paul B 10:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Hebrew is a dialect of Aramaic (Western), however that is not the point, the word Arya in my language Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic) means Lion and through history the Persians like their Assyrian neighbours depicted the Lion very honorable even as a God see Lamassu. Persians borrowed many words off their neighbours and in this instance "Arya" & it has thought largely to be that it derived from Aramaic. This should be included in this article. iLLeSt 22:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It would be included if it were thought true by anyone other than Assyrian nationalists. No evidence is given that any professional linguist has taken this view. It makes little sense, since the earliest recorded I-I use of Arya has no obvious connection with "lion". Hebrew is a version of Canaanite, which is a Semitic language like Aramaic, but neither has some sort of claim of priority over the other. Paul B 13:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It is also mentioned Adrian Gilbert's book Signs in the Sky.
This should be placed in the article that Arya had thought to be earliest derived from a Semitic language & in many cases Aramaic meaning the word "Lion" symbolizing its pride and honor. Source - iLLeSt 17:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

the Indo-European root ar- has nothing whatsoever to do with the Assyrian word for "lion". dab () 10:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read the sources that you had edited off instead of jumping to conclusions
Source -
Signs in the Sky.
and I also did mention that it has got to do with the Aramaic language not the Assyrian word specifically, even the word "Ar" comes in Aramaic too. iLLeSt 01:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I have of course looked at your urls. has "cranky crank" written all over it, so I don't suppose you are serious by suggesting we use it as a "source". The link is some online opinion piece, apparently quite reasonable, but it doesn't, of course, even mention "lion" or "aryan", so I don't see what you want with it. dab () 16:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
You have to have a reliable source. Some non-accredited website about astrology isn't one. We can't say that words derive from one another just because they sound similar, otherwise we could claim what ever antecedents for words we liked! Paul B 16:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
The sources aren't about astrology, they talk about how the word got into the Persian language. Anyway, the Aramaic & Persian words for Arya are EXACTLY the same & it should be included in Arya that it has THOUGHT to have been from Semitic Aramaic origin as alot of sources show that Persians had adopted Aramaic into their language not only about the whole Lion business. Aramaic was also before Farsi/Parsi and Sanskrit aswell. iLLeSt 13:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is about astrology. He is connecting the Lion concept to the constellation of Leo as part of a loopy theory about a Secret Brotherhood of Esoteric Adepts in Anatolia at the time of Jesus. Fantastic stuff. The other link makes no mention of Lions, as has already been pointed out. Paul B 08:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
That isnt the point I am trying to make, I already made it clear that it should be included in Arya that it has THOUGHT to have been from Semitic Aramaic origin as alot of sources show that Persians had adopted Aramaic into their language not only about the whole Lion business. iLLeSt 19:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
And it has also been pointed out that you need a reliable source for the claim that that has been thought to be the case by smeone of note in the relevant field. Paul B 09:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I had already pointed out that the sources from show proof that the Aramaic language played a major influence. This is a source known well know and is pretty obvious aswell!
Anyhow I am adding this piece to the text:
The word Arya in the Semitic-Aramaic language means Lion (Syriac = ܐܟܵܪܐ Arya) (which was highly respected by the ancient noble Persians & Neighbouring Assyrians as they considered it to be a Master) which was probably thought to have been borrowed by the Persians as sources & theories show that Aramaic played a huge influence in the Persian language hence giving us the modern definition for Arya.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
pure Original Research. Yes, Persian was influenced by Semitic. So what? It's not like arya is only attested in Persian. What do you mean by "was probably thought"? Less passive constructions, more citations, please. If you want to argue about Semitic substratal influence on Old Persian, pray do so on the Old Persian article, not here. dab () 10:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that this is the only word being attested in Persian but instead, I would like to place it under the "Derived Words" heading to show emphasis to how the word was brought into meaning. I'm only saying that it is a theory and is just 1 of the words that could have been borrowed by the Persians (not to mention had been backed up by sources such as the Encyclopedia Iranica to prove that Aramaic played an influence on the Persian language). There is no harm in placing it in the article in any matter so please do not erase it. Sorry if it has caused any dispute. iLLeSt 20:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
well, there is "harm" in just pulling claims out of thin air. I grant you that Aramaic had an influence on Persian, enough of that. Your idea that the word arya is in any way "derived" from Semitic needs a reference, because, if you kindly read our article here, and over at Aryan, linguists don't think so. dab () 10:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've already shown that the word for lion in aramaic is Arya as you can see in this link -> Arya (Lion, in Akkadian aria, in Aramaic arya (II Samuel 17:10), and you had just told me that Aramaic had an influence on Persian so what more is there to tell? Why shouldnt it be posted in the article that another theory of the whereabouts of the word "Arya" derived from Aramaic. Its all obvious to me! iLLeSt 19:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
because it is your theory. I have in front of me Mayrhofer, the standard work on Indo-Iranian etymology, and your idea isn't even mentioned. We could conceivable do an article about the Semitic word, in which case there would need to be a link from Arya (disambiguation). Mayrhofer does mention mistaken etymologies, such as a connection with Latin arare or Irish aire, but yours isn't even mistaken, it is just amateurish. Look, it is very simple: If you cite an etymological dictionary (or journal article) that contains your suggestion we'll mention it. If you don't, we won't. This is how wikipedia works, and you are perfectly within your rights to request citations for statements you find dubitable yourself. dab () 10:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I have created Ari (lion), which is linked from Arya (disambiguation). Being a mere dictionary entry, the stub should however be transwikied to wiktionary. dab () 10:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Lots of words sound similar. I could say that the English word "airier" (meaning more airy) is related to Arya. After all "airier" might be construed as "more spiritual", which is related to one of the well-attested meanings of Arya! Obviously, it's absurd, but the problem with your theory is similar. Arya is attested in Vedic Sanskrit, which had no known historical contact with Aramaic. The Vedic attestation is close to the meaning of the word as used by Zarathushtra in the Gathas. Neither has any intelligable link to the meaning "lion" and both probably long predate any historical contacts between Iranian languages and Aramaic. The "good" source you cite is concerned with Aramaic influence during the period of the Persian empire - when Semitic languages were extensively used in diplomatic contexts and became the "official" languages of parts of the empire. Obviously you would expect some vocabulary to be imported at this period. But the word "Arya" already existed. The fact that it sounds similar to a word for lion is no more important than the existence of other similar-sounding words in unrelated languages. Paul B 10:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I know there are heaps of words relating to the term "Arya" but these theories are different from what I am trying to prove out. Arya was used way before the Iranians adopted it because Arya had been used frequently by the Arameans whom were the people that spoke Aramaic before the Persian language came into existence. It should be mentioned in THIS article that the word dates back before it was defined in Farsi and Sanskrit because the definitions are somehow related to eachother. Alot of words used by the Arameans use AR-. The english word "airier" has nothing to do with the ancient times.
The word "Arya" means to be pure and sometimes also means to be of Caucasian complexion in the word "Aryan". The Persians, Medes, Assyrians & Armenians had all originated in the Caucasus mountains but as they immigrated to the east and south, they had settled in their lands which goes to prove that their ancestors were the true Aryans. iLLeSt 22:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
what you don't seem to get is that Wikipedia is not for original research. If you publish this idea of yours in some linguistic journal, we can mention it here. Before you do that, we won't. dab () 12:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Arya is also in Norse language of Northern Europe[edit]

The word 'Earl' which can also be written as Yarl and means 'nobleman' also come from the root Arya.

