Talk:Aryan race/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Before you Comment![edit]

Iran was called Persia in European languages but for Iranians their country name has always been IRAN! And now what is IRAN? EIR-AN ARYAN(S), belong to ARYANS, would be just as one say FRENCH! Israeli, Norwegian. EN-IRAN or AN-IRAN NOT ARYAN, simply means foreigner, stranger, or alien in a non-racist fashion! The conclusion: please do not corrupt IRANIANS national ID! Would you like it if we Iranians begin to mythify our national ID and go so far like Hitler to kill millions of innocent Jews? If you are French would you like us Iranians murder Indians in the name of "French race?" Europeans are so inferior when it’s about identity! They are either bobbling to be higher than every body else or they go so down as slaves - remember Christianity saved EUROPEANS from slavery culture they had through out whole continent! Thanks Jesus who was a Jewish good guy! Oh, I should not forget INDIA, the Vedic text and symbols in India referring some white what ever as ARYAN ? .. Well ask an Australian or New Zealander or Canadian what is their connection with "ENGLISH"? As language, culture? And bla bla bla bal boop! Have common sense! Bye bye, kisses whether you are, master or slave, black or white and LEAVE MY NATIONAL IDENTITY to serve its own purpose, so I am Iranian, WOW you ask, what does it mean? It means EIR-AN-NI ....IRANI,.... where are you from? I am from Pakistan! Good what does it mean? It means the clean land! So get over with it! Oh, PS: Ghana the African nation - means SUPERIOR! And unlike EUROPEANS they don't go around terrorizing people just because they don't know usually who their FATHER might be?!! (talk) 10:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

English word ARYAN comes from Adamic Proto-Indo-European [1] word "Arios" - host, lord, master, and while it applies to Proto-Indo-European original name "Arioiskos dnghus" - ARYAN TONGUE, then it means in NON-RACIST context "Language of Our LORD One God in Three Persons", because it is unconfused original human language from before Babel as stated by Catholic blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich. Full proof with Anne Catherine Emmerich citations is here: [2]. Why you bother about your CONFUSED nations? Let's forget them, and become Catholic Adamites under One True God again! All Jewish and Catholic religious terms have their PIE cognates already - let's search PIE words that are similar to their Hebrew (especially consonant roots), Greek and Latin confused descendants both in sounding and meaning. Wikinger (talk) 10:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrus111 (talkcontribs)

Can you please Identify the genetic codes of these Proto-Indo-Europeans where the "English word" Aryan is derived from? Who were they, whats their descent? (see haplogroup r1a1 as possible Proto-Indo-Europeans "source") Cyrus111 (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If not, this would be just another theory of linking something with someting else. Cyrus111 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I called word "Aryan" as English, because I meant that this word is anglicized. It of course is derived from PIE root *ario- host, lord, master, but rather in context "Language of our Master - God " that I described above. Wikinger (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You say:

Why you bother about your CONFUSED nations? Let's forget them, and become Catholic Adamites under One True God again!

A state religion (also called an official religion, established church or state church) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state.

This is not endorsed in the West, where separation of state and church is.

Lets become Catholic Adamites under One True God again!

Islam recognizes all prophets of the Bible while Islams prophet is not recognized,

The World Christian Database as of 2007 estimated that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world (1.84%),

All countries can mix and incorporate different cultures and make it into a beautiful thing as this is related to aesthetics, sociology, social psychology, culture. All peoples cultures or religions should be recognized rather than ostracized one should be realistic in analysis, and this will lead to peace eventually, Cyrus111 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Anne Catherine Emmerich had revelations about our Adamic beginnings directly from God, which I described there. Of course all satanic/magic/occultic/esoteric beliefs and heritages must become ostracized, because they all came from hell, and only separates us from One True God. Wikinger (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Adam Pārsa, Pārsahyā puça; Ariya, Ariya ciça...

"I am Persian, son of a Persian; an Aryan, having Aryan lineage."

That is why we are called Achaemenids (Friendly in Nature), from antiquity we have been Aryan (noble); from antiquity has our dynasty been royal. Behistun Inscription UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2006. [3] Cyrus111 (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is human pride that causes calling us as lords by us, that is not allowed by Catholicism. Better assign PIE root *ario- host, lord, master, in context "Language of our Master - God" which is too original language of His children, that I described above, to avoid human pride. Our God is One, but in Three Persons, as here: Image:Holy_Trinity_scheme.svg As you see, One True God has spherical shape, and is consisted of three unseparatable full concentrical spherical Persons, that are sharing relevant parts of Their volume. This revelation about God along with identity of Adamic language as Proto-Indo-European, comes from Anne Catherine Emmerich. Wikinger (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I was refering to the "Adam" part. You can read about the "PIE" root in the Aryan article. And yes I want Iranian youth (2/3 under 25) to feel proud about their heritage because they have this right after all bias propaganda for years, and they are not arrogant in their pride. I´ll thank you for coming to the AR article and inviting people Catholicism. However things are not as easy as you say. You make it sound like we received our languages like some guy receiving some holy script. The Uralic languages are not related to Indo-European lang. Languages were not "given to us" (in the way you described it) but evolved over time and then spread via trade, military campaigns or cultural dominance. And this article is about AR, just like you wouldn´t go in to the art. about some other peoples and invite them to Buddhism. I will look into the revelations of Anne Catherine Emmerich.Cyrus111 (talk) 12:38, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please especially look into Anne Catherine Emmerich's revelations here: and search for following statement:

"The first tongue, the mother tongue, spoken by Adam, Sem, and Noe, was different, and it is now extant only in isolated dialects. Its first pure offshoots are the Zend, the sacred tongue of India, and the language of the Bactrians. In those languages, words may be found exactly similar to the Low German of my native place. The book that I see in modern Ctesiphon, on the Tigris, is written in that language."

it proofs, that Proto-Indo-European is Adamic, (more commented and proofed here) because its Indo-European offshoots such as Bactrian, Zend and Indian can be derived only from Proto-Indo-European ancestor. As you see, our confused non-PIE, but IE and other languages are result of fragmentation of PIE at Babel. Pentecostal unity under One True God that occured 2000 years ago is only beginning of long reunifying process that will be finished when all people regain their original PIE mother language again. Finally, to be proud from confused heritage is to be proud from unperfect results of our sins at Babel, which is sin of pride, except pride from God and His Cross:

"Ga 6:14 But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world."

Wikinger (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikinger, people are trying to have a reasonable debate here. That's difficult as it is, without you sprinkling in random unrelated nonsense. We should enforce talk discipline around here. "Aryan" attracts crackpot posts like few other topics. dab (𒁳) 21:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


Actually Aryans invaded India and spoilt the base culture of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

This page makes it sound a lot like the Aryan invasions never happened. However, last I heard anyways, there was some pretty good evidence that they did, the introduction of Indo-European languages closely akin to those introduced in Iran being of special note. If we're claiming that the transition was mostly confined to the upper strata and that the migrants were quickly assimilated, like the Mitanni in Syria, we should say so. Otherwise we should provide some strong references, because this sounds fairly controversial.

Another poster: I agree. The evidence of the Aryan migration into India is mostly denied by Hindu Nationalists who wish to argue that the Vedas originated in the Indus Valley Civilisation. The liguistic evidence that it occurred is strong, as is recent genetic evidience.

Both sides greatly exaggerated the story. The British in India claimed that the Aryans invaded from central Asia and destroyed the native Indus Valley civilization (which is not supported by archaeoloigcal evidence). The Hindu nationalists claim that the Aryans and the Dravidians are the same people (which is also incorrect). The Aryan migration is certainly a fact, but Aryan invasion is not (or at least highly doubtful). (I'm a student of Indian history, and fairly sure of my NPOV here). -- Arvindn

This article claims that because Darius the Great claimed to be descended from the Aryans, this proves that they existed. That argument doesn't hold water. -- Zoe

It's Zoe's bizarre criticism that doesn't hold any water at all. Does she imagine that Darius thought the 'Aryans' were god-like mythic ancestors? Surely the article makes it clear that the word had no such connotations at this time. He's simply saying that he descends from the ruling ethnic group in Persia. Paul

I'm not sure either one of you are making sense. Isn't it possible that Darius was using "Aryan" in its original meaning as "noble"? It's certainly not bizarre for a king to claim descent from noblemen. --Ben

Well, yes, Ben's is a valid point. Several translations of the inscription do give the phrase as 'I am of noble descent..'. However that's obviously the same as saying that he descends from the ruling group. The question is whether this group saw themselves as ethnically distinct at this time. The jury is probably out on that one. I've altered the text to take account of that. Paul.

My understanding is that the Aryan myth was invented in Europe to explain the dissemination of Indo-European languages, around the turn of the century. The English and the Germans, interpreting Indo-European settlement in India as a conquest, and having vague reports of Dorian invasions in Greek prehistory, figured that Indo-European languages were the remnants of a vast horde of conquerors, who had the advantage of horses and chariots, and used them to overwhelm previous civilizations. This is where the Goddess, matriarchy versus patriarchy, and similar beliefs come from, BTW. My understanding is that almost all archaeologists and anthropologists reject this model now, at least as it applies in Europe. As to what the status of the belief system is in India is another matter. Some note ought to be taken of what the Vedas say about the different peoples in India, which my understanding was they were quoted in support of the myth by the British. It does seem designed with one eye on the prospect of making sure that the conquerors were aligned with the highest castes. -- IHCOYC 19:03 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I don't see how "aryan" can be a myth invented by Europeans. There are seveal clear mentions of the very words "arya" in Persian Achaemenids inscriptions (for example from Darius-I and Xerxes), which are nearly 2500 years old. Even before that, in the Avesta, there are clear mentions of "arya" and "ariana" (land of Aryans) as the first land that Ahura Mazda created on earth. There are several Achaemenid Persians with "arya" as part of their names, as recorded in their Inscriptions as well are recorded by Greek historian Herodotus. Examples: Ariamarta, Ariaborzin, Ariaramnes, etc ... and there are even more modern iranians with "aria" or "arya" as their names or part of their names.
The name "aryan" is not a myth invented by Europeans. The word appears from India to Ireland. The myth is that Europe was conquered by Aryans, who displaced a pre-existing, non-Aryan culture. -- IHCOYC 20:06 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have never heard about the theory of Aryans from the east "conquering" Europe or anything to that effect, but my understanding of the theory (based on linguistic anthropology) is that some Aryans migrated to Europe. I don't know how else to explain the undeniable linguistic commonality of the so-called Indo-European languages.
The Aryan myth as I understand it is more about cultural and religious replacement. It was a nineteenth century theory; supposedly there are clues in Greek mythology and similar things about how patriarchal, sky-god worshipping nomads arrived and conquered the fertility goddess worshipping people who lived before. The proof is supposed to be the spread of Indo-European languages. The problem is that there isn't really any evidence of widespread, consistent cultural replacement like you'd expect from this scenario in the archeological record. That, and there's no way of telling what language people spoke from pre-literate artifacts. There are of course two spins you can put on this: "hooray for the Aryan Supermen!" or "boo-hoo for the lost peaceful utopia of goddessdom." You don't get much of the first spin anymore, but you still get the second from some sources, which is only the flip side of the first. -- IHCOYC 01:51, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It seems to me your education on this subject is more based on novels and mythology than on factual academic research. If you could divorce from your mind the Nazi notion of the Aryan theory and instead investigate it academically, chances are you would not be so sensitive about the term, which, afterall, has thousands of years of "literate" ( to borrow your term ) documented history. Again, how else can the linguistic cognateness of the Indo-European language family be explained if not from a common root?
You might want to take a look at Poliakov's The Aryan Myth, or even Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans for a more popular look, on the state of thinking about the existence of an Aryan race or an Aryan conquest of Europe. Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles also has some good information about more recent interpretation of mythology in this matter. While the hypothesis of the original unity of Indo-European languages is about as well established as anything in linguistics, the notion of Aryan conquests and cultural replacements is pretty much toast. I'm not arguing against the unity of Indo-European, only against the existence of conquerors who formed a cohesive and identifiable Aryan race. It seems likelier that the Indo-European languages were spread by mostly peaceful means that integrated into, rather than replaced, existing cultures in most places. -- IHCOYC 13:35, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the argument is here. No-one these days accepts the 'aryan master-race' concept, but I don't see how the IE languages can have got into Europe without large scale migrations of IE speakers from their staging area. This would have meant the displacement of pre-existing populations. This is hardly likely to have happened peacefully - though in some areas it may have done, depending on the size of the original population. The evidence is abundant that ancient population movements were not peaceful affairs. This current idea that some sort of happy acculturation took place seems to me to be at least as 'mythic' as the conquering master-race claim. It's a product of post-modern consumerist ideologies, just as much as the conquering race theory was a product of imperialism. Paul
That begs the larger question of where the IE speakers originally lived, which is something that remains a subject for a great deal of debate. The assumption of the conquest model typically starts with a very small area for IE to originate from, and that the broadcast of the language took place from a small homeland. Since various areas ranging from Germany to the Aral Sea have been ventured for the Aryan homeland, the hypothesis would have required the Aryans to have been a major imperial power. It seems unlikely that an army of 5000 BC could have achieved this goal, esp. w/o a written language.
Moreover, the Aryan myth affirms the existence of a civilization destroyed by Aryan conquerors. Total language replacement requires that the conquered people reject their original culture and cleave to their conquerors'. In Iberia and Gaul, Roman language replaced the native speech; in Britain and North Africa, it failed to do so, as it did in Greece. The Aryan myth is somewhat inconsistent, in that it affirms that the conquered pre-Aryans had a valuable and important culture, which was obliterated except for vague references in mythology that enable us to reconstruct its existence.
I tend to believe that the spread of IE occurred relatively early, at some point between the collapse of the Cro-Magnon high hunting culture and the rise of agriculture. It happened not because there was a mighty Aryan empire, durable enough to replace other people, but because the Aryan way of life allowed survival and settlement of areas that were no longer intensively inhabited by humans. Of course this is one theory among many. -- IHCOYC 13:43, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Well I think you are mistaken about 'the Aryan myth'. There was no such thing at any time as a single 'Aryan myth'. Scholars and ideologues of various kinds developed the idea of Indo-European/'Aryan' identity in many different ways during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, I know of none of importance who claimed that there was an Aryan 'empire' with a large army that invaded other territories in which 'civilisations' were already established.
Of course Persia can be called an 'Aryan empire' that invaded other civilised territories, but that's a very different matter from the IE occupation of Europe. No major scholar of the past as far as I know ever claimed that Persian expansion into Mesopotamia was preceded by some pre-Persian Aryan empire that expanded into (or from) Europe and destroyed civilisations. Typically they claimed that pre-Aryan populations were simply less energetic and effective than the Aryans, or that they lacked Aryan military technology and martial culture. If anything, the model was a kind of social Darwinism in which smallish independent groups of entrepeneurial Aryans were thought to have displaced, subordinated or annihilated less dynamic opponents. The model was derived more from Germanic population movements in the so-called 'dark ages' than from Roman or Persian imperial expansion. At no point was a pre-existing 'civilisation' in Europe assumed to have existed. Paul

note: the theory or assumption that most Germans are descended from Aryans/Iranians, is Uber-spurious!! I would never bet any money i could ever have on such an idea. the Germanic folk are descended fom the Baltic/North Sea area. What i speak of is a well known fact around the world, and what self-respecting german would call himself an Iranian? nada, just a cult-mastermind conspiracy by NAZIs who didnt know what the fuck they were talking about, unless all they meant was to create ethnic violence. why would hitler advocate pangermanism on Iranian(ie,Muslim) roots and he's part jewish, out of freakin' Austria? what a retard! hello! Iran vs Israel in the Mid East, not a new thing at all...D-U-H-! ____Ramir 09:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC):

The Nazi claim was that the Germans - or more strictly the 'Nordics' - were IE (Indo-European) peoples whose IE ethnicity was 'purer' than that of other peoples. Other Europeans had, they claimed, been mixed with non IE peoples. None of this has anything to do with Muslims. The ancient IE peoples of Persia were not Muslim. They were Zoroastrian. Rosenberg recommended Zoroastrianism as the model 'Aryan' religion. The term 'Aryan' was preferred to 'Indo-European' and 'Indo-German' partly because it is shorter and more memorable, and partly because it is Sanskrit for 'noble' - an ideal name for a master race. Of course all of this is a mixture of real history and spurious nonsense. But is dangerous because it seems plausible, not obviously 'retard' stuff, as you call it. Paul

This page seems not to be taking the Aryan origin of (most of) European peoples, or even the very existence of Aryan nation, as a proven historical fact. But I have never seen any other books etc. expressing any doubt on that issue.

Could the authors possibly provide any links to source material? Ramir 09:42, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean by an 'Aryan nation'. There's little doubt that there was a PIE population, and of course that there was an Iranian population. Likwise the existence of an Indo-Aryan population is not disputed.
As for Europeans, there is good reason to believe that non IE speaking peoples preceded the IE speakers and that they continued to exist into historical times (e.g Etruscans, Basques). Likewise, parts of Europe were populated by other non-IE speakers later. The genetic contribution of the PIEs is impossible to determine at present. Paul Barlow

The whole notion of Aryan Invasion is nonsense. No archeological evidence indicates a war overthrowing the Indus/Saraswati civilization. The oldest mention of Ar/Arya/Aryan is in Sanskrit texts then in Avestan. The people of India considered themselves as arya meaning noble in that they were farmers-earning an honest living, meaning they offered prayer and believed in the Vedas, meaning they were noble in character. The people of ancient Indian vis a vis Indus/Saraswati civilization show remarkable and SIGNIFICANT DNA markers to the present population of the state of Punjab. This evidence confers the people of the past were similar to the people you will see there today. Furthermore, previous archeological work was done to 'prove' european colonial angst and desires to show the world they are superior-so no wonder if a document, glyph or coin evidenced an advanced purely Aryan culture in India would somehow 'disappear'. Recent work since the 1990's onwards has shed more light on the Aryan invasion theory-the theory is proven to be false and aryans are actually Indians-however the 'old school' will never believe this despite actually having evidence indicating what they have so aptly hidden for the last hundred years. These are the very same people that will say 'Oh it is just hindu nationalist at work etc." Come on people wake up! First you believe conjecture and now you wont believe actual science? Wake up! Aryans are not imported to India but an export. The spread of Indo European confirms this as well. The language spread from India and went westward. Why do people always pick an obscure place in the Russian steppes as a centre of IE? Wake up! The Indus/Saraswati civilization supported a population base of over 1 million back in 6500BCE+/-2000. Is it not just child's play to figure out were a language may have evolved and spread from? The reality is the Europeans of Yor could not live with them selves if their linguo/socio/cultural existence came from India (how could a snake charming, curry licking Hindu be my forfather? rubbish...oh goody it is tea time-Hmmmm tea is an Indian idea exported to China and the west....anyways.....I am tired of being the only white guy realizing his true homeland....India.......for christ's sake.......Krishna in ancient Greek is Kristos which is Christ!!!!!!!Arya Varta becomes today's Bharat......