Interesting the people that spoke this word also have surnames identical to those in Indo-aryan India. The surname Gill in India means stream of water and the surname of the same word in Norse also means the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Etymology of honorific -ji as evolving from ārya is mentioned ("In Pāli and other Prakrits, ārya developed various forms such as ariya, ayya, ajja, and aje. The last of these gave rise to the honorific term -ji, which is used following a proper name, for example in Gandhiji".) What are supporting arguments? Bibliographical information is needed. Otherwise the statement hangs as it were in void Artur Karp 09:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Rroms of Europe also use a form of the word[edit]

The Rromani (Gypsy) race of Europe who have a northwest Indian origin use the word Rai which means 'Nobleman / Gentleman / Lord'. This is from Arya via prakrit.

The female version to Rai is Rani.

Borean & Nostratic etymologies of "Aryan"[edit]

I've studied the etymology and came to conclusion that word "arya" have original meaning of "man", "human", not "royal" or "noble". Here's list of words in different languages with ar root, all of them have meaning that is related to "man", "human", "masculine" & etc. This word is neither of indo-european, turkic, semitic or dene-caucasian origin. It has same basis in most of human languages, the same way as words for parents (pa, ta, ba, ma). There are too many languages and I decided to show only few notable groups as example.

Semitic (Afro-Asiatic): proto-form ba'l [baʔl]; Akkadian beelu (see: Baal); Biblical Aramaic bǝʕeel, means "master", "owner", "husband", "man", "male citizen". b is relative to m, p, w, ŋ phonemes, and l is relative to r, d, z, s. The written (consonant-only) form is bl & bʔl, where ʔ is later assimilated and removed.

Berber (Afro-Asiatic): proto-form barar; Ayr abarar, Tahaggart aburir, means "son", "male child". Here r is related to l thus making this word's root similar to semitic. Figig idu & Zenaga ida means "men", "people", "family". And here d is directly related to l, r while b is omitted or transformed into j thus making Senhadja word judæn, iudæn, instead of budæn. Consonant written form is brr, bll, jd

Old Indian (IE): mɑrja\marja, means "man", "young man"; nɑra means "man", "person". Other similar IE words: Albanian ɲer (man), Armenian air, ajir (man), Welsh nerθ (man), Middle Persian meerak (man), English "male". Similar non-IE words: Mari, Komi & Udmurt marij, mari (man), Moksha lɨmaɲ (man) & vajme (person), Chechen maira (man, husband), Manchu nanə, nalma, Jurchen neʀma, Khmer kəmlaoh (young man).

Turkic (Nostratic\Altaic\disputed): proto-form ēr; variations are ar, er, jer, or; Here is clear relationship with iranian ir which is root of words Iran & Iron (south ossetians), where -an, -on are endings, similar in fashion to greek -os. Another notable words for "man" is gaellic eire & basque ar that show similarities with words mentioned above.

Here is the brief explanation of this word's variation in human tongue - bal, bar, mar, par, war, 'ar, ar, er, ŋar, ɴar, nar, nal, ŋar, ɴar, mer, mez, meʒ, moc, moz, moʒ, moj, mud, muʒ, mur, bur, buj, bug, buɣ, buχ, buq, box, bog, bɨk, buz, bur, bul, vol, wol, pol, bal, mal, mel, man, mæn, mən, men, mann' and so on.

This word's meaning evolved into "royal", "owner", "rich", "noble" but it's root is probably Borean (proto-human). Not to mention the fact that title "aryan" is not ethno-linguistic or anthropological indication but a kind of royal title of "owner", "king" that was given by indians of Vedic times to Persians or other people but Vedas say nothing about their ethnicity, except that they came from West or North-West of Hindus river. And thus name aryan should not be used in any ethnical or racial form. Regards, Iliassh (talk) 05:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

i don't think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Leading paragraph[edit]

The article start with claiming that "Arya is a sanskrit term". This is not sourced. However according to EI we have only sanskrit terms "Arya+something" (for example Ārya-bhāṣā) wheras in Old Persian the word "Arya" exists (by Darius and Xerxes). So, how we could call arya a sanskrit term? Could someone explain this to me.--Xashaiar (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. The first 5 words already make it plain that it is not exclusively a Sanskrit term. It seems to be a leftover from the days (< 13 July 2008) when Hindutva crackheads were futzing about here. Removed. -- Fullstop (talk) 00:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
You revert and call my edit "REVERT"? The present form does not make any sense. The sentence The term is significant to Hindus, Sikhs, Jains, Zoroastrians and Buddhists. The term has a variety of positive meanings, usually in spiritual contexts. that you try hard to put there is 1. Non-encyclopaedic. What is "positive meaning" in an encyclopaedia? Be serious. 2. The term used by Iranians (according to Bailley) is completely different. 3. Why do you remove sourced materials, that states "arya" in Iranian languages has no/or at most ambiguous relation to indic stuff?--Xashaiar (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for observing WP:BRD, even if it took four reverts for you to do so.
With respect to "does not make any sense" and "unencyclopedic", I suggest you come up with an alternative that meets your standards, this time perhaps A) without jumping to conclusions, B) without trying to hijacking the article to be about what you think it should be about C) without trying to read meanings into very simple words D) without misinterpreting a source E) without reinterpreting a source F) actually citing the source that you use, G) paying attention to context, H) not copy-pasting someone else's text as if it were yours to give away.
The assertion that "the term used by Iranians (according to Bailley) is completely different" is false. The assertion that "sourced materials [state that] "arya" in Iranian languages has no/or at most ambiguous relation to indic stuff" is also false. 'Nuff said. -- Fullstop (talk) 02:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Again, you are misunderstanding. Why not WP:agf? Being in Nowruz I do not respond the way you want. 1. If the rewording was the problem we can figure out what to do. 2. It is important that in articles related to etymology we use "the exact" version of what certain sources say. You should know that. 3. My problem is clearly stated: The word Arya, beside what some consider as related to what is knows in Indo-Aryan languages, has another meaning (evolved over time). The leading paragraph is too much non-linguistic. It might be true and interesting what the "folks" are saying and I am not denying, but in the lead paragraph.. I do not know. My suggestion is to remove everything in the lead paragraph except the first sentence.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
You have in fact not clearly stated your problem. The most recent description of it (#2 above: "The word Arya, beside what some consider as related to what is knows in Indo-Aryan languages, has another meaning (evolved over time).") is riddled with technical/factual errors. It also demonstrates (again) that you have not read (or not understood) the contents of this article, nor the one that you are "citing".
There is no way to understand (leave alone "misunderstand") what the heck "the problem" is.
So far we've only seen...
  • mis-citing (indeed mis-copy-pasting) sources out of context, and then asserting that "we [need to] use 'the exact' version",
  • attributing statements to "sourced materials" when in fact the sources you cite do not make those statements
  • reading meanings into words while simultaneously asserting "does not make any sense"
  • claiming (of another editor) "you do not understand the subject" while providing us with bloopers like...
    • '"arya*" according to source is different to "arya"'
    • 'according to EI we have only sanskrit terms "Arya+something" '
    • '"the term Arya as a single word"'
    • this article is "related to etymology"
    • "The word Arya, beside[s] [the meaning it has] in Indo-Aryan languages, has another meaning (evolved over time)".
Apropos AGF: there is no need to assume malice when an assumption of ignorance will suffice. This does not even account for belligerent edit warring (most recently in this article, here, and here), destroying sentence/paragraph coherence (most recently here), removal of encyclopedic content (most recently here), and so on.
As noted above, you have in fact not clearly stated your problem. Please spare us the sort of "logic" that you contrive here and elsewhere (most recently this). It is A) invariably uninformed, B) invariably false, and C) presuppose that nobody can tell the difference.
Instead, tell us what is it that you want to add to this article that makes you want a change to the lead? English is apparently not your native language, and you obviously do not understand the technical jargon, so please use simple words and avoid nested sentence structures. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
PA needs PA: you are badly asking for my usual responses but I try not to be like that (I told you the reason). Since you did not understand the meaning of vector, first I have to find you the right DIRECTION. 1. No I Do not understand English the way you do. 2. For the rest, I leave it to other readers/editors to judge who is making disruptive edits: You have removed my reference to Achaemenid inscription (which is the most significant reference to "ARYA": because these inscriptions define the term ARYA (at least in Iranian sense)) and keep indicating folk etymology in lead paragraph. 3. I will never believe, and have no RS indicating otherwise, that the Iranian term (defined by Darius and Xerxes) has anything to do with the Indian terms. 4. And calm down, we do not need to become virtual enemy.--Xashaiar (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
0. "coordinate vector" is not relevant here. This article is not about linear algebra.
  1. Since no one here speaks Indian English, it does not matter whether you understand it or not. What does matter is that you don't understand the English used on or in the sources that you "cite".
  2. A) Sorry, Wikipedia is not a publisher of your thoughts. Your theories on "most significant ... because ... define" are not relevant here.
    B) This article doesn't have any etymology (leave alone folk etymology) in the lead.
  3. Sorry, Wikipedia is not a platform for "beliefs". Your personal beliefs and your custom interpretation of sources are your private business. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
you know linear algebra? how did you get it that i mean something related to LA? The article is exactly about your choices and therefore it was good to send you some vectors: That is no universal left or right is defined. Got it? A-Z: you are just hiding the fact that you read only undefined terms. + On the lead, I agree that the article has no etymology. (I forgot that indicating positive meaning is nothing but indicationg/directing to folk stuff) But it should have. Why shouldn't it? Why it should not say who used it? Your only reason/assumption is accusing me of being nationalist. What's that? ++ Do you wish that "the articles you like should remain the way you want"? honestly? Come on.--Xashaiar (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

etymology, "noble"[edit]

ok, I have to admit that I misstated the case in earlier revisions. The dictionaries accessible to me just now clearly favour derivation of arya from ari-, in turn related to Latin alius. They still explicitly mention the earlier hypotheses connecting the term to the *ar of ars or rta, but unambiguously label them as obsolete. So far so good. I still have two points that need clarification.

  • what is this alleged Indo-Iranian root ar "to allot"? It is apparently found in aši, which was apparently "confused" with aša (again the ar of ars) even within Old Iranian, but where are the "multitude of other words"? Is this root Iranian only? If so, perhaps we should state as much. Also, what is its etymology? Is it compatible with the alius equation, or is the "to allot" etymology mutually exclusive with the alius one?
  • the "populistic misrepresentation" related to the "noble" meaning. Let's say we have established that the term developed as an endonym within Indo-Iranian, out of a modest ali- "other, foreign". That is, we reject all equations with Germanic, Celtic or Greek terms of nobility. It is even so a rather tall claim to say that the Indic meaning of "noble" has "no parallel in an Iranian context" in view of the Behistun inscription being full of "I am arya, therefore I am king". Thus, even if we agree that this is a question of Indo-Iranian exclusively, the parallel of the meaning of "noble" in Indic and Iranian is rather striking. That the Sanskrit meaning is post-Vedic is a daring claim to say the least. According to Monier-Williams, the noun árya has the meaning of "master, lord" in VS. The noun ārya is glossed as "a respectable or honourable or faithful man" in its Vedic meaning. It is true that the adjective ārya with a meaning of "honourable, respectable, noble" is attested post-Vedic (Epics) only, and I take it that the "5th century BCE" claim reflects this. Thus, it is true that Monier-Williams

gives "respectable, honourable" for the meaning of the Vedic noun, while he gives "respectable, honourable, noble" for the meaning of the post-Vedic adjective, but building any sort of argument on this strikes me as rather far-fetched. --dab (𒁳) 14:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Keywords Contents lessmoreEmailPrintFavoriteCollect this page

Confusion worst confounded[edit]

Aryan, Arya and Ayyanar The word Arya confused many scholars. It might just be a compound word in Telugu [a Dravidian language] that is formed from Ari + Aiya = Arya which in Tamil and Malayalam [Dravidian languages] becomes Aryan. Ari means the outer limit or boundary and Aiya is a suffix to names. Arya thus means the man who guards the boundary of a village.

DMR Sekhar

this falls under WP:NOR. You did right in pubishing this at google knol, not on Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 20:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indian Lang.[edit]

he indian language has many burrowed words, meaning its not the origin of the aryan race. the hungarian area, steppe theory is associated with this. Iranian language does not have many burrowed words, designating Iran as the place most likely Aryans are from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What is going on?=[edit]

There were a lots of edits by ip's (here and finally the diff with last "good edit" is this). I want to know what is going on? 1. this edit summary shows the reason for some of the edits. 2. this one is removal of content. 3. this is OR... So for the moment I make a deep revert to a good version. IP's please discuss your concern in this talk page before you remove materials or add your original research. Xashaiar (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

First all, i apologize for not having used my user name when i did some work on this page (i forgot to log). Xashiar, i will soon give my reasons in the discussion page before reverting this wikipedia page to what i have done. I have not added my original research!... I have already started putting references!. See you soonRajkris (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


Indians running around claiming to be Aryans even though the 'Aryans' from the Iranian plateau invaded during Harrapan civilization. Why does this article repeatedly place Indian before Iranian? Nothing is posted concerning Zoroastrian Aryan reliefs by Darius and Xerxes. Iranians invaded the Indian subcontinent, not the other way around. Also concerning the following part with regards to 'oldest recorded forms' , it is known that 'The earliest epigraphically-attested reference to the word ariya occurs in the 6th century BCE Behistun inscription, which describes itself to have been composed "in ariya [language or script]" (¶ 70). As is also the case for all other Old Iranian language usage, the ariya of the inscription does not signify anything but "Iranian".

In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian ārya is a national name, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves. More precisely, it is a self-referential adjective that – from the point of view of the Indians and Iranians themselves – effectively means "pertaining to ourselves." It stands in relationship to the antonymic anārya- (Skt. anā́rya-, Av. anairiia-), which effectively refers to "pertaining to the Other". From the external point of view – i.e. of comparative philology – this most ancient usage of ārya indicates "pertaining to speakers of Indian/Iranian language"; with the Vedic Sanskrit ā́rya-, used as an autonym of the Rigvedic tribes, and Iranian arya- (with a short-a; Old Persian ariya, Avestan airiia) used as an autonym of the Iranian peoples.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ditc (talkcontribs) 09:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC) 

There is no reference to any Iranian/Persian source for the original use of this name "Arya"!!![edit]

The use of Arya in Indian and Sanskrit has been addressed well in this article. Books and sources such as Vedic Sanskrit , Sanskrit Epics, Ramayana,Mahabharata, Religious use of the Sanskrit and Pali term show extended use of the word and context it has been used in Indian languages.