I Think that You are mistaking Christianity as a native Aryan culture. Monotheïsm was not yet invented at this point in history. The Aryan race is just a name given to the IE race, which invaded not as an army or empire, but rather as tribes like happened after the fall of the Roman empire. Wherever a tribe settled, it mixed with the people already living there, which, in Europe, were Proto-Europeans, from whom the white colour, for example, is a heritage. They were the ones already adapted to the climate and that was why they looked like that, with little pigment. In Arabia, the Indo-Europeans mixed with larger quantities of "Nubians", who were, in Egyptian times, mostly slaves (Egyptian rulers and nobleman are always pictured with a white skin. It is most logical that, becuase in that climate they couldn't have been white, it was to further contrast them from the Nubian slaves). After those times mixing occured, resulting in the Jewish, and Arab tribes, all of whom were monotheistic, in contrast to the European Indo-Europeans and the original Indo-Europeans, currently extinct as a distinctial race, and their "purest" children still living in India. The Indo-Europeans brought a lot of their culture into Europe, mixing with already existing tribes, to create the peoples whe knew in the Roman times, and who mixed again to what we are now. The Indo Europeans of Arabia first opressed the original, Nubian groups, and used them as slaves. This can be seen in remains of Egyptian and Persian culture. The lower social groups already began mixing at early times, I think, while the nobleman tried to remain distinct as long as possible. The existence of the various European tribes caused the difference between the various Indo-European cultures:
  • Balts
  • Celts
  • Germans
  • Greeks / Mycenians / Koptics / Dorics
  • Romans
  • Slavs
The Pictish and Finnish peoples are said to be the more "pure" Proto-Europeans, barely mixed with Indo-Europeans.
Mixing between Indo-Europeans and Nubian tribes resulted in the Arabian/Yewish tribes. The Nubians were all very similar creating less distinct tribes. Monotheïsm is their invention, probably invented by the local Nubians before mixing. Polytheïsm is an invention of Indo-Europeans, long before their migration. Proof of this is the close relationship between, for example, Hinduïsm and Germanic Heathenry. Note than none of the above groups is to be seen as superior or inferior. The links between certain groups and slavery were, as I believe, made by the ancient cultures, and are not my opinion. The reason of wars not being described in ancient text is that it wasn't an invasion like in Holywood movies, but rather a migration, resulting sometimes in war, but sometimes in direct mixing.

Actually Finnish are quite mixed with IEs, although their language is not IE. I think you are referring to Lapps perhaps?

The Germanic myth about the joining of the Æsir and Vanir is often seen as a symbolic mirroring of the joining of an Indo-European tribe and a Proto-European one. The Æsir represent the Indo-Europeans, the Vanir the Proto-Europeans. The Æsir were a warrior Gods, the Vanir fertility Gods. The Indo-Europeans were warriors and nomads, the Proto-Europeans agricultural farmers / gatherers / hunters. The Æsir and the Vanir, in the myth, fought a terrible war, until they realised that destroying each other was not a good idea, and that more could be gained by coorporation, the one relying on the strengths of the other, and vice versa. This might be what happened between the tribes to, the myth being a symbolic chronical. (BrahnTelpefin 05:51, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC))

Contemporary anthropologists who believe in the existence of an ancient Aryan race generally have the opinion that its closest descendants today are the Persians, not the Germans; that is, if Aryans existed, they were white after the manner of imperial-era, pre-Muslim Persians, and possibly the Circassians and southern Slavs, but certainly not the Nordic Germans and English.

The name Aryan reffers to a culture once located in India. Wheter this culture was Indo-European or Indo-Iranian is still the subject of discussions. It can even have been before Indo peoples split into a European and an Iranian group. Persians are Indo-Iranian, and thus related to Indo-European cultures like English. This is not a very close relationship, but apparently some political groups saw it big enough to base their theories about. That is why the name also came to mean Indo-European (and in lesser extend still means Indo-Iranian). BrahnTelpefin 09:34, Oct 22, 2004 (UTC)

Could someone tell me why southern slavs?

what BrahnTelpefin said. (yawn, another "scientific" indian nationalist). PIE is not derived from Indo-Iranian, and much less from Sanskrit: Labiovelars. Vowel-contrasts (a,e,o). etc. Parts of the RV describe the Aryan invasion, at least read your own sacred texts. The PIEans were an obscure tribe, just like any other, just their language proved successful, later. The concept of "closest descendant" is completely flawed. If you and I are each 500 generations removed from a common ancestor, which of us is the "closer descendant"? The whole thing is a question of terminology: In some uses Aryan=PIE, and then Slavs are just as aryan as Persians. In some uses, Aryan=Indo-Iranian, and then Farsi, Hindi, Urdu, Kurdish etc. speakers are all equally aryan, but not the rest of the IE group. The article Aryan makes this clear already. dab 11:08, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We are all supposed to believe that the nomadic , barbarian , cattle herding Aryan tribes actually wrote the Rig Vedas . This defies common sense . I have heard some writers refer to the vedas as merely hymns in praise of demigods . Such writers have clearly not read the Rig Ved even in its translated versions ( which in any case are full of mistakes and misinterpretations and can never capture the true meaning ) . There is no ancient book as profound or as philosophical as the Rig Ved . Just read the various creation hymns ( Rig Veda 10.121 , 10.129 , 10.130 ) . To suggest that Rig Veda was the product of nomads is the equivalent of suggesting that the Bible was a product of humanoids ( No disrespect intended to the Bible).Without going into various archeological , geological and other evidences which seriously undermine AIT , common sense is sufficient to tell us that Vedic literature was the product of a mature , urbanised society which had sufficient surplus resources to afford higher intellectual persuits . We are also told now that there was no Aryan Invasion but only migration and that too from Afganistan . Let us remember that Afganistan was just a part of India . The scenario being suggested now is that small bands of "Aryans" came down from the hills of Afganistan to the plains of Punjab and gently persuaded the original Proto Munda Highly urbanized Harrapan City dwellers to leave the fertile lands and retreat into the hills and jungles of Central India where they not only lost all advances in technology but even the science of writing . The Central Indian tribes have no native script even today . The displaced people conveniently forgot all that they knew about urban living and adapted to the blisfull state of being hunters and gatherers . Alternatively , it is suggested that the Aryan mingled with the city dwellers who were so impressed with these nomads that they gave up their language and cultural traditions and adopted those of the nomads . Not only that , the migrants also became the high priests , so godlike they were .And let us forget that these migrants are supposed to have lived originally in the Caspian basin area which even today is a backwater of civilization .

The proponents of the AIT ( Now called AMT and that to only from Afganistan ) remind me of the blind men groping an elephant . Each comes up with an interpretation limited by his faculties . Before the second half of 19th century , noone in India had heard of this Aryan nonsense . Is it possible that such impotant events can be completely erased from the collective racial memory . We are told now that the Dravidian migration took place at the same time as the Aryans were coming in . The Dravidians started from Iran and went south , via Gujarat . The Aryans went East . This is complete nonsense . The Vedas have been transmitted by word of mouth for hundreds (maybe thousands) of years . Are we to assume that only those hymns which spoke of migrations have been conveniently lost . All pilgrimages of Hinduism are within the Indian sub continent . Not one is beyond . What does it mean ?

It is becoming clear that the AIT was a racially motivated attempt by Europen scholars to deny antiquity to Indian civilization and to divide Indian society . The Philologists are increasingly finding it difficult to marshall facts to fit theory . Therefore , we are now to believe that some local nomads from the hills sneaked into the rich , urbanized plains where cities were flourishing and grovelled before the urban natives to leave the fertile plains for them . Of course , poor as these nomads were , they had developed some of the post advanced philosophy known to mankind . What absurdity ! And what a climbdown from the earlier theory of blond , blue eyed Nordics charging in horse driven chariots and laying waste all in their path , like Panzers . Does anyone seriously want to believe such an absurd theory .

why go through so much rubbish and myths- look at the cold hard facts, IRAN means land of the aryans - not land of peoples who speak indo-european languages or any other rubbish, darius and other persian kings claimed to be of aryan decent, herodotus one of the most ancient writers described iranians as aryans, indian texts also catagorize north indians as aryans. the fact is the aryans came from the indo-iranian region, Europeans barely exisisted for them to come down to the middle east and invade. iranian history spans 12000 yrs ago were decorated ceramics have been found, the indians have had a even longer civilisation - at this time the northern europeans still used clubs and lived in caves, the agricultural revolution wich started in the middle east and introduced homes and agri-commerce did not reach northern europe until 5000 yrs after its development in the mid east, how can these tools with nothing, up and go and invade such a perdiodically advanced cultures!

As a Persian or Iranian NAME DARIUSH is mentioned above , I would cognetively would like to break the definition to see what we find in EUROPEAN or GERMANIC languages :

DARIUSH = DA'AREIU'ASH, DA'EREIO'ESH,,,,, DA is an old Iranian "respective" suffix as "THE" in English.....then continues .....AREIO ..... means the owner, some one who owns , OWN = REIO , REIGE , REICHE , RICH , ...... then.. the rest of the definition ,,,, ASH or ESH ,,, in english "ISH" as in IRISH ,,, EICHE in german , "ISK" in scandinavian....... woobs I could analyze more than 60% of your own words you have used above has its root in OLD IRANIAN languages ! so maybe IRANIAN had empire in EUROPE ? ( scythians ) how come so many words and definition came to europe solily from IRAN ? DARIUSH is boy name in IRAN and the same name in EUROPE is ERIK , ERIC , ERICHE , etc ! ,,, without a DA as suffix ,,,, THE-ERICHE = DARIUSH ..... he was a great King of Persia ... many kings with same name? .. another insteresting definition : a revolution in persia during before Zaratoustran times ,, called : the philosophy of mind ,, the iranians realized that a thinker CLASS is needed for society... then AR ESTO XRATIA was the TERM , in persian AR ( nobel or the special one) ESTO ( is or existance ) Xratia ( intelectualizer ) Xratia comes from XURDA and xurda means smallest peice,,, a matter to become analytically smaller peices to understand the dillema and its european definition = ( ARISTOCRAT ) ,,, greeks borrowed the definition .....the same Xratia became used for POWER ELITE , uper class , the Kratia in greek "power" even English CRASH is related to this word !! crash and make it to many peices ! ,,,,, the word for "I" ,,,, MAN ,, its root ,, means "THE HOUSE" mana ,,, and its cognative branches in european languages : MAN ( human , notice that man in persian means I ) , manner , mani , manes , mind , meaning , mana , ment ( az in mental ) , menes , and etc etc more exciting ,, the saxonic word LORD ,, comes from two old iranian words ,,, EHLAAF + weard = which was compressed into one word during Saxonic invation of Britania = LORD ( EHLAAF or EHLAOF means rhetorically speaking ,,, in persian still one say RAJAZ khaani ,VERD, LAAF ,,, )! this might be enough or you get too comfused ! I think germanic people were dropped down from MARS ? or maybe they grew out of snow ? some how one can not connect them to HUMAN TREE ? if we all came from Africa and followed the footsteps of ICE SMELTING ,,, why would GERMANIC or EUROPEANS be exceptional here? As most of central asia was covered by ICE also spanish pyrenees it is natural to guess that European stocks walked to europe through a large platue called I R A N ! By the way : Aryan simply means NOBELS and it supports hyerarchy of society the TOP are preist class , for instance ISLAMIC republic of IRAN is related to Aryan culture rather than islamic ! the same in India , the highest class are Brahmins , so Aryan is CULTURAL definition and has nothing to do with race ! even Israelites ment they were children of God ,,, to differ them selves from others ,,, this tendens was common when nordic zone of human branch met southern zone ,, not because of RACE ! but because of CULTURAL differances ,,, now , I don't mean this difference is or was a good thing , it was beggining of Patriarchal universalism and have gradually ruined Matriarchal societies of southern zone which were less restrictive and more open ! the three abrahamic religion are the result of INDOEUROPEANS patriarch which made our world so UGLY. and that makes me run away from ARYA bullshit ! how ever my family name is ARYANA!

PS: The political elite in our times has its genealogical connection to that of " the revolution of mind" which has taken place amongth Aryans and its result has reshaped or built a greater complexion of society the two example would be India and Iran, just as European UNION and AMERICAN STATES,,,,its package was fullfillment of two books, VEDA ( India ), and AVESTA (Iran) , again notice = Avesta, vist, vista , vesta, vida, viden, veda, video, vision, another common indoeuropean word which means "TO SEE", "TO KNOW". The two books became the core foundation of so called INDOEUROPEAN VISIONISM which has already entirely acculturated our world.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, THE INVASION THEORY is false! the word aryan did not even appear in europe until a short while ago. I too find it hard to beleive that the less advanced european aryans could have invaded and take over the indo-pars region. We all have to agree that civilisation started in the middleast and it then moved to europe and asia, if any ethnicity had to start somewere it would be in the oldest region on earth, the indo-pars , iraq, israel, egypt areas!

removed paragraph[edit]

Much of these theories were simply conjecture on the part of European imperialism, as there is nothing in the ancient Indian literature to suggest that caste had any kind of racial basis. There is also no record in the vast corpus of ancient Indian texts of people with white racial features, and archaeological findings show that the inhabitants of the region had much the same racial features as the current population.

I removed this because:

  • I'm getting tired of attempts to lump the "Aryan invasion theory" together with the Nazi use of the term. The racist part of the Nazi use is the suprematist idea, "these tribes were superior". Simply saying "this tribe walked from A to B" is not racist or imperialist at all.
  • It is not true as stated. See caste: the very term for caste means "colour". Skin colour is commonly included under "racial features" (sometimes used as the only feature used for classification, see the US use of "African American" vs. "Caucasian": they don't measure your nose length to classify you, they just look at your skin). It is a simple fact that the 'higher' castes, especially the Brahmans still (4000 years after the supposed 'invasion') clearly have a lighter skin tone than the lower castes, especially the Shudra. I don't know what the archaeological finds are supposed to tell us: we are not talking about different species here, just different "races", i.e. humans with a quite minimal genetic difference.
  • I do not want to censor the fact that the Brits used the theory for imperialistic purposes. But such criticism would have to be phrased differently: In as much as they did, it would reflect badly on the Brits, and not on the theory itself.

dab () 14:03, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The selection was not in reference to the "Aryan invasion theory" which is another topic in itself. As an aside though, the notion of invasion is in many ways inextricable from the idea of racial supremacy, as it was used to legitimate the European conquest of India and other "uncivilized" nations. The Europeans claimed they were simply doing what the Aryan ancestors of the Indians had done thousands of years ago.

But getting back to the topic at hand, its clear that the Europeans were primarily the first ones to "racialize" the notion of caste, as prior to the English conquest of the sub-continent, there was no conception of caste having anything to do with race, ethnicity, or skin color. There is nothing in ancient Indian literature to suggest a racialized view of society based on skin tone. "Varna" means "color", but that color does not refer to "skin color"; the root word for Varna is 'Vri' which means one's occupation. It refers to the nature of one's supposed character (gunas) and the daily activities that each group performs. As Wikipedia's section on caste states:

"The varna system is based on division on labor. The colors are based upon the daily activities of each group. The Brahmin wears white because he performs various sacrifices and has to be clean. Any impurities will show on the white clothing. The Kshatriya warriors wear red because they see a lot of blood and wounds as they practice their daily warrior routines. The Vaishya traders handle items like turmeric and other spices and they wear yellow because it masks the colour. The Shudras wear blue because the color blue was more appropriate for the work environment".

If caste truly was originally predicated on ethnicity, where are these "blue", "yellow", and "red" skinned people? Clearly there are none. As I said before, it is only the Western world, with its narrow conception of race and skin color that emerged in the 18th and 19th centuries, that read a racial angle into these terms. Many Bhramans do have lighter skin tones, but there are many who have dark skin as well. Many Vaishyas and Shudras also have lighter skin, and many Kshatriyas are quite dark-skinned. These kind of observations tell us little about the origins of a system that developed over 4000 years ago, well before notions of "race" had become firmly embedded into the social discourse. Im not a supporter of the caste system, as I believe it has outlived its purpose, but any discussion about its origins cant be complete without mentioning that its "racial" nature is more a creation of European colonialist academia than any reality.

I disagree completely. But I don't have the time for this. Much more like that, and I'll just slap "NPOV, Cleanup" on the article. You cannot just change the intro to
  • Aryan race is a notion mentioned in the Old Persian inscriptions

That's completely bogus. If anything, the Persians had a notion of "Aryans", not of "Aryan race". The sweeping statement about the "vast corpus of Indian literature" will be very difficult to back up, and is, at that, completely irrelevant here. This article is about "Aryan race", and Indian varna only appears here in asmuch as it is seen as a continuation of a migration of that people. Discussion of Brahmins garments belongs on the varna article itself. Add to that the ridiculous theosophia paragraph pasted into the "fascism" section. If people simply slap their pov on articles in passing, it will never be balanced. I ask you for references about what you say about the "vast corpus". I ask you for reference that "Aryan race" appears in Persian inscriptions (rather than in 19th century English). dab () 12:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the comments regarding the Aryan Race and Persia, the Persians used the word Aryan, as did also the Hindus, Buddhists and Jains, but not with the meaning of "Aryan Race", i.e. not designating racial or linguistic groups. The theosophical part has changed since then, it is important to note in the article that Blavatsky was not racist, and that her definition of the Aryan (Fifth Root) Race was broad, and not only limited to blue-eyed, blond people. She used the word Aryan in several meanings, most importantly as the Aryan Fifth Root Race, with a meaning more related to large time periods than to "Race", and she also used the word "Aryan" in the spiritual and religious meaning of the word. It is interesting to note that she may have been among the earliest critics of Max Muller, who is credited with the introduction of the term Aryan in linguistic studies. One chapter of her book Isis Unveiled is titled "India the cradle of the race", which indicates that she thought that the homeland of the "Aryans" was India rather than Afghanistan. (I think it is possible that the Hindus may have originally come from Afghanistan, or maybe even (though improbable) from the North Pole (as suggested by Tilak) or from Tibet or even from a "sunken continent" for that matter, but that was more probably long before 1500 BC.)
As to the case of the "vast corpus of Indian literature", if we only look at Sanskrit literature the statement could be correct, there are descriptions of black hair in Sanskrit literature, but apparently only one of "golden hair" (apart from gods). (See [4] and citation below) I once heard about a hindu solar deity with golden hair (don't remember where), but solar deities and sun gods are usually symbolized with golden hair. There are also blue-skinned gods in Hindu mythology, does this mean that there once were blue skinned people? In any case, some Hindus have and may have had lighter hair, and they may have been lighter or darker in the past, but Sanskrit literature does not seem to give much importance to race, or to hair, eye and skin color. And also, the Hindus, ancient and modern, do indeed have caucasian features, because they are part of the Mediterreanean branch of the Caucasian Race. It is similar with Greece, most of the Ancient Greeks looked more or less like the modern Greeks of today, while some of them were lighter and some darker, and some were shorter and some taller etc. There were also some blue eyed, blond people and some black Africans in Greece, but most of the ancient Greeks looked like the Greeks of today.
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) Quite possibly, even the author called Hiranyakeshin or Goldhaired was not goldhaired at all, but had one of the epithets of the solar deity Vishnu as his given name, just as people called Nîlakanth, "blue-throated" like Shiva after he swallowed poison, are not blue-throated at all. (...) Prof. Hock provides a detailed survey of the Vedic verses which have been cited as proof of a racial antagonism between the Vedic people and their enemies (verses containing terms like asikni and krshna, "black"), and concludes that the racial interpretation "must be considered dubious". (p.154) He points out that "early Sanskrit literature offers no conclusive evidence for preoccupation with skin color. More than that, some of the greatest Epic heroes and heroines such as Krshna, Draupadi, Arjuna, Nakula and (...) Damayanti are characterized as dark-skinned. Similarly, the famous cave-paintings of Ajanta depict a vast range of skin colors. (p.154-155) [5] --Wilsonm 01:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the western so called Sanskrit scholars interpreted some sanskrit verse in their advantage to say that aryan are white & south indian people ( dravid people )are black. In ancient India Dravid term was used to mention south beyond Vindhya Mouintain range in central India which roughly divides North & South. But Maharahtra and south gujarat people are also called Dravida in that sense but there language is mentioned as IE one. Now let me ask you all, is Italic - Greek and Norway - finnish person is not different in look and skin tone wise. Norway is in extreme North and Italy - Greece in South getting Mediteranian sun shine. So clearly more darker then Finnish poeple. So, can we say them as different racially ? ( As same logic is implied on India ). Do you know Lithuanian & Latvian has very much similarity in Grammer wise. Why these `so called Baltic' group is showing much more similarity with Sanskrit. If you know Sanskrit then it can called very much scientific language. I feel that any nomad people in central asia can produce such a scientific language ? Right or wrong ? Why after many millenium Central Asia is not advanced in language & science wise if same people who have migrated in India in form of `Aryan Migration Theory'. The Aryan Invasion becomes Migration theory ( ya, it's only theory without any proof. Right? ) And what about finding of ancient Saraswati river in NW India with all types of proofs.This same Saraswati river is cherished in Rigveda with naming her Mother River and Greatest River. This river stopped flowing Indian soil around 1900 BC and then in 1500 BC ( which is arbitrary date given by Max Muller ) so called Aryans migrates to India and writes poems in praise of Saraswati river. Really they have great feeling for the dead river then their `original' central asian homeland river that they are saying verses to praise that river whose width was 3 to 10 Km in width during her hay day. Secondly, I want to quate that when Alexander came to NW India then they were amazed to see big rivers of NW India which is written as much bigger than any native,persian or Nile in Egypt.