In contrast there is no single reference to any Iranian/Persian source for the original use of this name "Arya" in Iranian languages. The inclusion of Iranian/Persian appears to be more of a POV rather than fact. Mehrdad (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC) It is in the Behistun description, Avesta, and many other sources. Wrong: "thus the word Arya refers to a cultural, religious and linguistic background"[2]

And see here for more sources [3][4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Aryan is an Arabianic (aka semitic) word which means "companion".[edit]

Aryan is an Arabianic (aka semitic) word which means "companion".

Please read Szemerenyi 1977.

In Ugaritian Arabic ari (plural aiyan) means companion and this term became ethonym for the Aryans who are connected with the Halaf culture (According to Gamkrelidze&Ivanov) and thus were northern neighbors of Arabs.

So please correct this article.

Humanbyrace (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Arya in Iranian languages[edit]

Unlike the various terms connected with the Aryan arya- in Old Indian, the Old Iranian term has solely an ethnic meaning[1].

The name Iran, Iranian is itself equivalent to Arya/Aryan, where Iran means “land of the Arya”[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][5]. The name has been in usage since Sassanid times[9][10].

In the Avesta clearly uses airya as an ethnic name (Vd. 1; Yt. 13.143-44, etc.), where it appears in expressions such as airyāfi; daiŋˊhāvō “Iranian lands, peoples,” airyō.šayanəm “land inhabited by Iranians,” and airyanəm vaējō vaŋhuyāfi; dāityayāfi; “Iranian stretch of the good Dāityā,” the river Oxus, the modern Āmū Daryā[11]. There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens)[12].

Old Persian sources also use this term for Iranians. Old Persian which is a testament to the antiquity of the Persian language and which is related to most of the languages/dialects spoken in Iran including modern Persian, Kurdish, Gilaki and Baluchi makes it clear that Iranians referred to themselves as Arya. The term "Ariya" appears in the royal inscriptions in three different context: As the name of the language of the Old Persian version of the inscription of Darius the Great in Behistun; as the ethnic background of Darius in inscriptions at Naqsh-e-Rostam and Susa (Dna, Dse) and Xerxes in the inscription from Persepolis (Xph) and as the definition of the God of Arya people, Ahuramazda, in the Elamite version of the Behistun inscription[4][5]. For example in the Dna and Dse Darius and Xerxes describe themselves as “An Achaemenian, A Persian son of a Persian and an Aryan, of Aryan stock”. [13]. Although Darius the Great called his language the Aryan language[14], modern scholars refer to it as Old Persian.

The Old Persian and Avestan evidence is confirmed by the Greek sources”[15]. Herodotus in his Histories remarks about the Iranian Medes that: “These Medes were called anciently by all people Arians; “ (7.62) [4][5][16]. In Armenian sources, the Parthians, Medes and Persians are collectively referred to as Aryans[17]. Eudemus of Rhodes apud Damascius (Dubitationes et solutiones in Platonis Parmenidem 125 bis) refers to “the Magi and all those of Iranian (áreion) lineage”; Diodorus Siculus (1.94.2) considers Zoroaster (Zathraustēs) as one of the Arianoi[18]..

Strabo, in his "Geography", mentions the unity of Medes, Persians, Bactrians and Sogdians[19]:

The name of Ariana is further extended to a part of Persia and of Media, as also to the Bactrians and Sogdians on the north; for these speak approximately the same language, with but slight variations.

— Geography, 15.8

The trilingual inscription erected by Shapur's command gives us a more clear description. The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek. In Greek the inscription says: “ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi” which translates to “I am the king of the Aryans”. In the Middle Persian Shapour says: “I am the Lord of the EranShahr” and in Parthian he says: “I am the Lord of AryanShahr”.[20][21].

The Bactrian language (an Middle Iranian language) inscription of Kanishka the founder of the Kushan empire at Rabatak, which was discovered in 1993 in an unexcavated site in the Afghanistan province of Baghlan clearly refers to this Eastern Iranian language as Arya[22][23] In the post-Islamic era one can still see a clear usage of the term Aryan (Iran) in the work of the 10th century historian Hamzeh Esfahani. In his famous book “the history of Prophets and Kings” writes: “Aryan which is also called Pars is in the middle of these countries and these six countries surround it because the South East is in the hands China, the North of the Turks, the middle South is India, the middle North is Rome, and the South West and the North West is the Sudan and Berber lands”[24]

This article is about sanskrit arya. A separate wiki page should be opened for iranian airya/aryi(i)a because the definition is slightely different. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't say it is about Sanskrit Arya.. but what do you suggest? There are encyclopedic articles with Arya and cover both definitions (see H.W. Bailey). We can seperate sections of the article in (Iranian usage) and (Indian usage). It is already done that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The article says: "This article is about Indian and Iranian self-designator". If you want two seperate articles that is fine.. but the names of the articles should be: "Arya in Iranian usage" and "Arya in Indo-Aryan usage". You can put a propasal for split.. but actually removing sources is vandalism and that is a silly way to try to find a common ground here.

Ok you can keep that for the moment but not as first position because arya has more to do with sanskrit. I will add soon my reason for why should have separate pages for sanskrit arya and iranian airya.Rajkris (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Well I do not want all that information to be deleted. You can put a split merger. I agree in Iranian languages, the term Arya has solely an ethno-linguistic value whereas in Sanskrit it covers variety of definitions. However this article states that it covers both meanings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
For the moment we can keep like that (till i add my reasons) but putting iranian version, definition in first position is not right, appropriate i think.Rajkris (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as you know the inserted items are of high academic quality. The article clearly states it is for Iranian and Indian self-designator. We also cannot have WP:OWN. Simply it meets WP:RS. Instead I added a split proposal. I suggest we split the article into Iranian and Indian usage. But we cannot delete the Iranian usage from this article till then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss about that. I will add my detailed arguments, reasons soon. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 21:55, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What is there to discuss? We cannot really have WP:OR in wikipedia. I do not mind the information I added to be in the end of the article for now, but in the long term there should be a separate article for Arya (Iranian usage) that is different than Arya (Indian usage). Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Who says this article is about Sanskrit Arya? Here is what RS' say: the indian Arya has lost its meaning completely, whereas Iranian Arya has kept its meaning almost unchanged. Xashaiar (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Xashaiar, you have already been warned by fullstop who has dismissed your arguments. You have already been banned indefinitely for your political POV. You have managed to come back; but just be careful, this is my kind advise... I will soon add my arguments, be patient.Rajkris (talk) 23:40, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
You tried the same sometime ago. You were wrong and finally accepted ([5], [6], [7], ..). Which argument of that editor are you referring to? This article states clearly "In contrast to Indian usage, in which several secondary meanings evolved, the meaning of ar- as a self-identifier is preserved in Iranian usage". So what are you talking about? Xashaiar (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the 2 first but I do not accept at all the third one (!). I will tell you why. Thanks.Rajkris (talk) 21:59, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about your position, my position or Xashaiar's position nor does the article belong to anyone WP:OWN. It is about WP:RS (bottom line). So you can write 100 pages of commentary, but it is not a WP:forum. For now, we have let the Sanskrit stuff go first (I have no problem with it), but as long as the article is not split into Aryan (Iranian usage) and Aryan (Indian usage), then both will have to stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

merge back[edit]

looking at the history of the article and this talkpage over the years, it is clear that it is going nowhere. It is just a troll magnet and a place for people to dump random comments. The article was originally split off Aryan to keep the main article from being burdened with this, but it turns out that we just split one troll magnet into two troll magnets, without achieving any clean division of scope. This appears to be basically just a {{duplication}} of the "etymology" section at Aryan. Consequently, it should be merged back. --dab (𒁳) 13:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thai language 'ārya' and 'ārya dharma'[edit]

Thai: อารย 'ārya' definition
1. Arayan race; civilized person; honorable person; honest person
2. civilized; good; righteous; prosperous; honorable; developed
Thai: อารยธรรม ārya dharma (pronounced ah ra ya thom) civilization.
Antonym Thai: ทมิฬ (tha min)
1. proper noun or adjective, Tamil
2. common adjective, formal usage, loanword from Pali vicious; dangerous; savage; ruthless; depraved copy-and-paste ทมิฬ

--Pawyilee (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ABOUT ARYA BY Rajkris[edit]

The word Arya written & pronounced in this way is Sanskrit (see below: Encylcopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 9). In the Persian/Iranian culture, literature there are a few refs to words such as 'Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)oi(n)/etc.'. Scholars agree that the Indian 'Arya' and the Persian 'Airya' must have a common root but their definition seems different: whereas the Persian definition may have an ethno-linguistic connotation (but there is no agreement among scholars on that, contrary to what is claimed here), the Indian Arya means Noble/Lord/etc. The most ancient reference to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Vedas and there is no any ethnical, racial or national connotation... It was used to designate those who developed & adhered to the Vedic culture, religion, more specifically those who worshipped the Devas and especially Indra (see below: Encyclopaedia Britannica, ref2 to ref6) and, at later time, the Hindu religion/culture and more generally the Arya Dharma (Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism). Those who belonged to this community were called Aryas (Noble/Civilised), those who did not, were called Anaryas (Non noble/Barbarians/Uncivilised). Inside this community, the high castes were considered as Aryas whereas the lower ones were Anaryas. Among the higher castes, the perfect Aryas were the Kshatriyas (Hindu aristocraty). The place where Hinduism was practiced in its most orthodox way was called Aryavarta (the abode, [sacred] land of the Arya(n)s), Aryadesha (see below ref9); the borders of Aryavarta may have changed throughout times but Iran, Afghanistan, Eastern Pakistan and other central asian areas have never, never been part of Aryavarta ... One more important precision: in the ancient Iranian/Persian culture, in the Avesta, the Devas used to be considered as devils!...

Even if it has a common root, the Persian/Iranian equivalent is written & pronounced differently: airya, ari(i)ya, arioi(n), etc., and this historical difference must respected so as not to make any confusion. Above all, there are few refs to this word in the whole persian literature; so telling that this word was significant in the Persian civilisation is not true. The best example are the Parsis from India: they are scions of the ancient persians in term of ethnicity and religion but they have never called themselves Erya (Airya); why ? Just because this word was neither significant nor a real self designator. Ethnically speaking, Parsis are much more related to the ancient Persians than nowadays inhabitants of Iran (thanks to, because of the caste system in India). Iran has never been a populous area and it has been invaded a lot by different nomadic tribes (Indo Europeans, Semite Arabs, Turks, Mongols).This word became significant in the persian world only recently (last century) by the will of Reza Shah Pahlavi and its supporters who were certainly influenced by the Nazis when they decided in 1935 to rename the country after the ancient Sassanide empire name Eran (see link 1); Only from this period the word Arya (written & pronounced in this way) started being used in a very significant way (iranian people started using arya as name, restaurants, garages started bearing arya name, arya cities, universities were created, etc.). The problem is only a minority of the people were attracted by this new mode.The Iranian people did not understand anything to this so called Aryan myth and pathetic shows such as:[8]. This is one of the reason for the failure of this government: Shah of Iran and its government ultimate goal was to get rid off Islam but they did not realize that the Iranian people were very attached to this religion. These links, articles give a good description, explanation of the Iranian Aryan myth: link 2, link 3 & link 4.

Some Iranian (nationalists) prefer, nowadays, to use the sanskrit word Arya because (this is my opinion) it is more closed to the word Aryan (which derives from this sanskrit word) than Iranian Airya/Ariya. For that purpose, they are using refs from books written by (western)scholars who mix sanskrit arya with persian erya/ari(i)ya. The pb is since nearly 2 centuries, many (so called) scholars have written many wrong things concerning this word; these so called scholars have a clear responsibility in the development of the Aryan racial theories in Europe (see below ref1 and ref10) and consequently, they have a clear (moral) responsibility for the extermination of 6 million jews (Nazis killed them because of this one word)... This is clearly an history falsification, manipulation.

The other pb is that some people are trying to link arya with an ethnical connotation which is wrong:

1) The most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the Rig Veda and contains no ethnical connotation, national connotation
2) Notions such as Ethnicity, Nationalism, Race are modern concepts which dates back to the 18th century. Applying them to describe the ancient world is very doubtful.
3) Iran has always been a mixture of people of different origin even at the time of the Persian empire... How can some people try to associate an ethnical purity to this country especially nowadays, at a time when more & more scholars tell that the civilisation which has played the most important role in the development of Iran was the Elamite civilisation. Some Iranian are working on Wikipedia to give a fake image of Iran based on a fake ethnical identity...

The references given by Iranians to support their claim of an Iranian Arya are wrong:

-“…Iranian arya [with a short a]…” --> Arya, even with a short ‘a’, is a Sanskrit word (see: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ref2, Ref4, Ref8); even if nowadays some Iranians prefer to use the word Arya (because more closer to Aryan) instead of their own words Airya/Ari(i)ya, the roots of Arya are Sanskrit.
-"ARYA an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition” --> the problem here is that in the Achaemenedid inscriptions it is written ‘Ariya’ and in the Zend language ‘Airya’. It is the author himself who prefer to use the term Arya & therefore, it is author POV and does not correspond to historical reality. The other point is “’ariya: ariyaciça’…The phrase with ciça, “origin, descendance,” assures that it is an ethnic name” --> The translation “Noble from Noble lineage” would also fit (really curious that a king does not mention his noble origins; only 'peasant' background people can think that a king would be prefer to mention his so called ethnical identity instead of his noble, aristocratic origins...)…

Here are the main problems with this article:

- “Arya is an old Indic and Iranian…” --> very wrong: Arya (written & pronounced in this way) is clearly, without any doubt a Sanskrit, Old Indic but NOT (Old) Iranian word or so called Indo Iranian… In the Iranian/Persian history, literature we find similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya/Ari(a)o(i) suggesting a common origin…
- "Significant to Zorastrians" --> not true (see Parsis who never called themselves Airya/Ari(i)ya)
-"In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is a national name, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves" --> very wrong; the most ancient refs to the word Arya occur in the (Rig) Veda and there is no any etchnical, national, racial connotation!... Were considered as Aryas those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture, religion. None of the given refs support this sentence.

Some sentences, parts, writes in this article does not correspond to proper academical sources and above all to historical reality, that is: Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya Iranian & Aryan is an English (loan) word derived from Sanskrit Arya meaning ‘Noble’.” Iranian Arya” is a POV made by some scholars and does not correspond to historical reality.