I say that a great culture like Indus valley civilization ( which had common weights & measurements, planned towns with waste water underground pipelines, having area much bigger than Roman, Greek , Mesopotamia , Egypt allcombined ) ; very civilized than central asian nomad wonderers can only produce very logical, phonetical and very structural language like Sanskrit and not nomad people of steppes. Secondly, Tamil people attribute their language to Sage Agatsya which was great sage from `so called Aryan world'. Just explain these riddle please !


Image:Indo-Europeans 3000-1000 BC.gif does not belong on this article. If anywhere, it belongs on Proto-Indo-European. But, it has no information as to its source (copivio?), and it is very speculative anyway (the arrows are drawn quite arbitrarily). As to the "Root Race" edits, I don't know. This article is cranky enough... What is this "Root Race" business? is it notable? dab () 19:18, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

One of the many definitions of Aryan Race and Aryan is that of the theosophical Aryan Fifth Root Race. In my opinion, the following points are important to mention in the article: a)That Blavatsky was not racist. (see for example The Key to Theosophy) b) In what different senses Blavatsky and other theosophists used these terms (most importantly she used the term Aryan Race for the Aryan Fifth Root Race,with a meaning more related to large time periods than to "Race", she also used the word Aryan in the spiritual and religious meaning of the word.) c) that her definition of the Aryan (Fifth Root) Race was broad, and not only limited to only blue-eyed and blond Germanic people (the "Nazi Germany" definition of the word). (The terms Aryan Race, Aryan and Root Race were used in a very different manner by Nazis under Nazi Germany and by "Nazi writers", it must be made clear that these terms got falsified, "perverted" and modified by such people, that these people used these terms with a very different meaning, a fact also clearly mentionned by Rudolf Steiner in his writings.) However, I will take some minor details out of the text, because the details are already mentionned in the article Root Race.
User: deleted this information: The concept of Aryan race, and the various beliefs related to it, should not be confused with the religious belief called Arianism. I don't know how important this information is, but I will revert the deletion of it, because the deletion of it should have been discussed or explained by the user. Regards, --Wilsonm 10:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suggest the "Arianism" link is given by way of a disambiguation, like on Aryan. I do not think it is necessary, though, because while somebody may conceivably type "Aryan" for "Arianism", it is unlikely that anybody is looking for information on Arianism on "Aryan race".
As for the theosophical classification, by all means, it is interesting and should be included (and referenced, because it sounds cranky and people will want to check it). It is not possible to assert that the author of a theory on "root races" is not "racist" however. Rather, we could say that these "races" are not associated with suprematist notions. "Racism" is the belief in a concept of "race" as fundamentally existent -- even if does not imply the belief that one's own race is somehow superior (or inferior), it is still racism. dab () 13:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph. I hope that this version is better. Maybe the information should be put some time or other under a separate sub-title (e.g. esotericism or religious meanings?), because it is not a "imperialist, nationalistic or nazi" use of the term. Regards, --Wilsonm 01:03, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Proto-Europeans were peaceful agricultural farmers. So called Indo-Europeans (Aryans) were Mongoloidic nomads and warriors. They were wandering in the Northern bank of Black see. About six thousands years ago, they started invading to Europe and India. They obtruded their language and mixed with Proto-Europeans. That is why many modern Europeans have Mongoloidic features. The Northern Europeans are more developed, because they lived in the severe climatic zone. It has nothing to do with any Aryans. Please, read about it the book "The realdom of the Goddess" by Marija Gimbutas. User Asevicius. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Indo-Aryan peoples[edit]

I think the bit on Vedic Aryans in the article should be moved to a separate article maybe called Indo-Aryan peoples (or maybe Indo-Aryan/Indo-Aryans or something similar). In the Ancient peoples Category [6] the "ancient peoples" don't have the term "race" in their title, I think the ancient Indo-Aryans deserve to be treated similarly. They need a separate article. The word "race" could be considered a bit pov because the Indo-Aryans could have been more than one race and especially all others in Category Ancient Peoples are called "peoples" (or only their name) and not "race". The similar Iranian peoples and Indo-Iranians also have their own article, as do the ancient Celts, Greeks, ancient Germans etc. An Article "Aryan Race" is primarly for topics on Nazism, Root races and similar things. These discussions should be kept in separate articles. It is reasonable to include in this article a short discussion of the topic, but the main text of this section belongs to an article on Indo-Aryan peoples. --Machaon 07:56, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this page has been drifting off in too many directions. I think it is time to have a seaparate Indo-Aryans page. I think this page should concentrate on the concept of the Aryan Race as it existed in European anthropology/ideology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The ancient Iranians and Idno-Aryans should only be there to explain the origin of these European ideas. Paul B 10:09, 21 May 2005 (utc)
I moved the concerning section to Indo-Aryans. Maybe a few sentences or a summary should be readded to this article later. Also, the new article Indo-Aryans could of course be ameliorated and expanded. Regards, --Machaon 12:59, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


I've tried to clean up the article and to restore 'flow' and consistency. Rightly or wrongly, I've taken the view that this article should concentrate on racialist ideas propagated from c1850-1945, though they were most influential from c1880-1920. Other articles explore in more detail the aspects related to ancient India/Iran. The previous version also included a whitewash of Blavatsky. Having now read The Secret Doctrine, I think I can confidently say that the book is distinctly racialist in character1 She persistently denigrates "semitic" culture in relation to "aryan" values. Nevertheless, there's no denying that HPB's version of 'Aryan' identity is very different from Nazi Nordicism, and acccepted wide diversity of skin-colour. By 1933 theosophical use of 'Aryan' in English-speaking culture was profoundly anti-Nazi, and the Aryan Path journal was consistently opposed to racialism. However it would be dishonest to deny HPB's own, albeit idiosyncratic, racialism and the links between her work and the more esotericist modes of Nazism. Footnotes are still required. Paul B 22:19, 4 December 2005 (UTC) 06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Why is the opening quote "Persian son of a persian...." attributed (with a photo) to Xerxes. Further down on the page it is referenced to Darius. This is pretty clearly wrong from everything I have read. Thanks. Nasim B 06:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

definition out of a 3rd Reich encyclopedia[edit]

Here's a definition contained in an encyclopedia produced in the Third Reich – the “Volks-Brockhaus” from 1935: it says

Aryans: … members of those races that have lived in Europe for a long time (Nordic, Falish, Dinaric, Mediterranean, Alpine, East Baltic) especially in contrast to the Semitic races. Only Aryans can hold public office and serve in the military and labor service.

I'm not sure about the translation - it originally said: nordisch, fälisch, dinarisch, westisch, ostisch, ostbaltisch in contrast to vorderasiatisch, orientalisch.

You see there are not only the old racial myths, but also the modern myths about old racial myths ;) -- 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The list of races in the text you quote uses Hans F.K. Günther's typology. "Fälisch" is conventionally anglicised as "Phalic", though that has slightly unfortunate connotations. What modern myths do you refer to? Paul B 23:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
There is a modern myth that in the Third Reich only "blond and blue-eyed" people were regarded as Aryans, or if not that misinformed, some people still argue, that those were regarded superior.
I don't think that's right. When looking at pictures of SS members, one can clearly see, that the majority did not have blond hair, and leading positions were also not mostly held by people with blond hair.
I read biographies on Hitler and Goebbels [Maser, Haffner, Reuth] - and they were not shown as regarding blonde Germans superior to others.
Gordon Williamson wrote in his book "The SS: Hitler's Instrument of Terror" that Hitler didn't take Himmler's concept of creating an order of Nordic heroes seriously but let him have his way as long as the SS was completely loyal.
Furthermore Hitler did not mention Rosenberg's book favourably and Goebbels even called it a "philosophical burp" [sic!]. The third most prominent Nazi – Göring – also talked derogatorily about Rosenberg.
So I think this modern myth is totally wrong.
"... the seemingly scholarly nature of such works was very effective in spreading Aryan supremacist theories among German intellectuals in the early 20th century" ... this is not true. Hitler mentions in his table talk that the number of copies printed of Rosenberg's book only rose after the church protested against it. I'm very sure that Rosenberg was NOT AT ALL taken seriously by the VAST majority of the Germans, let alone the intellectuals. Only some esoteric circles embraced it.
So now to this article:
It should but does not shatter this myth. Such information is simply missing and the poster which is mocking at Goebbels for not looking Nordic in an article about the “Aryan race” suggests that the Nazis identified it with the “Nordic race”.
-- 15:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't think it is exactly a myth, though it's certainly true that in both British and American English the term "Aryan" is usually used to refer to Nordicism, as if that's the primary meaning of the term. That usage pre-dates Nazism, as the article already states. It is of course true that the Nazis did not legally discriminate against non-Nordics. The Nuremberg laws were primarily designed to exclude Jews, and there was much later legal argy-bargy about who was and was not included as "Aryan" - not disimilar from US laws of slightly earlier which used the term "white" (see United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind), leading to much confusion about who was and was not included in the category. But it's nevertheless undeniable that Nordicism suffused Nazi ideolgy. The principal pro-Nazi race-scientists in Germany at that time were all Nordicists, including, of course, Günther whose typology you quote. Fritz Lenz and Eugen Fischer were the other major contributors in this regard. The Nazis's sifting of individuals according to Nordicist athropometry is well recorded. Yes, it's true that Rosenberg was disliked by some of the more practical-minded Nazis like Boormann and Göring who thought his ideology was politically counter-productive and merely "academic". Nevertheless he was put in charge of many of the most important ideology-forming institutions within the regime. Both Mein Kampf and the Mythus only became big sellers after the Nazis took power, which is hardly surprising. Under the regime it was a big seller, as were Günther's books and other popular expositions of Nordicism. Race theory was also taught in schools, so I think the sentence about the popularity of such "seemingly scholarly" texts is perfectly valid and accurate. Don't forget that Günther, Lenz and Fischer were bona fide scientists and university professors, not eccentric nutters. They all clearly asserted, along with Rosenberg and others, that the original Aryans had been of Nordic race, and that Nordic peoples had inborn leadership skills. At the time these theories were very well known - the anti-Geobbels cartoon was made during WWII. The fact that many Nazi leaders themselves did not seem to fit the Aryan racial ideal was often joked about even within Germany itself. Of course Nazism was a complex phenomenon with many conflicting and contadictory elements to it. We should not oversimplify "Nazi ideology", but it's still not unreasonable to argue that there was a tendency to blur the distinction between "Nordic" and "Aryan" in the practices and rhetoric of the regime. Paul B 14:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I think our Nordic theory article explains how the Nazis started out with hyping the "Nordic race", but this became impractical after the Anschluss, when most of the Reich's inhabitants would have been of the "Mediterranean race", so they dropped the "Nordic" rhetorics in favour of "Aryan" rhetorics, since even non-blonde Austrians (like Hitler) while manifestly not "Nordic" could imagine being "Aryan". dab () 14:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree on most points and don't have time for a carefully considered answer (and won't have either for some time). -- 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Error: The Anchluss refers to the union of Austria and Germany. These countries are composed of Germanic, Celtic and Slavic people. No mediterraneas anywhere near there!

Regarding the "blond-blue eyed" myth.. It was usually accepted by Nordicist racial anthropologists that you didn't necessarily have to be blond and blue eyed to be part of the Nordic racial type. If you read some of their works, you'll see them give examples of dark-haired Nordics. Also, remember Germany was divided into different racial sub-groups with the Nordic as the ideal. "Blond hair and blue eyes" is not a very good way to describe this ideal because if you do some research you'll see the "East Baltic" race was also typically classified as having blond hair and blue eyes and in some cases even Alpine and other non-Nordic racial types. ALL of the different sub-racial groupings were considered to be part of the "Aryan Master Race" not just the Nordic. If you look in an official Third Reich textbook/dictionary for the term "Aryan" it says "Races that have lived in Europe for a long time: The Nordic, the Pfalzish (fälische), the Western (westliche) the East Baltic (ostbaltische), the Ostic (ostische) and the Dinarish (dinarische) races." Therefore while Nordics were definately considered to be part of the "Aryan race", they were not the only race that were "Aryan". I find it hard to believe the ignorance of many history teachers today, especially in America. All they say is "Hitler killed anyone who wasn't blond and blue-eyed" or "In the Third Reich, an Aryan was a blue-eyed blond person." To say dark-haired Germans were killed is a pure sign of ignorance because a dark-haired Nordic would have fit the ideal better than a blond East Baltic or Alpine. To say that "Aryan" is a racial designation that is soley decided by blond hair and blue eyes is ridiculious. Considering there are so many dark-haired Germanics, including Hitler, anyone with any common sense would see this as bizarre. I think it's time we started teaching accurate history.

Theories on Aryan race?[edit]

Could it be that the Roma people and Aryans are supposed to derive from the same source and that this is the issue with those Indo-Aryanists? Who would have thought that scientific racism would promote the scoundrels of their society as eugenically sound, after all the Gypsies had been through. Who would have thought that Gypsies were a general European people, when always on the outskirts of European acceptance? Maybe the racists couldn't account for hidden Romas in their own blood; couldn't take a chance. All I know is that this is theoretical and nothing solid; wishful thinking. In all the history of the world, when has India been natively associated with Europe? Indo-Europeanism is a racist concoction to support the imperialism for tea and textiles, with no basis before the idea was published--only Alexander the Great and Greco-Buddhism (blown out of proportion, both of them) seem to have had truthful associations with India. When has Hinduism been European?--since the British Empire. In the words of J.R.R. Tolkien:

  • I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by 'arisch'. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-Iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. ... But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people.... I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.
    • One of two draft letters (25 July 1938) written for Stanley Unwin to select as a response to his German publishers inquiry about his ancestry.

Lord Loxley 12:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are making here. "Indo-Europeanism" is neither racist nor anti-racist, it is simply an arena of academic study. It seems to me, however, rather odd to claim that a theory which undermines a simple "east"/"west" opposition is a "racist concoction". After all, it runs counter to populist-imperial oppositions as embodied by Kipling's "east is east and west is west". Edward Said wants to tell us that "westerners" construct an "orientalist" image the "east" as alien to the "west". The concept of IE commonality from Eire to Bengal actually introduced deep problem for any such fantasised division. The Nordicist model is, in a sense, an attempt to resolve that very problem. Other models did so in more surpising ways. Paul B 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This user appears to have some rather odd theories about European linguistic origins which might explain his position. --Saforrest 16:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul B, you make several interesting remarks regarding "east" and "west" (never shall they meet?). Still, if the Nordic theory or IE model holds true, the "racist concoction" is only intensified; easterners jump up two notches from "backwards because they're different/the West doesn't understand them" to full-blown "inferior" due to past "Aryan domination". It would take us right back to a colonizer's view of the world, only this time, "underachievement" wouldn't be justified along the lines of climate, resource scarcity, historical circumstance or the effect of imperialism itself. While it would show that we are one in the same culturally, this would most certainly reopen a larger pandora's box. That being said, is there still a considerable amount of contemporary debate regarding the IE theory? Science and the media seems to be pushing us to accept the theory of common ancestry in Africa, but I'm not sure I buy this or any other hypothesis - including those I mentioned.-- 12:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The racialised version of Nordic theory is not held by anyone other than White Supremacists anymore, so there's not really much sense in which it "holds true". Even in the unlikely - but not impossible - event that IE did prove to originate in northern Europe it would not show that the people who live in the place where it originated are or were "superior". Does the likely origin of Afro-Asiatic languages in Ethiopia prove that Ethiopians are superior to Arabs, Egyptians and Jews? I don't think so. Nor would that prove that North Africans and Arabs experienced "Ethiopian domination". The origin of a language group is simply the place at which its earliest recoverable form developed. It may have expanded through migrations, cultural influence, invasions, luck, or a mixture of all these over a period of millenia. Common ancestry in Afria is not "pushed" by "the media" but is the conclusion of science. No one say it becasue of some political ideology. Paul B 12:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits? Also, you failed to grasp my main point above: it isn't the common origin of a language that leads one to such conclusions. It is the details that are likely to follow, such as the Aryan invasion theory. I hardly agree with your argument that common origin is a "fact proven by science"...I'm still waiting for the conclusive evidence which proves common origin - or rather, disproves the idea that evolution didn't occur seperately from different "common" mutations in the world. I have a scientific collegiate text, dated two years ago, that acknowledges both, yet only one version is being hammered home all over the media. Neither has been proven successfully or adequately to show that we have reason to believe one over the other. Not part of a political or ideological agenda, you say? I'm not sure where you hail from, but direct yourself towards Newsweek or Discover sometime - endless amounts of POV pushing and ideological rhetoric in terms that the pauper can understand. I find it peculiar how scientific "conclusions" are reported in a way that supports the socio-political agenda of the age - a theory is never final, that is one beautiful thing about the scientific method.
My favorite was the Newsweek article where a "white" Jew had a genetic test w/ new tech. to determine his full ancestry. Part of it came up African...apparently this was a big deal. Another test showed an African who had a small percentage of German ancestry. Newsweek's bold conclusion from this research? This proves that the concept of ethnicity is null and void - our differences are an illusion! What baffled me is no examination was done of anyone of the Nordic stock, yet most people ate it all up, and walked away with a headful of nonsense about internationalism. Just as we are now skeptical of the British scientific claim that the Caucasians were in India (supported imperialism) and the German scientific claim that Germany was home to the "Aryans" (this supported supremacy theories), so we respond with the same wariness when those who reject any notion of tribal belonging to begin with tell us we're all the same. I don't buy it, especially when those who want to abolish whiteness whisper sweet nothings about scientific "conclusions".
I think the opening is a mess with all of the (parenthesis) and I merely added another reference to the word "Aryan". Why do you object? Also, the information on Wells book was incorrect, and something needs to be mentioned about its content. -- 23:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't really understand what you are trying to say here. The main objections to your edit were the over emphasis on the meaning "noble", which is already discussed, and the claim that a Sumerian word is related to "Arya", which was uncited but asserted as fact. (perhaps you got it here[7]?)I doesn't really matter whether you, me, or any individual "buys" the scientific consensus that humans originated in Africa, what matters is the fact that it is the consensus. Paul B 15:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was all rather off topic, but you questioned the promotion of such view in your last post, so I provided you with details. I do not agree with your conclusion that it is the consensus, nor do I understand exactly what it means if it is the majority opinion because it is not sufficiently proven beyond doubt. Anyway, the article..yes..the article. I did not have the exact details on the source I quoted, so I did not include them, but I knew they were legitimate. If you object to it not being sourced, thats fine, I'll find it again (thought it appears you have done so already). In an article about the Aryan race I find it fairly important to mention such details. Where is the "meaning of noble" discussed? Archieved?-- 03:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about "noble". It must have been deleted as some point without my noticing. My apologies. Still, I think we need a rather more reliable source than Vishnaivite websites for the speculation about "aya". I've never heard of it, and it sounds rather dubious to say the least - an attempt to demonstrate that it always had a mystical meaning. Paul B 09:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems legitimate, but I can understand your concern. I'll look for another, shouldn't be too difficult.-- 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


In the first paragraph is the term "Nordic People" which implies Germanic/Tuetonic peoples of Scandinavia and Central Europe, or at the very least Norse/Norwegians. However, a major problem occurs when clicking this link. What one finds is the Wikipedia page on "Nordic Theory." I hate to brake the news to everyone, but Nordic PEOPLE and Nordic THEORY are, very much so, two sepearte and distinct things.

The concept of a "Nordic people" in this sense (i.e a "North European race") is covered in the Nordic theory article, not in any other articles. Other articles tend to loosely equate "Nordic" with "Scandanavian", which is not the meaning here. Paul B 13:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"anti-Semitism" vs. "anti-Syrianism"[edit]

I've never heard of anti-Syrianism... but seeing that Syrians are SEMITIC wouldn't/SHOULDN'T the term "ANTI-SEMITISM" be used for, not only hatred of Jews, but ALSO of Syrians, Arabs, Iraqis, Yemenites, Omanis, ... etc... ???

Yes, well anti-Semitic mainly means anti-Jewish, but I've altered that line. I don't know what "anti-Syrian" is supposed to mean. Paul B 13:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


Why does the author of this article consider it "noteworthy that Heinrich Himmler, the person ordered by Adolf Hitler to implement the final solution (Holocaust), carried a copy of the ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita with him wherever he went[???]"

There is no single "author of this article". That particular piece of information was added by User:Keraunos, who wrote much of the section on neo-Nazism. Leave a message on his talk page if you want him to explain. It seems noteworthy to me, since it links the Nazi section to Indo-Aryan culture, and shows that Himmler, for one, took seriously the idea of an "Aryan religion". Paul B 19:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the comment below this (about the Mongloidic people) be removed? It is at least irrelevant, if not extremely debatable. ("C O M M E N T: Actually so called Indo-Europeans(Aryans) were Mongoloidic people who lived in the Northern bank of Black see. About six thousands years ago, ...")

Yes, one of nonsense additions that just slipped by. Paul B 12:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I feel the part "ancient Aryan scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita" should be changed to "ancient Sanskrit scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita" First, the whole paragraph implies indirectly that the concepts in the Bhagavad-Gita support the theory of a Aryan Race and support Himmler's beliefs (maybe poorly written?, there's no explaination of this not being the case). Second, the Bhagavad-Gita was written around 3000BCE which predates the Proto-Indo-Iranians who are often referred to as Aryan. Thus, the Bhagavad-Gita predates anything considered to be Aryan. At the very least it should be called a Vedic scripture, not Aryan. Thoughts? Keithieopia (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Most scholars do not think that the Gita was written "around 3000BCE", or that Sanskrit existed at that time. The reason it is referred to "Aryan" here, rather than as "Sanskrit", or "Hindu" or "Indian", or any of the other adjectives that might be used, is that 'Aryan' is the relevant concept for this particular article and to Himmler's ideology. Paul B (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thrown off by the Bhagavad_Gita article, however later in the article it explains it being written around 500-150BC (which does make it Aryan), the events it which it describes dates around 3000BCE; but not the document itself. I'm going to use the Talk:Bhagavad Gita to propose a change that actually reflects its contents, feel free to also back this up as it was your statement that lead me to the error. Keithieopia (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I see. The the Gita article seems to be a bit of a mess. The 3000BCE date was only added very recently [8]. I've removed it. Paul B (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert to 8 October 2006 version[edit]

I reverted the latest 21:29, 11 October 2006 version to the 03:40, 8 October 2006 version by Andres. The additions by (talkcontribs) were taken virtually ad verbatim from copyrighted material delivered by the Iran Chamber Society. Furthermore, I considered the addition by (talkcontribs) to be POV. It is not an encyclopedia's job to state that, "It should be noted that these stories are mere mythology and has no evidential basis," nor delete the statement (which I presume to be factual) that "In old Persian superstions, white children were known to be the children of Angra Mainyu." If you have any concerns regarding my revert, please contact me on my talk page. --Iamunknown 04:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridicolous! There is no such thing as calling "white children the children of Angra Mainyu in Persian culture! what about those Persians that are born blonds or redheads are they in that category to? The whole thing doesn´t make sense obviously he was trying to cause confusion and insight dislike towards a certain group of people otherwise I would like to see proof of this claim!...Cyrus111 09:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

thanks, but you missed a bit. the amount of bullshit added to this article is astounding, we need more people watching it :\ dab () 08:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
unforunately, somewhat reverted the removal Was that removal by you? It was done by (talkcontribs), and was reverted b/c an anonymous user did it. Is it even wrong? I don't know. =S --Iamunknown 05:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
The only part of this article that is substatially problematic at the moment is the bizarre section on "golden skinned" Aryans, which is wholly unreferenced and which seems to be trying to prove via mytholgy that "Aryans" somehow hated white skinned and blue-eyed people represented as demons and "Turanians". Paul B 21:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I've no idea how accurate this stuff is as an account of various legends, but it seems to have little or nothing to do with the theory of the "Aryan race": Paul B 21:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Golden-skinned Aryans?[edit]

Indo-Aryans In the Vedas most of the Devas or gods appear to have a Gaur ("golden") or simply a yellow complexion with others have other brown complexions. Goddess Durga also known as Gauri is said to have golden skin. They fought with many invading tribes from the north. They are further shown with black hair and black eyes. In Indian superstitions it is said to never trust a cat-eyed (e.g. blue, green, etc) person.

Iranians Furthermore, in an ancient Iranian legend Shahnama the King of Persia (King Kavus) is taken captive by the Div-sefid (white demon), the emperor of Mazandaran and so it is up to Rostam and his Aryan comrades to kill the demon and rescue the King. They visit the Mount Damavand in the middle of theWhite Mountains and there find the demon and kill him. Most likely this tale illustrates the war between the Aryans and their arch nemesis, the white Turanians constantly invaded north Iran and drove the Iranians out. The father of Rustam, Zal ironically was born to Saam (meaning blue or black) the tall, dark and handsome hero but is somehow an albino and so is thought to be of demon descent and is abondoned. In old Persian superstions, white children were known to be the children of Angra Mainyu. There is also the tale of Arash the archer who fought the Turanians and captures new land from them. In one legend, when King Fereydun captured the land Farr from the Turanians, they named it Farr-i Ariya'i (the glory of the Aryans.) Also when King Fereydun and Kaveh joined forces to fight Zabhak and when Zabhak is captured they chain him up in the Damavand Mountains. Mohammad Taghi Bahar wrote a poem and in the first lines he wrote, The first verse of this poem is:

"Ay deeve sepeede paay dar band,

Oh white demon with feet in chains"

Ay gonbade giti, ay Damavand....

Oh celestial dome, Oh Mount Damavand."

In Persian mythology the demon Apaosa, who has a white face brings white face to the land, illustrating the ways the Turanians punished the Persians. Further in Zoroastrianism, it is said that the demon of demons, Angra Mainyu lives north and that he drove the Aryans out from their homeland. Yima the legendary first king of the Aryans who was the founder of the Aryan country known as Aryana Vaejah had two wives in the country of Bawri (Brown.)

extremely offtopic, remove. I seem to remember that the gaura notion was used to justify "white Aryans" theories in the early 20th c. -- in that case, this should be referenced, instead of idly re-telling random myths. dab () 21:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actualy turanians was scythians (iranians nomads of northern steppes) who didn't joinet zoroastrism. Later this name was aplied to turkic nomads.


According to the "Aryan Invasion Theory", "Aryans" had "invaded" or "occupied" Northen India (including modern day Pakistan and Afghanistan) more than 3,000 years ago. Linguists have found similarities in Sanskrit, language of Ancient India, and European languages, suggesting a link between the two cultures. Hence the notion of people from the Vedic India and Europe having come from a common point gains credence. However the next proposition is less logical. The British and other Europeans claimed that the "Aryans" were white skinned, blue eyed, blonde haired people, with genuine Nordic traits. The reasoning behind this could be that they believed that the advanced culture of India could only have arisen with the assistance of "white" people, and given the technological and cultural "superiority" the European colonialists claimed to have over the Indians, this idea seemed feasible for some people. However, 3000 years ago, it must be noted that the "civilisation" of Europe was far less advanced than the "civilisation" of Ancient Egypt, Ancient India (Indus Culture), Ancient China and of course the birthplace of civilisation: Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq). I am no linguist or anthropologist, but it would seem more likely to me that the so-called "Aryans" were in fact from the Mesopotamia region, even Caucasia. From this place, the "Aryans" brought their way of life to Europe and India. Naturally people would mix when placed amongst each other, and hence the "Aryans" would naturally have mixed with natives in India, and would have also mixed with the "blue eyed, blonde haired" natives of Europe. This is what I can tell from the situation. Please tell me what you think. Kshatriya knight 23:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually the "British and other Europeans" claimed no such thing - or rather very few of them did. The claim was that the Proto-Indo-Europeans originated in Northern Europe - a theory that was prominent between around 1880 - 1930. At the time these people were typically labelled "primitive Aryans" ('primitive' here meaning 'original'), which often leads to confusion. Most writers assumed that the historical Aryans (Indo-Iranians) looked much like the Iranian people do now. Of course it's not impossible that IE originated in Mesopotamia, but there's no good reason to think so, because of the known historical distribution of IE languages. None of this depends on how "civilised" cultures were. Paul B 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The article you are talking about is Aryan. The article talked about here is a different definition of Aryan, i.e: Northern Europeans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thulean (talkcontribs).

No, we have an article for the theory of the superiority of the Nordic race. It's called Nordic theory. This article discusses the full range of definitions of the "Aryan race" concept. Paul B 07:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The civilizations of Mesopotamia and anceient Egypt had very different people back then compared to now. They could well have been part of the aryan peoples that spread to that area and ruled


Dear anonymous. This article is not about the history of the word "antisemitism". Cutting and pasting chunks of text from the Antisemitism article merely leads to unnecessary bloating and repetition. We should keep this article focussed on this topic. Paul B 09:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

for educational purposes and to avoid confusion a brief explanation and background of the word antisemitism is needed as it is already mentioned and also to keep the objectivity. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
I don't know what you mean about keeping "the objectivity", nor do I see how simply copying text from one article and adding it to another one improves matters. That's what wikilinks are for. This article is not about antisemitism. Antisemitism was closely associated with Aryanism but is not identical to it, so the history of the word is very tangental. No-one is putting the detailed etymology of "Aryan" in the antisemitism article. Paul B 10:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I feel that the quotation list at the end of the article may benefit from the addition of:

"I will decide who is Aryan or not" - Herman Göring

(Sourse: The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle, Antony Read, W. W. Norton & Company 2004)


This article has degenerated into semi-intelligable repetitious chaos, mainly due to the interventions of User:Cyrus111, who repeatedly copies marginally relevant content from other articles, over-emphasises Iranian culture in an article that is supposed to be about a European concept (the "Aryan race" as such, as opposed to the Indo-Iranians), will not discuss the topic, will not write edit summaries, will not stop adding material from inappropriate sources and will keep inserting text in ways that disrupt legibility. What on earth is that quotation from the Quran doing here with no explanation whatever of its relevance? Paul B 16:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

do we have any good version to revert to? We should keep an eye on this article for offtopic rambling piling up like this. dab (𒁳) 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whats the matter Mr. "Paul"? your opinion is reality? Why erase others input? You decide whats real and what should be included in the article? Maybe I should do a whole article about the real origins and interpretations of Aryan and what race is actually is considered Aryan, (Way before the distortion in Europe) If your gonna do an article about aryan race and genetics maybe you should actually state the scientific facts about the aryan race and not write about other peoples haplotypes who have nothing to do with aryan or the aryan race! I think we should also make an article about the basic Human race, so to not confuse some readers about Humanity.

Your refence is a wiki mirror. You are "referencing" this article as a source for it. Paul B 12:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It might also be worth adding that the central "point" doesn't really mean anything. Your comment asserts that "Contemporary anthropologists who believe in the existence of an ancient Aryan race generally have the opinion that its closest descendants today are the Persians, not the Germans". The "ancient Aryan race" might mean the PIE population, or the Indo-Iranian population. I know of no reason to claim that Iranians are genetically closest to the former (how would we know?). Even the latter claim is difficult to maintain, if it is assumed that the I-Is were intrusive into Iran. Of course the Iranians are still likely to be closer to the Proto-Indo-Iranians than are the Germans, but even Hitler himself never suggested otherwise, so the "point" is virtually meaningless. The Nazi claim was (typically) that the PIE population was Nordic/Germanic. Ultimately, you seem to be saying nothing more than that the closest living relatives of ancient Iranians are modern Iranians. Paul B 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious, please do your homework before editing. Anthropology is:

"Biological or physical anthropology seeks to understand the physical human being through the study of genetics, inherited traits and variations thereof, evolution, adaptation, etc. Subfields or related fields include primatology, nutritional anthropology, and human and population genetics."

this is what they mean when they say that Iranians are the closest decendents of the original aryans, meaning least influence of "other haplotypes". This is science, not racim What on earth are then the haplotypes of different european peoples doing in this article? How is this related to the "Aryan race". I understand what you are trying to do, but its not scientifically accurate. you say "The ancient Aryan race might,(meaning you are assuming something) mean the PIE population". No it doesn´t.The PIE people you are talking about later descended into different branches and it is only the Indo-Iranian branch that are today considered "aryan" both genetically and "anthropologically" in 1833, an Oxford University professor used the term Aryan to describe a group of languages with common origins. Although he later admitted that parts of his theory were erroneous, the theory of an Aryan race was used by a group of romanticist writers and racist historians in search of an ancient identity.

Please refrain from adding nonsense and keep it scientific!

Please sign your posts and try to check who added sections before throwing around accusations. All this stuff on haplotypes has little relevance so I will remove that too. It might nbe used in a section discussing modern evidence related to the claim that Indo-European languages can be mapped onto a distinct "race", but its relevance would have to be clearly explained. At the moment it isn't. Paul B 12:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Cyrus, you obviously know very little about the history of this subject. I suggest you read the Aryan article, which explains the multiple uses of the term Aryan in the 19th and 20th centuries. When the Nazis used the term Aryan they meant either PIE peoples (who they equated with the "Nordic race") or IE people in general (excluding "Semitic" people). They did not mean Indo-Iranians. The Nazi usage was a specific development of a normative uses of the term at that time, and that is where the concept of an "Aryan race" comes from. Paul B 13:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Your weird statements about an Oxford professor in 1833 seem to be cut and pasted from this website which makes the completely barmy claim that human evolution occurred in Iran and that "the Aryan race has undergone its evolution from the primitive man to the white man in the Iranian Plateau", from which it spread to the rest of the world! Paul B 13:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


This section is way off. This section contains very little, if anything, that is consistent with what is written in Mein Kampf. Aryan was their pseudonym for White. There were not only germans and Nordic germanics but also Spanish, French, beligians, Croatians, Italians etc.., in the SS.

Aryan to the Nazis primarily meant non-Jewish. That was its principal legal meaning in the Nazi state. However, it was very often merged with Nordicism. In fact Nazi usage is very unclear beyond its anti-Semitic function - they were closely allied to the technically non-Aryan ("Turanian") Hungarians for example. Paul B 10:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

anon rant[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.


[The Origins of Aryan People] -- 07:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Try reading the Aryan article. Paul B 11:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And also refer to to discussion below. THe aryans might have left traces of their spread TO iran From the Caucasus/ pontic steppe area. But Iranians are not Aryans. Aryans are tall, white and fair...

What happened to the Aryans[edit]

As already mentioned the Aryans are generally consiedered to be the Indo-European precursors. They were supposed to be a "tall, white , civilised, warrior caste"

Although a subject of conjecture, they are said to originate from the black sea area or pontic steppe. This corresponds the origin of the nidus from where the proto-Indo_European language spread. ("Kurgan hypothesis"

Various archeological and genetic theories have been proposed about the nature of the spread (ie militaristic-overlord, or simply cultural and mercantile). Genetic evidence shows that little of their genes found their way into western europe, yet the Indo-european language did.

This is because the expansion, thus gene flow, of these Aryan people was largely confined to eastern europe and the pontic steppe. Yet the language was spread as a result of trade and agricultural exchange, as the native (ie pre-Indo-European) people sought to enrich themselves with the innovations of the Aryans.

The language did find itself in Northern India, Central Asia, even as far as Afhganistan. Yet, obviously the peoples of modern day India, Persia etc would not be "aryan" for two major reasons. THe aryans would have only been a "ruling caste" , far numerically inferior to the native substratum (eg Dravidians)- although I do acknowledge that even this is a contreversial theory. Secondly, subsequently the proportion of the Aryans that turned south rather than heading to Europe overtime would have been 'lost' by intermingling with the more numerous Arab, Asian, Turkic peoples of the area. Having said this there are pockets of Afghanistan where blond, fair skinned people live, eg.

As far as the 'Nazi' idea that Germans are the purest Indo-European race, that is quite wrong. This is because the majority of Germans DNA is inherited from the people native to the area before the arrival of the Aryans (ie neolithic people). As mentioned above, the GENETIC influence of the Aryans is limited to a corridor in Eastern europe (ie todays western Russia, Poland, SLovenia, Ukraine); whilst the proto-Indo-European language enjoyed widespread uptake.

did you read the article at all, and is there any point in particular you want to make wrt to the article? Or, unless there is a point to this paragraph, may we remove it? dab (𒁳) 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did read the article, thanks for asking Dieter Bachmann. I suspect you are sceptical, perhaps a little offended, by the article. I hope you are not letting your own personal feelings interfere with your objective appraisal of the article.

Yes, my article is written with a bit of tongue in cheek, but it is an objective summary of an otherwise very complicated topic. That was my aim. From the previous discusions i read, seems there is a lot of confusion about the matter. I re-iterate it is merely a summary.

I don;t want you to think that I;m proposing that Slavs are the Aryan race. If you read the article carefully you will notice my points about the genetic contributions to modern day populations of the pre-Indo-Europeans vs Indo-Europeans. ANd I;m not referring to the notion of aryans as lay people associate with.

Feel free to do some reading about Haplotypes and archegeonetics, linguistic development, and the Kurgan hypothesis.

IF there is anything you particulary object to please feel free to point it out. I admit I am only an amateur historian.

As for deleting my discussion. Why? It is non-offensive and unbiased. I did not edit the main article. THis is a discussion page, that's what it's for ! !

I think you will find that dab is just a little bit familiar with material to which you refer. Do you wish to add to or change the article in a specific way? If so, say what you are suggesting. Paul B 12:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
"Discussion pages" are not for random discussions, they are for to-the-point discussions about how to improve the article. See Wikipedia:Talkpages, Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines: "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal", "If your post is longer than 100 words consider shortening it. Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." dab (𒁳) 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is not waffle. In contrast the main article tends to be so. THe above discussion tries to clarify the real theories of the Indo-European peoples. In contrast, the main article waffles about side-points, whilst interesting and of minor importance in clearing up misconceptions, it focuses to much of these side-points, at the expense of dealing with the crux of the matter. The main point about Indo-Europeans/ Aryans is unfortunately totally skimmed over.