Concerning the Iranian chapter, its presence is useful but some corrections need to be done; ex: “Iran means ‘Land of Arya” is not correct, a correct translation would be ‘Land of Airya’ because Iran comes from Eran --> Airan --> Airyan --> Airyanam… As user Fullstop (who has rejected articles from Encyclopaedia Iranica shown by some users) already mentioned, some Iranian editors do not correctly translate their sources; for ex, on Gerardo Gnoli articles, the author uses the historical Iranian terms Airya or Ariya whereas in the wiki articles it is written “(Iranian) Arya”. I have also the strong feeling that ‘Encyclopaedia Iranica’ (at least some articles) gives a biased image of Iran based on a fake ethnical purity… I think this it is financed by some Iranians based abroad and who are close to the Shah of Iran ideology…

As a conclusion: Arya is a Sanskrit, old Indic self designator meaning ‘Noble’ (see Encycopaedia Britannica, refs 2 to 8). The term is significant to Hindus, Buddhists & Jains. In the Iranian literature, there are a few refs to similar words: Airya/Ari(i)ya, suggesting a common origin.
In its oldest recorded forms, Sanskrit Arya was used to designate those who developed, adhered to the Vedic culture.
Some sentences of this article must be rewritten in concordance with proper academic sources and above all historical reality.

Thank you for your attention; i will also add my comments & arguments on the Aryan wiki page asap.

Rajkris (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Encylopaedia Britannica [9]

(This article is a summary of what is said about the word Aryan by nowadays proper scholars)

Former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent. The theory of an “Aryan race” appeared in the mid-19th century and remained prevalent until the mid-20th century. According to the hypothesis, these probably light-skinned Aryans were the group who invaded and conquered ancient India from the north and whose literature, religion, and modes of social organization subsequently shaped the course of Indian culture, particularly the Vedic religion that informed and was eventually superseded by Hinduism.

However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family.

In Europe the notion of white racial superiority emerged in the 1850s, propagated most assiduously by the comte de Gobineau and later by his disciple Houston Stewart Chamberlain, who first used the term “Aryan” for the white race. Members of this so-called race spoke Indo-European languages, were credited with all the progress that benefited humanity, and were purported to be superior to “Semites,” “yellows,” and “blacks.” Believers in Aryanism came to regard the Nordic and Germanic peoples as the purest members of the “race.” This notion, which had been repudiated by anthropologists by the second quarter of the 20th century, was seized upon by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis and was made the basis of the German government policy of exterminating Jews, Roma (Gypsies), and other “non-Aryans.”

In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, many white supremacist groups adopted the name Aryan as a label for their ideology. Because of this usage and its association with Nazism, the term has acquired a pejorative meaning.

Ref 2: Aryans and British India By Thomas R. Trautmann [10]

"Aryan is from Arya a sanskrit word..."

“… by a name taken from Sanskrit Arya or Aryan” page 2

"Although the word arya is a sanskrit one," page 6

“…name of the race that immigrated from Central Asia into Aryavarta, opposed to an-arya, Dasyu, Dasa (although here we would have to say that the use of the word race and the reference to Central Asia comes from European ideas and not from Sanskrit texts)” page 12

"The Aryan concept is the central idea of the twentieth-century fascims, and the fact that it was developed by scholars raises the question of the role shcolars have played in preparing the way for these appropriations..." pages 14/15

Ref 3: Merriam-Webster's encyclopedia of world religions By Wendy Doniger,Merriam-Webster, Inc page 79 [11]

“Aryan (from Sanskrit Arya, ‘Noble’)”

"... In Vedic literature the term arya is used to distinguish privileged members of society from others"

Ref 4: Imperial encounters: religion and modernity in India and Britain By Peter van der Veer [12]

"The sanskrit term arya which means 'honorable man'" page 138

Ref 5: The Indo-Aryan controversy: evidence and inference in Indian history By Edwin Bryant,Laurie L. Patton [13]

"Here, perhaps, it needs to be clarified that in the Vedic texts the word "Arya" was not used in any racial sense..." page 52

Ref 6: A survey of Hinduism By Klaus K. Klostermaier [14]

"... Making the self-designation arya (noble) a racial attribute of the putative invaders,..." page 18

Ref 7: Encyclopaedic dictionary of Vedic terms, Volume 1 By Parmeshwaranand (Swami.) page 120 to 128 [15]

"The Rgvedic passages reffering to the Aryas (...) conquering Dasas or Dasyus with the help of their gods, relate to that stratum of Aryan history when two groups of people seem to have settled on the land of (...). The two groups of people might have difference in colour, but the colour was not the main cause of difference between the two cultures. The only and sole factor responsible for the difference was the instituiton of sacrifice, which one believed while the other did not. One group, which believed, in Yajna and practically performed it, constituted the Aryan, the noble class and the other which did not believe in yajna constituted the Dasa or Dasyu class..."

"The Rgvedic passage showing the Aryans as being conquered by the gods along with the Dasas or Dasyus relate to that stratum of Aryan history when Aryan people were subdivided into many clans, and a king of one clan was fighting against the other, sometimes alone, and sometimes with the help of Dasas or Dasyus."

Ref 8: The British quarterly review, Volume 36 [16]

"Airya which is the equivalent in the Zend language for the Sanskrit arya,..." page 23

"This word ârya, with long a, is derived from arya with a short a, and this name arya is applied in later sanskrit... " page 24

"If it was 'originally a national name', of which, however, there is no proof, we confess we cannot well understand how,..." page 24

Ref 9: Essays on ancient India By Raj Kumar [17]

"I-tsing refers to India generally as the West, but he tells us that it was known as Aryadesha (...), the noble region" page 172

Ref 10: Performativity and belonging By Vikki Bell [18]

"It is difficult to deny the complex imppact that some ideas in Vedic Hinduism did have in the reformation of some versions of German and French nationalism." page 74

"There is considerable debate about whether or not the Vedas and subsequent literature contained concepts that led directly to ideas of phenotypical 'race'" page 75

"One can accept that the word arya in the Rig-Veda (airya in the Avestan literature), referred to a quality that is usually translated as 'noble', rather than an ethnology, and certainly not an 'Aryan race'." page 75


Link 1: [19]
"The suggestion for the change is said to have come from the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of the Nazis."

Link 2: [20]
“However, all attempts by the Pahlavis in engendering the Aryan myth, Persianization of Iran and the Farsi language (…), were attempts from the top, lacking any real popular foundations. Except for a group of upper middle-class and descendants of a cluster of feudal families, Pahlavism was a joke, especially the theater of spectacle that the Shah put on to celebrate the 2500th anniversary of Achamenid dynasty.”

Link 3: [21]
“The false equation of language and race was widespread in the west between around 1850-1950, and some Iranians influenced by Western racist thinkers, took pride in being Indo-Europeans, or "Aryans"”

Link 4:[22]
“It surprises us when we realize that just barely over half of all Iranians are actually ethnic Persians”; “We, who pride ourselves for being so closely related to the Hansels and Gretels of Europe, after all look too suspiciously similar to our Arab conquerors and brothers and cousins to the south, dark hair, dark eyes, big noses and all.”