That's is my point. I am not at this point volunteering to change the article, as to be done properly will be a huge undertaking, and deservedly so.

This article is about the idea of an "Aryan race", a concept almost exclusively meaningful in lete 19th-early 20-th century western culture, when the notion that IE identity could be defined as "race" was articulated. I'm not at all sure what you think is the missing "main point". Paul B 10:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
you may be looking for Indo-European peoples, which is a disambiguation page pointing to discussion of these various peoples. This is not the article on Indo-Europeans, but an article on a specific historical (obsolete) anthropological theory. If you had read the article, we would not need to point this out to you here. dab (𒁳) 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Change Article Request:[edit]

There have been books written about the Aryan Race. They existed far before any Nazi propaganda existed. Nazis were not the Aryans, they were a group of people which may have had Aryan bloodlines. Many other countries also have these traits, which are characterized by low levels of the skin, hair and eye pigment called melanin. These traits are light skin, hair and eye color.

The presence of melanin in the human body (manufactured in the brain, I think) is what makes people different. Some people have so much of it that they have dark hair, eyes and skin. People who have less of it have lighter hair, eyes and skin. Side effects can be different for different races. Some people may have light skin, but thick and dark hair. That person has more melanin in their system than a person who has light skin, eyes and hair. Furthermore, a person can have light skin and hair but darker eye color. This person also has more melanin in their sytem than a person with light skin, hair and eyes. Please site the melanin reference on wikipedia.

To assert that a race with low levels of pigment could never have existed because it is too mythical is also to say that a race with high levels of the pigment could never have existed. Yet, the African Race is characterized by the side effects of the abundance of this chemical. To say that the Aryan Race could never have existed is to say that the African Race could have never have existed.

Furthermore, people who have blonde hair are often characterized as "dumb blondes". Since we base our racial status on the presence or absence of melanin, one could assert that "dumb blonde joke" as being a racist remark. People with low levels of melanin are not a "protected class" of people even though people with blonde hair are a minority, moreso even than African Americans or Latino people. Currently there is no such status as an Aryan American, only a Caucasian. It seems that they could at least stick Caucasian American in there.

Also, one can claim to be a minority based on Irish heritage with the main proof being red hair. Red hair is also a characterization developed in humans by a low level of melanin.

The vikings are a group of people that are characterized by their blonde hair. The Mayan god had blonde hair and blue eyes, which may be a reference to the Aryan Outflow after the great ice age. The Viking Longboat may have been an instrument of Aryan design, if there was ever a race of people that are characterized by extremely low levels of melanin.

The Aryan Race left behind a language for us to study. They also left their genetic code long after thier culture was absorbed into the whole.

A good study on the Aryan Race is "The Aryan Race: It's Origins and Achievements" by Charles Morris, 1880. This work was composed years before World War 1, far before the reign of Adolph Hitler (who, I might add, is NOT an example of aperson with the low melanin levels of an Aryan).

Please make the proper changes to this page in order to restore dignity and integrity to a group of people who have made this world what it is. I motion to disassociate the basis of an Aryan Race with Adolph Hilter and the NAzis. I know that it is history, but Nordicism and investigating an Aryan Race has nothing to do with Nazis, essentially. Please Revise this Article.


Gardenersville 16:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Gardenersville------

What ? I too am a proud Aryan, but i have no idea what the f*@! you article is on about The genetics of 'blondness' is far more complicated than what you describe.

The terms Nordics and Aryans are not equal. As the article points out 'Aryan' means different things to different people, to you or I it means fair skinned people of European background, but Iranians claim they are Aryan although they are mostly Afro-Asiatic.

Irish people have very little, if any, Aryan in them

Aryan Race revision[edit]

I never said that I would consider myself Aryan. All that I am saying is that people with low levels of melanin in their bodies exhibit traits known to be similar to that of "Aryan people".

Aryan people seem to have traits that are opposite or complementary of traits that an African would have. That is what makes them different from a "caucasian".

A person with red hair has particularly low levels of melanin in their bodies. It is so low, in fact, that people who are of Irish heritage experience a high level of freckling in the skin. This is referenced in the book that I mentioned above.

I know the Aryan traits and the Nordic. They are identical. Take a pill.

Can you site any references for your opinions?

Iranians are people who would like to claim Aryan heritage. The Aryan outflow reached even north America. Is it a wonder that Aryan traits show themselves in various cultures around the world?

Gardenersville 03:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

if you disagree with me you are disagreeing with Charles Morris.

I have read Charles Morris's book, which dates from 1881. I have a copy of it with me. It's hardly cutting edge stuff is it? However, we cite it in the Aryan article. It's true that he takes the common late-nineteenth century view that the "primitive Aryans" (PIEs) were Nordic, but he is also clear that the Indo-Iranians were not, and certainly never says that Aryans are defined by lack of melanin! Paul B 10:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think Gardensville is confusing being blonde with Aryanism. Irish people are not aryans by anyone's theories. Whether by the more common Indo-European view (ie IE originating from Causcasus area), or the false Germanic theory. These aryans hardly reached Ireland

Skin pigmentation is a product of genes AND nature. There are some Mongol and even Turkish people that are very fair. Yet they are certainly not aryan. It is simply because of living in the icey climate of northern central asia has made them adapt by decreasing the amount of melanin in their skin. Similarly living in Ireland, where is does naught but rain, will make the need to have skin pigmentation unnecessary

Furthermore, i think you are a little confused about the concepts of Aryans vs Caucasians. I think you are referring to the 19th century classification on Europeans (Ie Caucasians) into sub-classes. Ie Nordics, Alpines/Dinarics, Meditteraneans. This view is obviously outdated and scientifically incorrect. But even if you are using it as a point of discussion, one should understand that Nordics are a sub-branch of Caucasians, not a seperate entity.

Don't you know that Caucasians are a subclass of someone else?

It is not just about skin color. It is about melanin. Africans are traditionally dark skinned eyed and haired. An Aryan would be defined as a person with the opposite attributes. Light skin hair and eyes. People will separate blacks from whites based on melanin, because skin covers m ore area than hair or the iris and it is the most evident difference. Charles Morris never knew of melanin. If he did, maybe he would have mentioned it.

There sure is alot of sunlight on those icy cliffs that the nordics stay at. So much light it can cause snow blindness, yet they still had blonde hair, blue eyes and fair skin. One could argue about the fair skin because of thick clothing. It takes longer for blonde hair to develope as a genetic trait than humans have even existed, I am pretty sure. I know that you like to sound credible by saying the words "scientifically incorrect", but I don't see how anything that you are saying makes sense. Blonde hair is a mystery. Scientifically, it is hard wired to melanin levels. melanin has nothing to do with snow, cold, ice or rain. Sure, if a person getds a suntan, thier hide tans. That has nothing to do with melanin production in a person, even over many ages of development. Natural selection doesn't work that way.

Okay, well this is what I would say:

Aryan People[edit]

Aryan is a racial, political, sociological or cultural classification of people. People considered to be Aryan are of light complexion due to a low amount of melanin produced in their bodies, complementary to people with more melanin in their bodies such as black people. Characteristics of Aryan people are typically (but not limited to) blonde hair, blue eyes, and pale white skin that freckles easily upon exposure to sunlight.

Some statistics lead to the conlusion that only 1.8% of the worlds population has blonde hair. Statistics also state that only 8% of the worlds population has blue eyes. One could conclude that 0.14% of the worlds population has both blonde hair and blue eyes, naturally. One could also conclude that those people are also white skinned, as eye and hair color are an indicator of low melanin levels produced inside the human body.


Before World War II

The thought of an Aryan Civilization was a scientific study before the second World War. Many books were written about it and many theories emerged. Many believed the Aryans to be an advanced society with global presence and that when Atlantis was destroyed, so was the cultural and organizational base of the race.

What was left after the collapse was slowly absorbed into the developing world, although large concentrations of Aryans still remained organized in some European countries.

After World War II

The origins of Aryan bloodlines are under constant scrutiny after World War II when Adolph Hitler attempted to compose an Aryan master race. Until then, most of the world relished at the thought of Atlantis and a race of people with superior technology. Today people hardly consider Aryan People to be a race, even though what makes them different from most other white people is the same thing that makes black people different from white people. Aryan people are often subject to demoralizing dumb blonde jokes and other racist passive aggressive behavior, since some of the public without blonde hair falls for the dumb blonde propaganda.


Aryan people were reputed to have light skin, hair and eyes. This would be a direct result of less melanin being produced by thier bodies. For humans to develop a gene that was as precise as blonde hair would take natural selection approximately 850,000 years to complete. Humans did not migrate out of Africa until 35,000 to 40,000 years ago. This would lend some sort of validity to the tale of an Aryan Atlantis but to this day there is no positive scientific evidence that points to an Atlantian culture, much less an Aryan Atlantis. There is also little evidence to disprove the theory.

Due to lack of scientific evidence, science has little to say about the actual existance of an Aryan Race or an Atlantian culture.

Something like that. You haven't really covered the whole theory in the article. You did a very good job of exposing those that abused it. That is all I am saying. Don't mean to offend.

What you have published in this article seems pretty extreme and not at all neutral.

The true Aryan theories are much bigger than Iranian legend.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gardenersville (talkcontribs) 21:57, 5 July 2007.


No offence, but the above 3 discussion topics, probably written by the same person should be considered as mythology, pseudo-science at best.

It is perfectly clear that you have absolutely no training in history, science or anything.

The points you make are absolutely laughable, and are all painfully incorrect. Sorry man, I have nothing against white pride, or anything, but you are making a fool of yourself.

You have fallen for the common mistake that lay people make. Hitler's idea of the Aryan race was not limited to blondes with blue eyes. As the article points out, the aryan race referred to people who were descended from europeans, as simple as that. Ie he used it as a term to distinguish it from Jews, Gypsies, etc.

Your reference to Atlantis was not mainstream belief in Nazi Germany. It was more a product of the more esoteric Nordicism circle in the 20 th century, throughout Europe, not just Germany. Hitler merely went along with it as it further helped his views of anti-semitism and german unity.

Furthermore, humans did not come out of Africa 35, 000 years ago. The australian aborigines arrived in Australia almost 50, 000 years ago !!! Did they just arrive from MArs? I thik the consensus is that humans left Africa almost 100, 000 years ago.

So i'm afraid when your article is flawed from start to finish, how can anyoe take you seriously.

I suggest you refrain from wasting any more space on this forum, and let the big boys talk. ! 05:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add some citations, read wikipedia:verifiability. I am also going to downgrade the headings of your proposed revision, as these should be used to distinguish discussions on this page. Bendž|Ť 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Listen, you are very good at bashing people. If that is the basis of your entire argument, then fine. You can ad homenim (?) your way to the top just like Hitler did.

Read this. It states that 35000-40000 figure.

blonde hair

What you are saying is that this page is wrong. Then you should make them revise the blonde hair page. Quit lashing out at me. The Aryans that I speak of are Aryans with blond ehair and blue eyes, pale skin. If you are Iranian, sorry. Not talking about you. I am talking about the Aryans in the book "The Aryan Race: It's Origins and Achievements.

It is much more scientific than your little article and it was written in 1880. Maybe you should have sited it in your article to retain a bit of truth.

So, if you have some sort of Iranian background and that is what your agenda is, sorry about your luck. Aryans may have inhabited Iran at one time, but Iranians have little or nothing to do with Aryan people accept that they speak an ancient dialect attributed to the Aryan people.

The biggest problem with your article is that you say in the first sentence that the Aryan race is a concept, not a race. I disagree.

I also disagree with whatever you think about all europeans being Aryan.

I know you wanna have the last word and I know that you aren't Aryan. You seem to be a jealous mutt. In that case you have no right [posting an article about the Aryan race and calling them a concept. Typical of you people.

Now I know why wiki is the LEAST reliable source of information and that is why it is free.

I got your big boys right here.

Gardenersville 18:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The Aryan Race: It's Origins and Achievements


Charles Morris

Chapter One Types of Mankind

(First Paragraph) Somewhere, no man can say just where: at some time, it is equally impossbile to say when, -there dwelt in Europe or Asia a most remarkable trive or family of mankind. Where or when this was we shall never clearly know. No history mentions their name or gives a hint of their existance; no legend or tradition has floated down to us from that vanished realm of life. Not a monument remains which we can distinguish as reared by the hands of his people; not even the grave of one of it's members can be traced.

Chapter Two Home of the Aryans

(First Paragraph) In seeking to trace the original home of the Aryans we are concerned mainly with the Xanthochroic, or blond, type of race. The melanochroic, or dark, type was widely spread, in the later prehistoric era, throughout the Mediterranean and the southern Asiatic region. But the blonds were in all probability far more limited in locality and their place of residence remains one of the unsolved problems of science, despite the persistent efforts which have been made to discover it. Yet these blonds or "fair whites" were the true Aryans, the people with whome the language known as Aryan originated. The language of the "dark whites" belong to a very distinct family of speech which is still spoken by most of the typical representatives of the race, though Aryan tongues are generally spoken by the tribes and people arising from a mingling of the two races. It is therefore the original home of the Xanthochroi - the blue-eyed and fair haired ancestors of the modern Aryans-that we shall here endeavor to trace.

more to come!!! enjoy!!!

You can fill the page up with the pronouncements of Morris if you like, but you wont be telling us anything new (the book was written in 1881), apart from your intriguing theory of "racist passive aggressive" behaviour because of vile blond jokes. You could join fellow blondie fan user:Rokus01 on his Nordic race page. Paul B 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It honestly says 1880 in my copy. Sorry if publishing companies have differences. That has nothing to do with this conversation. That is ad homenim, useless, worthless arguing that I do not care to partake in and I hope that one day you will learn to be more noble in discussions about things that you are not a part of.

Whenever it was written, by whomever it was written, they have much more knowledge than you do on the subject, obviously. You call a race of people a concept. You act as if they are not a race at all. When I give you literature you try to define it as useless because of when it was written.

Just because you aren't xanthochroic doesn't mean that you have to call me a 'blondie fan'. That is second grade stuff, really. I have no time for that as well.

Now about the validity of this book about the Aryans.

Are the works of Da vinci worthless? I guess what you would say about his anatomy drawings is that they are gross and morbid, right?

What about Newton? Are all of his observations just meaningless ink on paper?

I know Morris is not Newton or Da Vinci, but it is history. It is a published work based on this world that we live in. When it was written does not matter.

When was the bible written? the koran? the tao te ching?

You obviously do more arguing than thinking...

Equations and anatomical drawings cannot define the subject that Morris speaks of. It is the study of human beings, where one person's observations can be brought down by opinions held by another.

You are a person with opinions. You have opinionated your page. Though I am not an established writer, I do seek truth in things. It's an Aryan thing.. you know... being noble.

You should check it out! Meanwhile, I hope the cunning that you have keeps you afloat.

Good Day.

Gardenersville 05:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The scientific ideas of Leonardo certainly are obsolete! As for Newton, he made specific discoveries, Morris did not. Morris is obsolete because almost all racial anthropology of that period is obsolete, due to developments in genetics. Morris is actually fairly liberal, but he is dependent on concepts such as "Xanthocroi" which does not exist in anthropology anymore (it was invented by Thomas Huxley). re: "Just because you aren't xanthochroic doesn't mean that you have to call me a 'blondie fan'", I do, as it happens, have fair(ish!) hair and I am from northern Europe. So what? Paul B 12:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Gardenville: the book u allude to is not discredited because of WHEN it was published, but because of the content it contains is merely racist socioiligy. It is not scientific.

There is no distinct aryan race in the way you think. As i tried telling you before, blondeness is a multifactorial phenotypic phenomenon that represents one end of a spectrum of 'whiteness'. Blondness did not arise from one single tribe in europe that just appeared out of the earth as if it were some 'divine creation'

This is not an attack on your roots or anything. ( I am a blonde european man), but I just cannot agree with what you write. it comes across as racist, and you are giving white people a bad name. I don;t know if you are being intentionally contreversial, or you actually beleive in what you write

The inhabitants of europe are largely all derived from the original inhabitants of europe that arrived in the paleolithic era (out of africa). They were homogenous (ie all the same), hunter-gatherers that inhabited europe sparsely, and co-existed with the Neanderthals for a while. During the ice age (about 20, 000 years ago), the population retracted to 2 'refugia'. One was in the balkans-unkrainian steppes region, the other one in Iberia (spain), as northern europe was uninhabitable. After the ice retracted, europe was slowly repopultaed from these 2 refugia. So in essence the people are all very closely related.

The introduction of farming and animal husbandry is hypothesised to have arrived from the middle-east. THis is most liekly to be a 'cultural' influence learned from trade, etc rather it being brought in by migrations of middle-eastern people to europe. this innovation enabled people to settle down and increase population more rapidly.

The second major influence was the arrival of the 'Indo_europeans' from the Ukrainian steppes. They introduced the I-E languages, from which German, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, etc differentiated from. This is the 'aryan race'. Their origins are obscure, but it seems most probable that they are just original europeans that had lived in the ukrainian refugia since the ice age.

THis is why the european people are the most similar 'race' on earth, they all stem from a common origin. In contrast, there is far more inter-racial (ie within race) variation in Asian and Black peoples.

Some people in europe are obviously darker. The so called 'mediterranean' sub-race found in grece, southern italy, and spain. This is is probably due to the influence of Middle-eastern and african migrations (as they are obviously close to africa), and /or acclimitisation to the hot environment of the mediterranean. Similarly, australian aboriginies, Indians, Pacific Islanders are all black, but are not related to each other, nor Africans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2007


Why is this article linked with the "Discrimination" sidebar? This seems enormously subjective.

I don't think it's 'subjective' to describe the Nazis as discrminatory. The sidebar is linked only to that section. Paul B 10:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see now that it's linked only to that section. I stand corrected.

Source needed[edit]

I don't see how this claim can be made with absolutely 0 supporting evidence:

"The usage of Aryan to mean "all Indo-Europeans" is now regarded by most scholars as obsolete, though it is still seen occasionally and some people continue this usage.[3] In today's English, "Aryan", if used at all, is normally synonymous to Indo-Iranian, or Proto-Indo-Iranian."

I am a physical anthropology student and the words indo-european and aryan are not only fairly interchangable but with relatively recent mitochondrial evidence we can trace the origin of many caucasoids (especially slavs and germanics, whom possess high ratios of r1a1 in Y-dna testing) to the same aryans who "migrated through" or "invaded" Iran/India, though little if any evidence exists that these people are 1. identicle to modern iranians and/or one of the indian sub-groups 2. totally extinct, which just seems to be some nihilistic laziness. Quite bluntly, we use the term all the time. Indo-European and Aryan are also synonyms in several modern versions of the dictionary, as well as indo-iranian in some others.

My heart aches every time I see Nazi-like taboo paranoia about certain knowledge being "too dangerous to treat without bias", ironically, because the Nazis shared the view that when knowledge is "too dangerous" regardless of how correct it is, it must be ignored, and yet we fight them by becoming them

Other than a few pure social-science books that completely neglect the laser accuracy of modern DNA tracing theres really very little opposition to the Aryans being IN PART proto-Europeans and caucasoid. The cycle of "that maybe true but its too dangerous" continues I suppose... back and forth... back and forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold polymer (talkcontribs)

The statement is not about genetics, it's about the scholarly use of the term 'Aryan', which is now no longer used as a synonym of Indo-European. In popular usage the term Aryan is generally a synonym for 'Nordic', but that's simply because of the Nazis. Dictionaries record all uses, past and present. Paul B 11:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Does Aryan mean white?[edit]

I thought how the Nazis used the word it meant just German, or some other Nordic race. Most white supremacists and neo-Nazis use the word as if it's synonymous with white people. Well?

The Japanese were "honorable aryans" just because they were Germany's allies. The Poles were "sub-humans" despite being often blonde, blue-eyed, etc. Then this was this confusing stuff about the various tribes of the Roma. --HanzoHattori 22:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Aryan means people who strive to be the best. Well educated, fit, healthy, strong, employed, sports-minded & religious. It is absolutely not true that Aryan means blue eyes & blond hair although through propaganda at the time of the second world war, Aryan was 'visually' or 'fantasized' believing to be humans with blue eyes & blond hair. It was hitler who layed shame on the true meaning of Aryan race, He was full of hate, an entertainer & manipulater. It was once said by the german general Rommel that the maoris of New Zealand were Aryan & so Aryan had absolutely nothing to do with the features or colur of a human being.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 05:41, 7 August 2007.

No so they use the term it means white people are not Aryans? they use it and there not white, white people use the word and they are white, the term has multiply meanings. --Vonones 11:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The idea that Polynesians were of Aryan origin was once quite widespread, not restricted to Rommell. It had a vogue in the late 19th C. Paul B 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


The following paragraph is deeply problematic

The Aryan race are to be divided into two great divisions the Northern or European Aryans, and the Southern or Asiatic Aryans. The Southern or Asiatic Aryans may be similarity divided into three principal branches: Armenians, Iranian ethnic groups, and Indians. The Armenians, like the Celts, are now few in number. They belong once to a longer extent of a country where they spread westward from Armenia to Italy under the names of Phrygians, Thracians, Pelasgians, Etruscans and also spread to other locations. [1]

These sweeping statements are made as though they are undisputed facts, and are footnoted to "The Armenian Origin of the Etruscans by Robert Ellis", without any publication references or page references. A quick look at the BL catalogue reveals that this book was written in 1861!!!! It is clearly not a reliable source. The consensus modern view is that Etruscan is a non-Indo-European language, so it cannot be listed here as if it were an undisputed fact that it is IE - and of Armenian origin. The rest of the passage may be relevant to historical theories about categorising Indo-European peoples, but if so it belongs in the body of the article in the relevant section. Paul B 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Anti-Communism was basis of Nazism. The Nazis stated that Jews were overwhelmingly communist and used the term Jews and communist interchangeably. Their genocide didn't have to do with them being Jewish but with being communist. The current article states that they eliminated them just because they were ethnically Jewish which is not true.

Jeremy221 07:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, that's utterly absurd, and is contradicted by every significant source on Nazism. Paul B 07:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Mein Kampf was centered upon this notion and it was emphasized by Nazi periodicals repeatedly. You may read the material for yourself:

I don't see what the Bhagavad Gita has to do with the Aryan race. Himmler's personal beliefs wasn't the position of the state. It should be reserved to Himmler's article.

Jeremy221 08:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Gita - this is not an article about the position of the Nazi state. It's an article about the influence of the concept of the Aryan race - on various groups including Nazis. Himmler was a leading Nazi influenced by these ideas. As for Jews, the Nazis killed as many as they could find regardless of their political orientation, including a leading member of the Italian Fascist party. And the literature you refer to clearly states that Jews were eliminated for being "ethnically Jewish"[9] Paul B 08:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
This book explained the Nuremberg laws and was written upon the premise that the reader understood that Jews have an innate predisposition to political radicalism. This was written eleven years into Nazi control and students were given a healthy dose of this education daily. Yes, the Jews were eliminated for being "ethnically Jewish" but this was based on the belief that they were innately susceptible to communism. If you read more articles, particularly earlier periodicals it will be prominent. The term "Judeo-Bolshevik" was used:

You also should read the article Honorary Aryan. As for Himmler and the Ghita it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the section of the article that I removed it from. Jeremy221 09:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

If you think it has nothing to do with the section, then I suggest that you don't even understand the concept 'Aryan' - which in a religious context refers to Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian beliefs, as opposed to 'Semitic' religions (viz Judaism, Isalm, Christianty). Affirmation of the 'noble' morality of the Gita in contrast to the 'weak' slavish morality of the bible is commonplace in Aryanist literature. I've no idea why you want me to read the Honorary Aryans article - parts of which I wrote. The concept of 'Jewish Bolshevism' has nothing to do with the claim that Jews were 'overwhelmingly communist', which they were not. It's an intellectual construct which claims that there is some sort of quasi-metaphyical congruence between judaism and bolshevism, as evidenced in Hitler's repeated claims in Table Talk that Jews were in some bizarre sense 'Bolsheviks' even in the bronze age. Paul B 18:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI - Jeremy221 is now blocked as a sock of banned user Jerry Jones (talk · contribs). The user was banned for excessive POV pushing. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aryan as a Persian racial concept[edit]

So my edit summary was a bit incorrect - I've had far too little sleep in the past month. Anyway, the Aryan racial concept was very important in Persian culture in the 20th century. It had a major impact on Iranian-German relations during WWII and even serves as the current naming convention of the country. Iran is Persian for Aryan. --Strothra (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The concept of the "Aryan race" emerges in European culture. It only has relevance to Persia because Europeans had a theory of Semitic/Aryan racial differences. It had no relevance to Middle Eastern political differences independently of European obsessions. Yes, we all know that Iran = Aryan. The article says so in the very next paragraph. We have separate articles on the race theory and the general concept of Aryan so as not to mix up two quite different issues. Paul B (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I accept the point that there are two different articles in order to make a distinction between the racial and cultural concepts of Aryan. However, Aryan in the Persian region today has come to mean a much different thing. The concept of race did influence the region in the 20th century and altered, to some extent, the perception of what it meant to be Aryan. Whether or not it originates in Europe doesn't exactly matter. The article would do well to explore the meaning of Aryan as a racialized concept in the later 20th century. Current scholarship indicates that the idea of race originates in Europe so, yes, that would mean Aryan as a racialized idea also begins there - particularly through Orientalist scholarship. Still, as ideas of race were also exported (and not just created in a vacuum) it has further developed over time within a specific Persian context in ways which are no longer simply European. --Strothra (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Persian culture cannot be generalized with what you call "Middle Eastern politics". Persia was a greater kingdom, lapping over some of what is now Europe. The concept of a Noble Race was invented by the Persians, which is why they turned "arya" into "aryan", an Aryan being a person of the noble race. Other than that, all Europeans descend from the same tribal groups as Persians, that is, the Indo-Europeans peoples or ARYAN peoples, and perhaps the hypothetical proto-Indo-Europeans, which is why Hitler even took up the concept again, because of the collective ancestry. The same reason also explains why he ever used the swastika which was an Aryan symbol, first found in Persia and traces from emigrated "Aryans" from North India. Therefore, do your research. The Aryan race is originally derived from a Persian concept, and many Persians still today accept the concept. I've even referenced that fact. Unless you can directly disprove these facts (which would be hardcore revisionism of mainstream anthropology and linguistic anthropology, and ethnology), we should include them in the article as they are relevant to the reason Germans ever took up this concept in recent European history. SenseOnes (talk) 09:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we all know all this. However, Europeans do not for the most part "descend from the same tribal group", their languages do. I'll write more later. Paul B (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of what SenseOnes says here is difficult to follow. One gets the impression that he hasn't read the article, since all the valid points that he makes are already in it. However, the ancient Persians did not think of themselves as a biological race, still less one that was distinct from "Semitic" peoples. Aramaic was one of the official languages of the empire, which, of course, encompassed Mesopotamia and North East Africa, but barely had more than a foothold in Europe. The whole concept of an Aryan race derives from the identification of the Indo-European Language Group which did not exist as a concept before the early 19th century. It was only because of that that, for example, Germans and Indo-Iranians could be linked to ancient history. Read Swastika for a detailed explanation of how the swastika came be associated with this thinking. For the Nazis the main point of the conept "Aryan" had very little to do with Iran or India and everything to do with dissociating Germans from Jews. Paul B (talk) 16:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
"Europeans do not for the most part "descend from the same tribal group", their languages do", "The whole concept of an Aryan race derives from the identification of the Indo-European Language", "It was only because of that that, for example, Germans and Indo-Iranians could be linked to ancient history"
Now thats an obvious lie. Go learn something about anthropology. Iranians/Persians descend from the same Indo-European or Aryan peoples as other Europeans, and you can easily see that with genetic anthropology. Iranians are not in the same group as Arabians, all though they are often stereotyped as such because other Middle Easterners forced their religion upon them, and immigrated in large groups. There is no significant genetic distance between the Danish, Italian, German (Centum group, and the Iranian (the Persian, not Arabian and Turkish immigrants), which simply attests for the fact that they descend from the same population groups, that is, the so-called Aryans or proto-Indo-European peoples. Yes, its often called simply linguistic groups in Anthropological Linguistics, however, Linguistic and Ethnic groups are often not distinguished between in ethnology and Linguistic Anthropology, for the sheer reason that they were unambiguous in the way that the linguistic groups didnt breed outside of their linguistic group, thereby making them an ethnic group. Persians had a very big influence on many countries, like Bulgaria due to the migration periods. It isnt a coincidence that genetics are used to describe the migration of Indo-European groups, like in, because they were not just linguistic groups, but actual peoples. Several different population groups emerged from the proto-Indo-Europeans, but overall they had little genetic distance, and there were no Africans or Asians which also attests to the inbreeding. The Aryan race IS a Persian concept, they were the first to ever call themselves "Aryans", "Aryan peoples", an Aryan race, and so on. It is no coincidence that the Nazis used this concept, they used it because they knew they descended from the same groups as the ancient Persians, and therefore were "Aryan". Aryan was in science an accepted concept, a real group of people, an ethnic parallel to Indo-Europeans as a linguistic group. Only out of political correctness or linguistic bias is the concepts scientific validity (both in genetic anthropology, linguistic anthropology and ethnology) denied, because the actual genetic and anthropological evidence exists. SenseOnes (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not accuse people of lying. The majority of European genetic ancestry is paleolithic. So unless you are a proponent of Paleolithic Continuity Theory then you can't equate genetic with linguistic history. The ancient Iranians never considered themselves to be a biological race, and the word "Aryan" had no relevance to Europeans until the early 19th century. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not equating genetic with linguistic history, I'm describing the relationship between them. Persians and other Indo-Europeans arent only related linguistically; they are related ethnically and genetically, which is the reason Europeans ever took the Aryan concept up. Not all considered the Aryans a biological race, simply a race or a people. You said Persians and Europeans were only linked linguistically; I disproved it. "The whole concept of an Aryan race derives from the identification of the Indo-European Language", "It was only because of that that, for example, Germans and Indo-Iranians could be linked to ancient history". Now you are saying Persians didnt consider themselves part of a race called Aryans (note: I never said biological, neither does the articles name). I'm going to disprove that, too. The term "Iran" is derived from three separate words throughout the history of the Farsi language: From the middle Farsi word `Eran'; from the ancient Farsi word `Ariya', and from the Avesta Farsi word `Airya', which itself is derived from the ancient Persian word `Arya'. The term `Arya` was a designation for all the Aryan and Indo-Iranian tribes. The term comes from the Avesta adjective `Aryana' and means a person who hails from the land of Arya. The term `Iran', meaning `the land of Aryans', is derived from the plural of the word `Aryana', that is `Aryanam' in Avesta. During the middle Farsi language, `Aryanam' was modified to `Eran Shar'. In Avesta, `Aryanam' was also the origin of the term `Iran Vij' (Aryanam Vaejah), meaning `the Iranian Race and Origin´. In the Parthian dialect, the term has been changed to `Aryan´. In the Pahlavi dialect, `er', `Aryan', `Eran-Sahr' and `Eran-Vej' are all different variations of the same term. In terms of etymology ,`er' means `noble' and `warrior', and when used with the (relation) suffix `an', it means; `the noble race´, `worriers", and `Aryans'.
There you have it, the etymology of the word. Aryan comes from Er-an (which is from the Farsi language, from Aryanam in Avesta), and Aryanam is synonymous with Iran Vij (Aryanam Vaejah) meaning "the Iranian Race and Origin". This is, in the Parthian dialect, changed from Er-an, to Aryan, meaning the Noble Race. Er means noble, and an means the race when used as suffix to er (Er-an, Ary-an, or as in Farsi Ariy-an). SenseOnes (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You are not "disproving" anything, just telling me stuff I knew about years ago, but misconstruing its significance. It has nothing to do with the topic of this article, which is about the concept of a race called the "Aryan race" which did not exist in ancient times. The fact that the Iranians called themselves Aryans is no more relevant than the fact that the Greeks called thmselves Hellenes. If they happened to have had the oldest recored IE literature, then the IE peoples as a whole might have been labelled the "Hellene race" by 19th century anthropologists. It's a convention, similar to the use of the word "Celtic" to refer to the Scots and Irish, even though there is no historical reason to suppose that ancient Scots and Irish were ever called that. You don't seem to understand this basic point. As for genetics, the point is that we can't meaningfully claim that IE pepoles are somehow more closely related to eachother than non-IE peoples. Check "Europeans Trace Ancestry to Paleolithic People", Science 10 November 2000. Or look at Genetic history of Europe which shows that European populations cannot be mapped onto linguistic models and diverge in complex ways. Paul B (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I did prove that the Persians had a racial concept called the Noble Race, which is the same as the Aryan Race. This, you dont seem to be willing to accept though, and you reverted my other perfectly justified edits, removing original research and misquotations of various sources. I do understand your point, but what counts isnt the name of the concept, its the concepts original racial roots, which come all the way back from Persia. They did consider it a racial word, and the fact that some people took it up again in the 19th century, considering it a general word for Indo-Europeans, doesnt make the word less relevant, than like you described, Celts. The fact I was disproving was that the Persians didnt consider it a racial concept - they did. Now you removed it again, because the essence of the concept might have changed when people took it up again in the 19th century, all though the etymological evidence actually directly states thats its a racial word. You have to consider these things. Saying that the concept of an Aryan race is originally derived (and thus, perhaps, altered) from Persian culture is the truth, because it is. SenseOnes (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You proved no such thing. You proved that the Persians saw themselves as a people and labelled themselves as such - not that you need to "prove" something that is already known. That is not the meaning of race that is intended by the phrase "Aryan race", as it is in common usage in English and as it was used in the period when Aryanism was influential and is the subject of this article. That usage is not derived from some special interest in Persians, it's derived from the discovery of IE languages which was unknown to the Persians. . The rest of youtr "improvements" consist of deleting material that does not conform to your White Nationalist ideology. Paul B (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Aryan is the form in English. It was used in preference to Arya because of English norms. Germans use Arier and Arisch because of the way German works (e.g. Indogermanisch). Paul B (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"That usage is not derived from some special interest in Persians, it's derived from the discovery of IE languages which was unknown to the Persians" - You are right, but the concept of ARYAN derives from Persian etymology, while the concept of ārya derives from Indian (Sanskrit) etymology. Aryan is from Persian, not English. Persians did not know about IE, no, but they were the inventors of the word Aryan/Eran, which was taken from the word ārya in Sanskrit. They created a concept of an Iranian (Eranian/Aryan) race, what they called the noble race (er-an). I am not saying they knew about any such thing as Indo-Europeans as a linguistic or ethnic group, I am saying they invented the word Aryan, the concept of an Aryan race and people - and ALL THOUGH Nazis altered it, they based their Aryan Race principle on the Persian Aryan Race principle. For the same reason, Hitler did consider Iranians Aryan (not doing so would directly contradict the word Iranian), and had Iranian soldiers in his army. The only Iranians that were historically not considered Aryan were the millions Arabian and Turkish immigrants residing in Iran.
Regarding my edits - I am absolutely not a White Nationalist, and you are not even supposed to comment on the ideology you or other editors subscribe to - consider the revision, not the reviser. I am also not removing something I dont agree with, I am removing original research and uncited sentences that you have continuously re-added. If you dont agree, you should tell me the exact source of every line of what I claim to be original research (and therefore have removed), if you want it to stay in the article. SenseOnes (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
What uncited sentences? The intro does not require citation if the material is cited in the article. You deleted masses of well cited material in the neo-Nazi section. Paul B (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The last part of the Neo-Nazi section implied that all Neo-Nazis are proponents of a concept called "Western Imperium" vaguely described by a few books, and honestly I've never heard about such a thing in any literary work describing Neo-Nazism and its ideological contents, which indicates its highly questionable notability. One thing you have also been claiming throughout the entire article, is that everyone in the Third Reich in agreement considered Nordics more Aryan than any other "Aryan" people - Hitler, for an example, had very dark hair and generally wasnt Nordic, which simply proves the logical fallacy of a such claim. There was much disagreement in the Third Reich about these things, and there were at times 15 hour arguments between Hitler and others, in attempts to reach consensus. The contemporary views expressed in propaganda material were far from always the views held by the even the top ranking leaders of the Third Reich; an aspect of their ideology (Nazism) that you havent even mentioned. Therefore a such claim should be removed, no matter what opinionated reference states such a thing, since many works on the Third Reich attest to exactly what I describe here - that is, disagreement on very basic principles about the Aryan race and its history.
Apart from these discussions about the articles quackeries on the contemporary views of Nazis, you havent even replied to the etymological questions of Aryanism and the Persian roots of the whole Aryan concept. SenseOnes (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Replying on the etymology is rather difficult given your repeated assertions. Firstly the Iranian usage is not "derived from Sanskrit". Both Avestan and Sanskrit derive from Proto-Indo-Iranian, from which the word comes. Look up the etymology, which is covered in some detail in Aryan. Secondly, the word exists in various forms in modern languages: "Raza aria" (Spanish); Arier (German); Ariër (Dutch); Ariowie (Polish). etc. They all mean the same thing. It's arbitrary to claim that that the English version with an 'n' must derive from the Iranian form just because it has an 'n'. You may as well say that the German form derives from the Sanskrit and therefore has a completely different meaning! Paul B (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That material on neo-Nazism is derived from Goodrich-Clark. Whether you agree or not is not really relevant. The tired old canard about Hitler's hair is beside the point. Even dyed in the wool Nordicists were aware that there were complexities. You really ought to read some books - for example Hans Gunther, Rosenberg and the bumpf put out by the SS race theorists. Even Hitler himself in Table Talk is quite clear about the importance of Nordic racial identity. Of course Nazi politics and ideology was varied and contested, but we can't go into every little detail. Nordicism was hugely influential, and that's all that's being said. As for your assertion that a "claim should be removed, no matter what opinionated reference states such a thing". I'm afraid you don't get to decide that. Policy does. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether I agree or not is not relevant, no, whether you agree or not is not relevant either. But whether the concept described as the "Western Imperium" is notable or not is very, very relevant. Whats more, I am not denying Nordicism was a part of the Nazi ideology, and it was very influential, the whole Nordic racial ideal. However, we cannot portray Nazism as a one-sided ideology, where there was no debate or general disagreement on certain matters - such as Nordicism, which there indeed was. Now you are telling me to read books, actually I do read books, and thats the only reason I am even writing right here, right now.
Your assertion that "Aryan" is an English word based on the Sanskrit-derived "arya" is utterly and completely false. Its a Persian word, meaning the noble race, derived from the Sanskrit word ārya, which any scholar in Persian etymology would tell you. Even though we disagree in that respect, and considering both opinions as possibilities, the fact that Germans took the word from Persian remains true.
Nazi Germany had a broad cooperation with what is now called "Iran". Iran was called Persia. The name change came in 1935. The old Reza Shach was so impressed with Nazi ideology that he changed the name of the country to Iran, which means Aryan (derived from er-an, like Aryan) (,, Nazism still influences todays Iran, with broad circulation of anti-semitism and usage of the Hitler salute in the military and Hezbollah parades. Image:NaziSaluteinPalestine.jpg Image:Hizbnaziae2.jpg.
See any major, accepted etymology dictionary. Lets start with, -- 1601, as a term in classical history, from L. Ariana, from Gk. Aria name applied to various parts of western Asia, ult. from Skt. Arya-s "noble, honorable, respectable," the name Sanskrit-speaking invaders of India gave themselves in the ancient texts, originally "belonging to the hospitable," from arya-s "lord, hospitable lord," originally "protecting the stranger," from ari-s "stranger." -- (My commentary) See, the Indians described them as the hospitable from Arya-s, whereas the first description of "Aryans" was from Persians, taken from the concept developed by the Indian Sanskrit word "ārya", developed to mainly "Eran", which in the Parthian dialect was changed to Aryan (end commentary) -- Ancient Persians gave themselves the name (O.Pers. Ariya-), hence Iran (from Iranian eran, from Avestan gen. pl.airyanam)
Some more about the ties between Hitler & Nazi Germany and Iran:,,2933,301296,00.html,, SenseOnes (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Why are you filling this page with images of Nazi salutes? What possible help is that? You write, "Your assertion that "Aryan" is an English word based on the Sanskrit-derived "arya" is utterly and completely false. Its a Persian word, meaning the noble race, derived from the Sanskrit word ārya, which any scholar in Persian etymology would tell you." No they will not tell you that. They will tell you it is derived from proto-Indo-Iranian, just as I said. The assertion that it derives from 'hospitable' is derived from a theory of Paul Thieme's about PII usage, not from some difference between the 'hospitable' Indians and the Iranians. Look it up. I never said the English word was specifically derived from Sanskrit, just we can't meaningfully distinguish Avestan and Sanskrit as sources. There is no point in replying to someone who repeats the same assertions over and over and does not accurately read what has been written. Paul B (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
"Aryan is the form in English. It was used in preference to Arya because of English norms. Germans use Arier and Arisch because of the way German works", "I never said the English word was specifically derived from Sanskrit" - No you didnt, but you implied that the Iranian/Persian had no influence what so ever (even though they were the first to ever describe a 'noble race') just because the English had the word Aryan. Thereby you implied that it didnt come from Persian/Iranian culture, and the only alternate source is Indian etymology. You have no evidence to that effect. The Indian etymology of the "Arya-s" was not really the point. The point was that "Aryan" was derived from Iranian/Persian, and not from Sanskrit. "We can't meaningfully distinguish Avestan and Sanskrit as sources" - I never said Avestan was the exclusive source. The whole Iranian etymology of the word Aryan was not just from Avestan, but also from Farsi, (Old) Persian, Iranian and Parthian. The Indian etymology is different from the Iranian, in that it doesnt describe any Noble race in connection with Arya, only "being noble" and "being spiritual", BUT NOT THE WORD ITSELF (Aryan, Eran) which is STRICTLY Iranian/Persian. Arya is derived from proto-Indo-Iranian, Aryan and Eran arent.
So the way I see it, you are simply not willing to accept that Aryan in English or Arisch in German comes from Iranian/Persian sources, rather than Indian (e.g. Sanskrit) - that is, you dont think they come from Iranian/Persian as much as proto-Indo-Iranian in general, and not more than Indian sources, am I right? SenseOnes (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The article has always said that it derives from the Indo-Iranian word, which is attested in both Persian and Indian sources. It's not one or the other. You are simply talking nonsense about the "Indian etymology" when you make the ludicrous claim that "Arya is derived from proto-Indo-Iranian, Aryan and Eran arent." It is impossible to discuss the matter coherently with you. Do you even understand what Proto-Indo-Iranian is? Paul B (talk) 07:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:DFTT. The only valid discussion I see here would be a proper treatment of "The concept of the "Aryan race" ... has relevance to Persia because Europeans had a theory of Semitic/Aryan racial differences", viz., the German-Persian "axis" in WWII, such as it was. dab (𒁳) 12:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That might be worth a section if anyone knows enough about German/Iranian relations at the time, which I don't. Paul B (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not a troll. You still havent said whether you think the etymology of the word Aryan is derived from Sanskrit or Persian. And yes, there is considerable difference, such as the fact that Eran from Persian means the noble race, and the word Aryan from the Parthian dialect is an actual synonym to Eran. Now any ancient Persian word called 'Aryan' meaning 'the noble race' is significant to an article about the Aryan race, while arya in Sanskrit simply means Noble or Spiritual. Proto-Indo-Iranian does not have any word called 'Aryan', only Arya, and especially does not have a word describing a race. What am I getting at? Simply that these etymological considerations prove that the Aryan race concept was a Persian concept before it was a German, proving that it is derived from Persian culture. This is also relevant to the Nazis and their ideology, considering they saw Persians as Aryans, and not Indians. Please take a stance on these facts, instead of avoiding it by calling me a troll. SenseOnes (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