Rajkris (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

please respect WP:TALK. Article talkpages are not for posting counter-articles. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not at all a counter article. This is discussion on what is wrong on the actual article. I want to change some sentences of this article, that's why i have posted my comments and refs before changing. [[User:Ra
fine, I have restored your text. But I hope you don't expect anyone to read it.
if you want to point out a problem with the article, why don't you that instead of posting a giant essay. It isn't clear what you want, it isn't clear why you quote random Persian nationalist websites, it isn't clear whether you want to address etymology or modern racialism, and you aren't helping an already confused issue. --dab (𒁳) 07:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree it is long but i wanted to be as clear and give as much refs as possible in order to do the necessary changes on this article. If people like you do not read what i wrote, my work is useless. Some parts may not be interesting but some others really are. The references I have found are really good. Please just take 5min to read it.
I want to address etymology, the original meaning of the word Arya. Here are the changes I want to bring in this article (see above for my explanations, arguments & refs): In concordance with (proper) academical sources, this article must distinguish Sanskrit Arya from Iranian Airya/Ari(i)ya; (part) sentences like 'Iranian Arya', 'Indo Iranian Arya' are not correct. Sentences such as "In its oldest recorded forms, Indo-Iranian arya is an ethnonym, i.e. the name of the ethnic group of Indians and Iranians themselves..." are wrong. I will give the necessary refs for all the changes I'm going to do (with links to check). Rajkris (talk) 23:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

That was simply random websites, selective scholarship possible (I think anyone knows we don't use random websites with non-expert authors in Wikipedia), WP:OR,WP:Synthesis combined with I don't like it.. One can do the same with google books. Here is Wieshofer a major historian:"Iran" was derived from the Sassanian concept of Eranshahr ('Empire of the Aryans'). [23] Someone else can for example get 1000 references from google books and make up their own story. All of it simply WP:OR. Websites are not WP:RS sources not are simple Britannica (which actually defines it as a group of people)/Merriam webster. It has no effect on Wikipedia. Please do not confuse the German Nazi concept with the etymological roots in Iranian literature of Arya. Also Encyclopedia Iranica is well recognized source unlike the random websites, merriam webster dictionary, Britannica and etc. which are considered teriatary sources. Please find some scholars of ancient history that are living in the modera era and are at recognized universities who claim what you claim. Here is a modern article WP:RS by Gnoli. The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002.". See page 86 of that article and also the many other books/references by Gnoli. I do however agree with you that the term "Arya" was not used in the ethno-linguistic sense in the Indian literature. That is exactly what Gnoli states as well[24]: "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". The Indic term Arya probably had a different different connotation and lacked an ethnic connotation all together. So that is why the Iranian Arya should be separated (even have its own article), then the Indic arya should have its own article and also the Nazi/Germani racialist concept it own article. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 19:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Read Britannica. Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ari(i)ya is Iranian. My refs are clear, please do not use Wikipedia rules to threaten me simply because you are not able to counter me. If you want you can create

Airya wiki article. Rajkris (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is now like Wikipedia where anyone can edit. It is a teriatary source which lacks value WP:RS. For example its authors are not even known. Gheraldo Gnoli, Mallory, etc. are well known Professors of Academic universities. Actually, we go with what is the English usage. When Airya/Ari/Er..are interchangeable with Aryan in English scholarly usage. Britannica (which looks like the article has had many edits and revisions, none of whose authors are scholars) also states:"former name given to a people who were said to speak an archaic Indo-European language and who were thought to have settled in prehistoric times in ancient Iran and the northern Indian subcontinent." Random website sources or outdated sources are not really WP:RS. For example look here: [25] "As an ethnic designation, however, it is properly limited to Indo-Iranians (most justly to the latter) "

Anyhow, you need some serious scholars like Gnoli, Witzel, Mallory and etc. to state your position. Gnoli, Beneviste..etc. partially agree with your position that Arya/Aryan (however you want to write it and pronounce it) is not an ethnic term in Indic literature. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica is the most reliable sources in English language. Stop your POV on Britannica. in [26] you have provided above, it clearly tells Iranian ariya and Sanskrit Arya. Why do you prefer to use Arya instead of your own words Airya/Ariya (even Gnoli uses Ariya) ??. The refs I have given are from serious scholars no pb.Rajkris (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The usage of Arya is because that is the common term used in English. See Harold Walter Bailey and his article on the subject here: [27] "ARYA, an ethnic epithet in the Achaemenid inscriptions and in the Zoroastrian Avestan tradition". Gnoli also uses Arya [28] "There can be no doubt about the ethnic value of Old Iran. arya (Benveniste, 1969, I, pp. 369 f.; Szemerényi; Kellens).". Gnoli uses it in his books two: [29]

In the Old Persian it is "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. given the various spellings, Gnoli states: "All this evidence shows that the name arya “Iranian” was a collective definition, denoting peoples "[30] So the common spelling for all these terms s "Arya" in English language. I believe you know the credentials of Harold Walter Bailey and Gheraldo Gnoli [31]. Britannica is hardly a reliable source. It has no author, and it is teriatary source (with no author). With the new features that anyone can edit it, it has also become less reliable. However, I do not see where it conradicts Gnoli/Bailey (which if it did, it would not be used since Gnoli, Bailey.. are well known scholars and secondary sources by Wikipedia definitions). It is the only source that you mentioned that has some wiki value (youtube, random websites do not..). But it is hardly on par with Gnoli, Bailey, Mallory, Witzel and the rest of the scholars. Britannica in has no author for its articles. Wikipedia should use scholars in the field.

I do agree however, that the sanskrit/indic term lacks an ethnic meaning (this is the opinion of Gnoli/Beneviste..). Gnoli states:"Emile Benveniste is thus quite right to assert that, unlike the various terms connected with the Aryan arya- in Old Indian, the Old Iranian arya- is documented solely as an ethnic term.." [32]--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC) So I think what the article fails to address is the difference context these words are used in Indic and Iranic literature. My main point is that you cannot delete the section that has such well known authors as Bailey, Gnoli, Mackenzie. As per the etymology online, it is correct but as you see , the English term is Arya/Aryan for the "ariyâ", Av. "airya", Greek "Arioi", "áreion", Bactrian "ariao", .. So one must use the English term. However my idea is this: 1) Separate article for the Indian context of the word Arya (Indic literature) 2) Separate article for the Iranian context Arya (Iranian term) 3) Separate article for Arya/Aryan in the Nazi/Racialist literature Aryan (racialist misusage). I believe this will solve a lot of problems and divorce the political abuse and even some psuedo-scholarly abuse (giving an ethnic meaning to the Indic literature). What do you think? If DAB and others agree, it would be a good way to proceed. Then we can make a DAB page.