trolling removed. Please take this sort of thing to user talkpages. dab (𒁳) 15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

SenseOnes, why do you keep repeating perfectly undisputed basics? Shall we look into OED? English Aryan is attested since 1858 (Whitney: "The Aryan tribes -- for that is the name they gave themselves"). But it should be noted that the spelling Arian is older, directly inherited from Latin Arianus "of Ariana", and as such indeed referring to Persia, not India. OED says: "Arian has long been in English use: Aryan is of recent introduction in Comparative Philology, and is also by many written Arian, on the ground that aria was the original word, as shown by the Vedic language, arya being only the later Sanskrit form; the spelling Aryan has the advantage of distinguishing the word from Arian in Eccl. Hist." You claim that "any ancient Persian word called 'Aryan' meaning 'the noble race' is significant to an article about the Aryan race". This is nonsense. The Aryan race of 19th century scientific racism is informed by Comparative Philology, and has very little to do with the family tree of Darius the Great. The claim that Persian ariya means "the noble race" is itself a product of the 19th century. Now please be nice and stop posting images of Nazi salutes, random snippets from genetics studies and tenuously coherent rants to this page. dab (𒁳) 16:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all. "The claim that Persian ariya means "the noble race" is itself a product of the 19th century" - Who has claimed this? Not me. You obviously havent even read my words. I have referenced the fact that the Persian word Eran, with the synonymous Parthian word Aryan means 'the noble race' (, Iranian Languages p.26-27, Dr. Suzan Kaviri). This does not come out of the 19th century, it comes directly out of an ancient Persian word, long preceding the 19th century. You are not an authority on what is true and what is false, scholars in Iranian languages are. The article is called Aryan race. It is NOT just about the 19th century Aryan race, it is about ALL manifestations of a such concept, like 'Eran'/'Aryan' from Persian and Parthian culture. I am not talking about an English word from OED, I am talking about a Persian word from the Parthian dialect called 'Aryan', which the so-called English word 'Aryan' is a direct copy of, despite of the misconception about the Sanskrit word 'ārya', which in fact has no racial dimension at all. I will keep repeating this until you either accept it or come with a study or writing by any Persian scholar that contradicts it in terms of etymology. SenseOnes (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

see below: go to Historical_definitions_of_race#Earliest_racial_theories and Aryan. Your etymology is correct, but it has nothing to do with this article. dab (𒁳) 20:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


The Aryan racial concept as a hateconcept, has never been important for the Persians or in Persian culture, On the contrary Irans long civilization clearly expresses it as a civ. of culture and respect for the divine. There is no history of anti-anybody in Persian history or culture. Iran has always been called "Iran" in different forms and Reza shah only ask for this name to be used rather than the Latin version of Pars (Persia) which was just a province and had been used by some countries. "Aryan" is an Old concept in Iran and now if Germany a country in Europe thousands years later got in to the thing maybe Iran felt should be involved and expand relations with Germany so that they would learn and be closer to what hitler saw as some sort of Fatherland...

Mr. Paul, I think the Aryan race as a "notion" far precedes the way the concept of the aryan race was used or misused in Europe. It did originate in Persia as a racial concept, however the meaning here is the noble conscious race and through Zoroastrianism offered anyone to be an "ARYAN" as followed by the teachings and guidelines------------this opposed to the Nazi version in the 19th century some thousands years later were excluding different kind of peoples and other "unholy" policies were on the agenda. So saying it only had relevance to Persia because of a theory the Europeans had regarding the "Semitic/Aryan racial differences" is failing to See in context.

Aryan in its purest sense means enlightened someone who knows who sees. The concept were part of the early Indo-Iranian high priest attempts to lead people away from "darkness". Same process went later on in similair forms shapes in many places around the World many thousands of years ago. But the shape it took place in persia was that of Zoroastrianism Mithraism and other "Arya". The Aryans/Indo-Iranians have genetic linkage to Europeans who belong to a mixture of various races [10]. Cyrus111 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously he is attesting to what I am trying to tell you, and let me quote him directly: "Mr. Paul, the Aryan race as a "notion" far precedes the way the concept of the aryan race was used or misused in Europe. It did originate in Persia as a racial concept". SenseOnes (talk) 20:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)....however the meaning here is the noble conscious race and through Zoroastrianism offered anyone to be an "ARYAN" as followed by the teachings and guidelines....

you'll want to discuss this at Historical_definitions_of_race#Earliest_racial_theories. I repeat that the "Aryan race" is a thoroughly modern concept. Just putting a claim in boldface doesn't make it any more true. dab (𒁳) 20:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC) I am quite aware of that, and you saying so doesnt make it untrue either. I am not the one who wants to discuss this, obviously I have the references, and like you said, the etymology is right. That article says nothing about the Aryans, this article does, so naturally the discussion should be here. The problem with your idea that it is an entirely "modern concept", is that it is both a modern and an ancient concept. Nazism is not a modern concept either, but Neo-Nazism is. That analogy explains the relationship between ancient Aryanism and what you could call Neo-Aryanism, first expressed by the ideology Nazism. The whole concept of Aryans as a linguistic group (first expressed by Max Müller, as a name of Indo-Europeans, which to a lesser extent is still used today, all though it is more prevalent to use in the context of Indo-Iranians) is separate from the concept of an ethnic and racial Aryan group - which the Persians invented, and the Nazis later took up. SenseOnes (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Persians did not invent anything the Nazis took up. Persians were not creators of what later became Nazism in Germany. The original concept is not something that could have spawned nazism. The original concept would not have turned an individual against its own soul.

Zoroastrianism teaches the importance of good thoughts, words, and actions, in a world where the forces of truth, the all-knowing lord, Ahura Mazda, are constantly opposed by those of the evil spirit, Angra Mainyu. Cyrus111 (talk) 01:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying Persians invented Nazism, I am saying they invented what I dubbed Aryanism. The Nazis later embraced and exploited this concept, and adapted it into their own belief-system, which could be dubbed Neo-Aryanism. The Neo-Aryanism of the Nazis differed in many ways from Persian Aryanism, but nevertheless it was a form of Aryanism. As for the racial dimensions of the ancient Persian Aryanism, I've perfectly explained it already:

SenseOnes (talk) 08:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

how many times are you going to repeat a factoid that nobody even disputed in the first place? Look, it is very simple: aria is a Persian word. Aryan is an English word, as is race. This article is about the 19th century concept of an Aryan race, not Old Persian notions of lineage. You want to discuss "a Persian word from the Parthian dialect"? Go to Achaemenid dynasty or Parthian language, but stop spamming this completely unrelated article talkpage. At the very most, if you can show that English Aryan race in scholarly literature is *also* applied to Old Persian concepts, you could ask for the placement of a disambiguation notice pointing to a seperate discussion of Old Persian notions of descent. dab (𒁳) 13:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Senses that link you showed me is what I dug up and used in the Iran article over a year ago. but thanks anyways. Secondly why dont you just go on a trip to Iran and explore all those places, museums and texts that are there and talk directly to scholars, I have done this. I am sure you´ll have a good time. There was a a clip on CNN where a Danish girl went there for vacation a while ago, she had a blast. The link can be found at CNN videos. Have fun and bring us back knowledge, also I think it would be a good spiritual experience for you Cyrus111 (talk) 13:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

First of all, dab. No, I am not talking about the Persian word "aria", which you just claimed, so obviously you ARE disputing the factoid I just referenced. I am not talking about the relevance of the Nazi concept to the Persians, quite the contrary, I am talking about the relevance of the Persian concept to 19th century linguists (e.g. Max Müller) and 20th century Nazis. The word I am describing is Aryan. Its relevance to this article is obvious, since the articles name is Aryan Race. The concept of an Aryan race is derived from first of all proto-Indo-Iranian culture, but also Persian culture in specific. The etymology of eran and Aryan in a Persian context is therefore highly relevant to this article. I suggest you go to Achaemenid dynasty or Parthian language, if you want to discuss something there, but what I want to discuss regards the concept of an Aryan Race. SenseOnes (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Strothra, About the statement i feel confident that nazi policies and Iranians do not mix so pasting it back wont make a differens even though to prevent confusion I rev. it. since you are not familiar with the people there your "attemts" are maybe lack of knowledge of a certain civ. and people, read Iran history---and point to the era where any such thing took place, it shows the fair and just policies, enforced by the people in different eras. You see there where two revolutions already in the last century. The last Shah was overtrown by the people who obviously didnt like his policies. If one wants to study a group of people a historical point of view needs to be taken into consideration. This will show the ways of that people during a certain period of time. If you want to learn about the ways of these people who called themselves "Aryans" (Nobles) see "Nobility in Eastern culture" and I also suggest this clip [11]... The documentary by Cyrus Kar is apparently soon to be released [12]

Origin and background of the concept[edit]

According to a 1989 study by Renfrew, C, the usage of Aryan to mean "all Indo-Europeans" is still prevalent and this usage continues,[1]

Why use a report from 1989 in the article that most scholars today wouldn´t agree with?. Look it is easy to understand, the so called Aryan languages are synonomus to Indo-Iranian, any Western or Eastern scholar would tell you this today. So obviously the report is old and quite bias. Can you please show me a recent academic sholary study where Aryan or Aryan languages are synomus to European or European languages. The so called Aryans are the actual so called Indo-Europeans, who spread their languages West and East as part of an Indoeuropeanization campaign on indigenous European populations. Genetic and linguistic evidence proves this. See also National Geographic Human History. And as proven: Populations from the Indo-Iranian region have remained largely stable for the last 10,000 years, far encomapssing all of their arya history. The Aryans/Iranians/IndoAryans are indignenous to Iran and northern India, they are not 'mixed with' the indigenous population. So why erase such sources? Should't recent genetic studies be more valid than a report from 1989...? For example today genetic studies show that though Oceanians resemble Africans they are the most genetically distant. Africans are more closely related to Europeans than any other group despite having different skin colors. And also Africa is the most divergent continent. As for the so called "Aryans"/Indo-Iranians:

As Marija Gimbutas has stated, "the Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of imposing a new administrative system, language and religion upon the indigenous groups."

The old studies claiming this or that will be obsolete when put against todays scientific evidence. One must understand that Genetic and other studies have opened up a whole new chapter in this field often providing startling answers... Cyrus111 20:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree that genetic studies have opened up a new chapter in this field. In discussing the genetic resemblance of Europeans to Africans, it is impossible to acknowledge that Persians/Iranians and Europeans are genetically identical, so that goes for what you call Aryans too. I dont see the relevance of that discussion to this article, though. "please show me a recent academic sholary study where Aryan or Aryan languages are synomus to European or European languages. The so called Aryans are the actual so called Indo-Europeans, who spread their languages West and East as part of an Indoeuropeanization campaign on indigenous European populations. Genetic and linguistic evidence proves this." The study actually says exactly what you just said, that Indo-Europeans are often referred to as 'Aryans'. "So why erase such sources? Should't recent genetic studies be more valid than a report from 1989...?" Because it isnt relevant to the question of the meaning of Aryan. Why is the admixture of indigenous populations and Aryans relevant to the meaning of Aryan? Those sources are unrelated. SenseOnes 12:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Please, enough with the cluster maps.

The relevance is, why use a report from the 80.s when it is not valid. Any easter or western scholar would tell you this today. That was one report from one guy from the 80:s so why use it in the article when it has no basis, the confusion of Aryans = Europeans are just some of the confusions that was born only last century and the true meaning of Aryan was subverted in order to apply ancient Aryan culture to that of the Plot that was going on. British raj is one example of this usage and was used to have an invasion excuse. Smells like robbery to me? Would it make sense if Indo-Iranians went around calling themselves for Anglo-Saxons, Inca Indians? or Han Chinese? It doesnt make sense.

The study actually says exactly what you just said, that Indo-Europeans are often referred to as 'Aryans'

I never said Indoeuropeans are called Aryans nor would any scholar do, only that bias study does. No Europeans nor academics have ever called their languages "Aryan", Only for a brief period in history was this, along with the goodluck swastika symbol redefined to mean something it´s not. There are very heavy explanations for this but probably dont belong in this article or discussion... Today, one cant probably go around with the ancient symbol without it being accused for "something" that was created somewhere else, I think we should reclaim and "undemonize" this symbol as the good fortune symbol it is and was used for 1000:s of years before it got tainted. However Aryan refers to Indo-Iranian people or languages. Indoeuropeans or Europeans are not Aryans/Indo-Iranians they speak different dialects of Indoeuropean languages which was imposed on them by the Aryans as they spread their languages west on indigenous European Populations.

Indo-Europeanization was a cultural not a physical transformation.

And also in the Aryan article you write although in modern Indo-European linguistics Indic languages is often preferred as an alternate synonymous term, without negative connotations derived from the Nazi-era.

There is no negative connotations with indic languages, I know what you mean with the synonymous term, but you need to refrase the sentence. Cyrus111 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Well, what I mean with the sentence in Aryan is actually that there are no negative connotations with Indic Languages, and there are with Aryan. We should consider other phrasings, but I think if you reconsider the sentence, its an alright phrasing.