As per the references you gave, I am sorry, but random websites/youtube are not references. The other scholars you mentioned are not experts of ancient history in Western universities (Gnoli, Mallory, Witzel, Bailey, etc). However, Gnoli as I showed you agrees with your concept in the Indic literature (lack of ethnic meaning for Arya). --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop telling that the scholars i mentionned are not experts... This is your POV. Trautmaan and others have as much reputation as Gnoli and other scholars you have mentionned. Whether you like it or not, historically Arya is Sanskrit, Airya/Ariya Iranian (this is what most scholars tell), Aryan an English word. I agree with 3 separate articles but do not think the use of Arya for Iran is good. I need a 3rd neutral opinion and why not an expert opinion on that. One question: why Parsis who 'ethnically' are more closed to the ancient Persians, never called themselves Airya/Ariya ??Rajkris (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
BtW, see also OED: "Aryan from Sansrit Arya 'Noble'"... Arya is a Sanskrit word whether you like it or not and therefore should not be used for Iran. Please use your own words Airya/Ariya, even Gnoli uses mostly Ariya.Rajkris (talk) 23:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Gnoli uses Arya/Aryan and various other formulations of the same word. There is also Sanskrit "ārya", "ā́rya" but one does not go on to make an article with the diacritic signs. One uses the most common spelling in English (and that is why the Encylopaedia Iranica has it that way as well). So that is why one cannot use Sanskrit ā́rya,ārya for a title as well as one cannot use Old Persian ariyâ as a title for an article. Wikipedia works by using the term as the way it has entered the English language and how the English speakers use it. As per the author you noted (Trautmaan), he can be said to have the same level of expertise as Gnoli (but the random websites, youtube and etc. you have quoted do not). However you did not quote him on page 13: "What made "Aryan" seem appropriate was it was not only the name Sanskrit speakers gave themselves, but it was also used by the speakers of Old Persian; indeed the name Iran is derived from a genitive plural of the word, meaning: "(land) of the Aryas".

So he is stating it was used concurrently and in parallel in Old Persian and Sanskrit. However, whereas one can firmly state that Old Persian is 2500 years, one cannot state how old is Rig Veda (oldest Sanskrits) simply because it was transmitted by oral transmission, and its oldest written testament is later than 2500 years ago. However, based on linguist grounds some scholar date it to 1700-1100 BC (per the wikipedia article), however that is about the same age that some scholars date the Old Avesta. My main problem with this argument (which does not mean I can change the Wikipedia article since it would be Original Research) is that German and English are both from the same family, however if German was a dead language, one would think it was spoken 1500 years, since English would be a more modern form of it. Same with Pashtu and Persian, where Pashtu has basically conserved many grammatical rules of Old Iranian, making it a much more difficult language to acquire than modern Persian.

As per Parsis, in their own literature, the word Iran/Iranian is used which is a continuation of "Er/Ir"...ultimately leading to Arya..[33]. Also Avesta is part of Parsi literature. However, since you mentioned this point. The concept of Sanskrit "Arya".. was rediscovered by Western orientalists actually. Indians themselves never used it until the British came. According to some modern Western scholars even, it does not have an ethnic meaning. However the words "Iran", "Iranian".. have been used continously as a reference to Iranians for themselves (and also distinguished in classical Persian literature from Turks, Arabs, Indians, Romans..etc. as an ethnic group). Now Iran has also a geophrapical designation as well, so one can be an Arab of Iran or Iranian Arab. But its meaning as an ethnic term like Iranian peoples has been used through the centuries. In terms of nationality it would be a citizen of Iran (a later concept than the ethnic term Iranian). Be that it may, I think we need three articles really (bearing in mind that Wikipedia uses the common English terms not say the Old Persian or Sanskrit term ā́rya):

  • Aryan (Iranian Literature)
  • Aryan (Indian Literature)
  • Aryan (20th century Racialst Theory).. Equating it with Indo-Europeans, the Nazi concept..

My main point is that these three things are distinct, and even the Sanskrit Arya ā́rya according to Beneviste, Gnoli does not have an ethnic meaning, whereas in the Iranian literature, it has solely an ethnic meaning. Then the page Arya/Aryan can be made into a disambiguous page. --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

the same thing has been discussed many times here. It is frustrating to see how this article makes no progress whatsoever beacause people insist on going in circles. --dab (𒁳) 08:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not able to understand the discussions (1, 2) by the user Rajkris. I just want to stress that 1. there is no point of making selective and random use of stuff in the internet (for example: in the "link 3" a sentence of this has been abused. There it is written clearly that "[Iranians were called Aryan]... until Hitler discredited the term by putting racial theory into horrible practice.") This and our wiki articles make it clear that "Arya" depending on its place and time of use does have completely different meanings. Why ignoring this over and over gain? 2. If the hindus want to say that they are "real aryans", let them say so and if they can source that, they can add it to any article they want. 3. On dividing the article into "Iranian usage" and "Indian usage" and "European usage" I am afraid we have to do wp:or. after all there is a point why the term "indo-iranian"/"indo-europeans" exist. We do not know if the "Iranian Arya" and "Indian Arya" were born after Iranians and Indians got separated. This seems to be what the user wants. (I, personally, think that "Arya" was born before separation). By the way, I would like to point out that the Iranian Arya was written and we have it today (both in purely linguistic-religious meaning that Darius used in his OP language and also religious and ethnic & linguistic meaning used in Avesta -- apparently this Avesta like texts in Sanskrit was only later written up) but Old indic Arya was not written until many many centuries later.... I think having an article exclusively about the etymology of pre-19th century Arya is a good thing... Xashaiar (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
    • ^ G. Gnoli,“Iranic Identity as a Historical Problem: the Beginnings of a National Awareness under the Achaemenians,” in The East and the Meaning of Histoy. International Conference (23-27 November 1992), Roma, 1994, pp. 147-67. [34]
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [35]
    • ^ The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002.
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Schmitt was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Cite error: The named reference Bailey was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ D.N. Mackenzie, "ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Accessed here in 2010: [36]
    • ^ Dalby, Andrew (2004), Dictionary of Languages, Bloomsbury, ISBN 0747576831
    • ^ G.Gnoli, “ĒR, ĒR MAZDĒSN” in Encyclopedia Iranica. [37]
    • ^ D.N. Mackenzie, "ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Accessed here in 2010: [38]
    • ^ Dalby, Andrew (2004), Dictionary of Languages, Bloomsbury, ISBN 0747576831
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [39]
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [40]
    • ^ R.G. Kent. Old Persian. Grammer, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed., New Haven, Conn.
    • ^ R.G. Kent. Old Persian. Grammer, texts, lexicon. 2nd ed., New Haven, Conn.
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [41]
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [42]
    • ^ R.W. Thomson. History of Armenians by Moses Khorenat’si. Harvard University Press, 1978. Pg 118, pg 166
    • ^ G. Gnoli, "IRANIAN IDENTITY ii. PRE-ISLAMIC PERIOD" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Online accessed in 2010 at [43]
    • ^ The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002.
    • ^ MacKenzie D.N. Corpus inscriptionum Iranicarum Part. 2., inscription of the Seleucid and Parthian periods of Eastern Iran and Central Asia. Vol. 2. Parthian, London, P. Lund, Humphries 1976-2001
    • ^ D.N. Mackenzie, "ĒRĀN, ĒRĀNŠAHR" in Encyclopedia Iranica. Accessed here in 2010: [44]
    • ^ N. Sims-Williams, "Further notes on the Bactrian inscription of Rabatak, with the Appendix on the name of Kujula Kadphises and VimTatku in Chinese". Proceedings of the Third European Conference of Iranian Studies (Cambridge, September 1995). Part 1: Old and Middle Iranian<Studies, N. Sims-Williams, ed. Wiesbaden, pp 79-92
    • ^ The "Aryan" Language, Gherardo Gnoli, Instituto Italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, Roma, 2002
    • ^ Hamza Isfahani, Tarikh Payaambaraan o Shaahaan, translated by Jaf'ar Shu'ar,Tehran: Intishaaraat Amir Kabir, 1988.