As to the notion of Indo-European as a term synonymous to Aryan; the sentence in this article clearly says that the usage is still prevalent but restricted, meaning some still use it in that regard, not that it is an objectively thoroughly valid synonym, but that some still use it as such. No matter whether the study is from the 80's, 90's or after 2000, it is still a valid source AS LONG as we say "according to a 1989 study by whoever". We should try to find other studies regarding this usage, though, to make a correct assertion of the validity of the 1989 report, but we shouldnt delete it right away. Also, I want to emphasize that I agree Aryan means Indo-Iranian, at least officially. Unofficially, Aryan should only refer to the Aryan tribes (the Aryan/Persian race) and their descendants, while Indo-Iranian in a modern deracialized context, refers to all speakers of Indo-Iranian languages. SenseOnes 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You keep the 1989 study if you wish, but remember, recent genetic studies shows another story... Is it then not obsolete? With all respect to the guy that wrote it :-/ As for the rephrasing, you might want to ask this Gentlemen from England (Paul) whose language we are using to help you out with it, otherwise you´re doing a good job yourself. Cyrus111 22:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

How do recent genetic studies show another story? Look at the above picture I showed you. That shows that Persians/Aryans are identical with the Danish, Italian and English - that is, other Indo-Europeans. SenseOnes 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Aryan as a Persian racial concept[edit]

This a continuation of the above mentioned topic. Ok then here is the real story, in short. Reza khans emergence to "power" was with the coup d'etat of 1921 which was when in cahoots with the british who wanted to halt the Bolsheviks penetration of Iran and the threat posed to colonial possessions in India. Reza Shah did express support for a Germany military victory and were pro-nazi. However one must remember that Reza khan had become increasingly despotic and disliked by the Iranian people, kind of what happened to his succesor Reza Pahlavi, leading finally to the Islamic revolution. I find it hard to believe that ordinary Iranians would have agreed on some Nazi policies or anything similair to it. And also:

During WW II, Iranian consular office in France was instrumental in saving Iranian and non-Iranian Jews from persecution by Nazi Germany. In the context of Iran's good diplomatic relations with Germany, Iran saved some lives of Iranian Jews and non-iranians stating they were citizens, this shows that Iran, who had a strong relationship with Germany, did not agree with the "Third Reich

But why bring this topic to this article should it not be discussed here [13] . This article should be about the history, interpretations and then the scientific facts about the Aryan race, not what Reza this or Reza that did in the last century, with all respect to all the "Rezas".Cyrus111 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

That is not relevant to the discussion about this article. That sentence you are quoting is obviously extremely biased, anyway, and assesses a subjective issue. "This shows Iran didnt agree with the Third Reich". Well, lets not discuss it here, anyway. Go to [14]. SenseOnes 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it Bias that that the Iranian consular office in France was instrumental in saving Iranian and non-Iranian Jews from persecution by Nazi Germany??? Cyrus111 (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That wasnt what I was quoting. I quoted the end sentence: "This shows Iran didnt agree with the Third Reich" - assesses that Iran didnt agree with the Third Reich out of historical details, with is obvious subjective bias. Encyclopedic content shouldnt assess facts with such methods; it should assess them only out explicit evidence (such as a statement from the Iranian government, that it did not in fact agree with the Third Reich). Whats more, if there is overwhelming historical details pointing to the facotid and many indications, Wikipedia should represent them as indications, not evidence. SenseOnes (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If Reza Shah liked, disliked agreed or disagreed with the Third Reich, good for him, what do we really know what was going on... However, he was pro-Nazi and eventually became disliked by the Iranian people.Cyrus111 (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


How do recent genetic studies show another story? Look at the above picture I showed you. That shows that Persians/Aryans are identical with the Danish, Italian and English - that is, other Indo-Europeans. SenseOnes 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC

Here senses read this [15] since the Aryans are from that region the cluster maps only shows/proves the westward migration and admixture with European natives and can today be shown on such maps. However while other Persians and Iranians might have interbreed with other peoples forming different groups througout the region and well beyond, studies show that indigenous Persians are not mixed. And these people can be olive skinned white skinned black haired or red haired, One attribute does not make the other more or less Persian than the other, Just like any attribute wont make someone more or less a Human, Mohammad in his last sermon:

All mankind is from Adam and Eve, an Arab has no superiority over an Ajami nor an Ajami has any superiority over an Arab; also a white has no superiority over a black, nor a black has any superiority over a white - except by piety and good action.

I have not claimed Persians are mixed. I am simply saying, contrary to Arabs (who are Semites), they are the descendants of Indo-Europeans, which explains their genetic identicalness with other Indo-Europeans (those described in the cluster map) and their remote difference from Arabs, who are Semites. The reason for the hostilities between Arabs and Persians, is exactly that, Arabs are Semites, Persians are Indo-Europeans and Caucasians. I disagree that ethnic Persians (ancestors of Iranic/Aryan tribes descended from proto-Indo-Europeans) can be black skinned, since that is a non-IE feature, that genetically indicates admixture, or in rare cases for whole tribes/groups of people, population migrations to hotter climates, leading to natural selection through vitamin D deficiency of the pale-skinned (and thus infant death) - some Caucasoids have after thousands of years developed dark complexions in that way.

Yes, I have read the link. Theres nothing new about it, its the regular cliché. "Aryans, blue-eyed, Hitler". Nothing new. I dont see where you're going with it. SenseOnes 22:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not refering to any group of people? and I did not claim that you claimed that Persians are mixed. You seem to have failed to grasp the article in depth as well, namely the confusion it created and endresults of such policies. Cyrus111 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) )

One can reflect and draw wisdom from any "race"

But most so from the Prophets.

Cyrus111 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Senses why keep making comparison with Arabs? One time is enough and also some ethnic groups of Arab peoples are so called "pure raced", this goes for many other groups as well. Arabs and Persians are not hostile with eachother they share a long history and are Muslims, one shouldn´t take a piece out of history like for instance the Saddam era and make a conclusion. Historically there were anti-Iranian policies like under the umayads and other eras towards Persians but to say that today there are two groups namely Arabs and Persians that are hostile to eachother is non-sense. However in the political arena there really are some elements in some Arab countries who really dislikes Iran and Persians considering Shias as heretics and Persians as less human. However In Persian culture and attitudes someone that "looks down" or are "hostile" towards someone, is considered to be without culture and not because he is Arab, Black or Eskimo. This is called "Bi-farhang" meaning "no culture", reminds of the "An-Iran" of the ancient times. It basically rests on the notion that the reason of these "attitudes" exist are mere due to the lack of cultural and spiritual fulfillment.Cyrus111 01:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

As a source to document the existence of Pan-Aryanism, yes. I am not a pan-Aryanist, and I am not a member of that forum. I am simply documenting the phenomenon. I read mistakenly about the black skin, it said black hair. Anyway, I dont mean that all Arabs and Persians are hostile to each other, I was referring to historical hostilities between these two cultures, that indeed exist. But what is the relevance of all this to the article? SenseOnes 08:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The "documentation of such phenonomen" as you call it will not happen by adding a forum as source. Those forums have no academic basis. Dont you think the readers need a better ref.? if one wants to study "Aryans" and their ways today the best thing to do is to get yourself involved with some books regarding this then try to consider spending some time in the company of these "Aryans" to see what it is all about. And I am not talking about some Western living Iranians only, but also if one goes to Isfahan or any other city or town within Iran. When you do find a group of Iranians, (or they will most likely find you) which you have maybe become friends with by now, here is what the "Aryans" might do to you. They might serve you a lot of Persian tea, "force" you to eat their healthy cuisine, and some old lady might spread "esfand" (see my article esfand svanta) smoke on you as a good fortune thing, amongst many other things. you might be introduced to Persian Poetry and you will get to know what the people are about and see a whole new field in this World. This is how one can "document" a people. The best way to do this is to be amongst them, specially the nomads. Just like if one wanted to study any other group of people, then you are going to have to be amongst them for a while. This is probably how Persians managed to "Persianize" and "civilize" all the conquers to its land time and time again. Because everybody responds with Love as evident when even Djingis Khans sucsessors eventually chose to surround themselves with a Persian culture and so did Alexander and others as well. This "hospitable culture" is probably the result of 10000 years of Iranian nomadic life on the Iranian Plateau where hospitality was important when meeting another Iranian nomadic group, For example Persepolis the ancient world capital is considered to be more or less a permanent "tentspot", which a group of Persian nomads, in this case the tribe of Achamenes built a World ruling empire on, and then more or less acted as a host to the other populations and saw them as guests, here, see this clip [16] Anyways one might find that Paul Thiemes theory on the "Aryan" or "Aryans" = "hospitable" might be the ultimate description to the characteristics with these peoples, Here read this piece [17] hospitality is clearly emphasized Cyrus111 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, and the well-written text. That wasnt really what I was talking about though. To document the concept of an Aryan race, or Aryanism, is far from the same as documenting the lifestyle of "Aryans". And its not even safe to say who is "Aryan" any longer, or even that anybody is "Aryan". Pan-Aryanism should be documented by examining the views of pan-Aryanists. Whether that includes talking to "Aryans" is a matter of oppinion, since there are different opinions of who are "Aryan". I say Aryans are the descendants of the Aryan tribes from the South Caucasus-Iran area, and the PIEs all Indo-European people descend from. Thats how the migratory path of proto-Indo-European peoples ultimately indicate things happened. Aryans were probably some of the earliest proto-Indo-European tribes. SenseOnes (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Aryan means noble, spiritual, free etc. Aryans are Indo-Aryan, Iranian groups and refers to these people in lingustic, and etc. Its just as simple as that. Just like any other group would have their lingustics and so on. I would say that this article should be about the AR only. PA should have its own article, go ahead and write about it if you want.? Also study the debate and arguments made on whether race is a "sociological" or a "factual" phenomenon...Cyrus111 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt we have enough material to make an individual article about pan-Aryanism. And since pan-Aryanism is a form of Aryanism, it should be in this article, which is mostly about Aryanism (the belief in the existence of an Aryan race). Because that is, essentially, what pan-Aryanism is. It has a lot in common with pan-Europeanism. You said, quoting: Aryans are Indo-Aryan, Iranian groups and refers to these people in lingustic, and etc. Its just as simple as that - I'm afraid not. I wish it would be so simple. But this article describes exactly that - the complexity of this matter. This article primarily describes Aryanism, which is an exact opposition to that statement by you. Aryanism in specific, can be defined as the idea that descendants of the original PIEs, Finno-Ugrians and Iberians ultimately form an ethnolinguistic group, with common genetic, cultural and linguistic traits, which is referred to as Aryans, one of the earliest PIE tribes in history. In making this article, what we have to do is research that concept, and represent the evidence from every science we can. And doing that can be complex on wikipedia, because many rules ultimately interfere with the quality of the article, and we all know it. But we're just gonna have to do the best we can. Also, like you said - we should probably go into the concept of Human races in general, . SenseOnes (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I said we should go into the concept of humanrace and its relation to an Aryan race??? Maybe read the posts more thoroughly will help you save some time. The "Aryan race" is just an ethnolinguistic group denoting I-I, which was subvertedand then "politically tainted" by another ethnolinguistic group leading to chaos in the last century... This is why we all should be happy and gather under a green flag representing earths many healthy plants, many usages still not known to man...Cyrus111 (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It was actually my articulation that slightly failed. I was referring to this sentence by you: "Also study the debate and arguments made on whether race is a "sociological" or a "factual" phenomenon", and I suggested like you were talking about (human races) we should cover the relationship between an Aryan race and human races. E.g. the nature of the Aryan race, which isnt even mentioned. "The "Aryan race" is just an ethnolinguistic group denoting I-I, which was subvertedand then "politically tainted" by another ethnolinguistic group" I think you are misusing the word ethnolinguistic group now. 'Aryans' or descendants of Iranic tribes, and Europeans are of the same ethnolinguistic group - they are Indo-European, Caucasian, or some would say white. SenseOnes (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was not talking about "human races"? What are you talking about?

I wrote we should make an article about the one human race which was already there I found out later, and no I am not misusing the word ethnolinguistic group, because it is

a field of linguistic anthropology which studies the language of a particular ethnic group.

You say Europeans are of the same ethnolinguistic group - they are Indo-European, Caucasian, or some would say white. SenseOnes

You discussed this earlier with Paul. B, remember, he wrote you:

Europeans do not for the most part "descend from the same tribal group", their languages do. I'll write more later. Paul B (talk) 09:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

And, he wrote you:

Please do not accuse people of lying. The majority of European genetic ancestry is paleolithic. So unless you are a proponent of Paleolithic Continuity Theory then you can't equate genetic with linguistic history. Paul B (talk) 23:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You wrote:

the nature of the Aryan race which isnt even mentioned

well if ethnolinguistics is:

a field of linguistic anthropology which studies the language of a particular ethnic group.

and if the "Aryan race" are ethnolinguistically the Indo-Iranians, should it not be the nature of these people that has to be studied? I already showed you some links and there are other books. I would say to study the nature of a certain group of people you´ll have to do a study of the people in a context of a long period of time, and read some "recent" books like that of Paul Thiemes who "theorizes" hospitality. However overlooking these lingustic and scientific facts, your statement on the nature of an "Aryan race" is very broad. If we look at the so called "Aryan race" today or "Aryan culture" we find that

Respect for the elderly and hospitality for foreigners, remain highly visible parts of Iranian etiquette, and the highly familial nuclear structure of Iran's society is in stark contrast to many western societies.

If these are the Aryans and this is "Aryan nature" today as applied to I-I in Iran, then the nature of "Aryans" is: Anyone with these values. Then these people can be found everywhere regardless of race, so your statement is very broad regarding a specifik "Aryan nature". And sorry to say it sounds off topic as well. "Aryan" is about culture, moral and ethical values, and this is the concept of hinduism "Arya" as well, "The Concepts of Hinduism — Arya" If you want to write about "Aryan culture" today as applied to the I-I then you would have to incorporate Islamic, Indo-Iranian, Greek philosophies and other considerations as well since so called "Aryan culture" is a mix of these then it is a result of these cultures under the span of a long period of time which will form a specific nature. So you might want to reconsider this study for now.. And also since some white nationalist political groups use the same word then their culture have to be considered in the same article as well, which would be only fair. Cyrus111 (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Paul B is not an intellectual authority on that matter. The fact still remains, that Indo-Europeans together with most Finno-Ugric peoples, and Iberians, form an ethnolinguistic group with common ethnic, genetic, linguistic and racial elements (which is what ethnicities ultimately consist of, see ethnicity). And Indo-Iranians are Indo-European. So naturally, Aryans are part of the Indo-European ethnolinguistic group. You could, however, refer to the sub-Indo-European groups as ethnolinguistic groups, but linguistic subgroups are not always ethnic subgroups and vice versa.
I would believe in a universal application of Paul B's analogy, if we didnt live in year 2007, with genetic anthropology being invented, which often links linguistic and ethnic/genetic groups. Like I said in my answer to Paul B, linguistic and ethnic groups are not always synonymous, and it is not a prerequisite for them to be, but ethnogenesis can be solely based on linguistic factors - and linguistic, ethnic and genetic groups are ultimately related and highly correlated in most cases. Thats why we use all these elements (genetics, culture, behavior, linguistics and ethnicity) to study and trace population groups, see archaeogenetics - for practical applications see Proto-Indo-Europeans#Genetics Finno-ugric_peoples#Genetics Finns#Genetics.
I agree that the definition you are talking about in your post could be applied when it comes to cultural values. But we cannot restrict the term Aryan or Aryan population to that exact usage. The Wests moral and cultural values have changed over time, and it could be argued that the West originally would fall into that definition, but has changed and diversified away from it. However, a restriction of Aryan in general to mean that would require the assumption that "Aryans", as original Aryan tribes and their culture, also qualifies for the definition. But we still cannot restrict other definitions and meanings; like noble, the noble race, etc.
The perhaps broadest definition of Aryan (as in a an Aryan person) is anyone who is noble (due to the original meaning of the root word as such). We simply must accept the fact that Aryan is an ambiguous term, and respect all its meanings. One current problem is that the article doesnt even mention that actual references were made to an "Aryan race" by Persians - Iranic/Aryan tribes - used as an ethnic self designation, in the same fashion thee more primitive arya and aryas was used in that context. But the Persian Aryan race is simply more interesting than the arya/aryas ethnic self-designation, because it is equivalent to the name of this very article.
We can only cover the meanings we have sources for, however; and if you have some good sources for the hospitality interpretation, we should cover it. SenseOnes (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nazism and British Raj[edit]

Should Nazism and British Raj even be in this article??? Change article request? Cyrus111 (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

We should move the British Raj to a more relevant article, since it is very specific, and especially too specific for filling out so much space of the article, compared to how historically notable it is (not very). We cannot cover every single historical manifestation of Aryanism, but we can be general and describe the historical influence Aryanism has had on many different areas, and the British Raj subject is one of them - but it doesnt need to be covered in specific.
The Nazi-Aryanism has to be covered, since its the main reason we are still discussing it today, but it should be more brief and the section should be smaller - people can go to the Nazism-specific article for more info.
I say remove British Raj, and move that to a more specific article (if any India-related editors are interested in doing so, I welcome you to do so). It is simply too specific of a manifestation of Aryanism to be relevant to Aryanism in general - which certain other kinds of Aryanism are. Namely Nazi-Aryanism, pan-Aryanism and the 19th century linguistic and ethnological background for the concept.
Any active editors, please acknowledge your opinion here so we can get consensus. Agree with my proposal? SenseOnes (talk) 21:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Airyanem Vaejah[edit]

This is an interesting etymology in linkage with the AR. I once tried to connect all Europeans to Iran using this etymology since it roughly corresponds with "The original land of the Aryans" or "the Iranian expanse". But those genetic studies ruined it for me. But this should be in this article as the first first usage denoting the AR. Cyrus111 (talk) 11:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It should definitely be in the article. Is this the first denotion of the *ar- root? What linkage does it have to all Europeans? - which genetic studies "ruined it" for you? Elaborate, please. We need content for the article. Aryan/Iranic linguistics is very relevant and the articles etymology is very lacking of it. SenseOnes (talk) 15:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok Dr. Senses here is an "elaboration"

The presence of these cultures in Central Europe marks the onset of farming in the region. These farming practices originated in the "Fertile Crescent" of the Near East about 12,000 years ago.

farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans

and further:

European ancestry are largely the descendants of Old Stone Age Paleolithic hunter-gatherers who arrived in Europe around 40,000 years ago rather than the first farmers who arrived tens of thousands of years later during the Neolithic Age.

from what I understand the I-I do not have the same "genetic makeup" as Europeans that is the "Paleolithic"

early farmers who brought agriculture did not leave much of a genetic mark on modern European populations. [18]

This pretty much ruins any of my attemts to link I-I with Europeans through the Airyanem Vaejah concept. since genetics tells another story. And this is what I ment with "genetic studies ruined it" So this shows that "Indoeuropean languages" are the result of the so called "Aryan Languages" spreading west, like any scholar would say. Cyrus111 (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, what is this even about, and why is it discussed on this talkpage? The distribution of I-I languages (Aryan languages) is the result of a Late Bronze Age migration wave. The division of Indo-European languages is the result of a much earlier migration wave (or series of waves) spanning the late Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age. The genetic makeup of these peoples is yet a wholly different topic, the "early farmers" you mention migrating in the Early Neolithic. You just juggle together millennia like so many weeks or months. dab (𒁳) 12:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My sources came from here [19] so did my quotations. You know? but they do not? These are not my personal statement? What you repeated is what I mentioned above, which you can also read about here [20], and here [21].

farmers who brought agriculture to central Europe about 7,500 years ago did not contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans


A major influence was the arrival of the 'Indo_europeans'. They introduced the I-E languages, from which German, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, etc differentiated from. This is the 'Aryan race'

The "Aryan race" today are I-I according to genetics, linguistics etc, which did not "contribute heavily to the genetic makeup of modern Europeans either but rather introduced the Indo-european languages.

These are likely to be 'cultural' influences learned from trade. This innovation enabled people to settle down and increase population more rapidly.

And are in accordance with what Marija Gimbutas has stated.

The Airyanem Vaejah is said to be the "The original land of the Aryans"

A map containing the sixteen lands created by Ahura Mazda. Airyanəm Vaējah was the first of the sixteen

Airyanem Vaejah is believed to have been located somewhere between the Caucasus and south Asia. In the Avesta, Zoroaster states that he lived in Airyanem Vaejah also called Eranvej, the Iranian expanse.

This is where the Aryan languages originated, and was later introduced to Europe. Cyrus111 (talk) 20:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

There are different theories about the exact time frames. However, I agree that the linguistics and genetics are separate issues, but I've already partially covered the genetics of todays Persians (not Azeris, or Turkish and Arabian immigrants; descendants of Iranic tribes), and they are identical to Europeans, and in the European cluster. So the claim that Iranians have a different genetic make-up than Europeans is not true, and a subject of dispute. Another fact is that Europeans are part ancestrally Iranic (See Alanis, Cimmerians, Scythians). However, yes, the relevance to the article is very low at this point in the discussion. SenseOnes (talk) 14:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

These are no claims? They are scientific facts. Cyrus111 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You have not provided any genetic evidence to support a such 'scientific fact' that Persians have a different genetic make-up than Europeans. But lets look at this constructively: where are we going with it? What relevance does this pose to the article? SenseOnes (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It poses all the relevance if we are to get a consensus on the article. Is this article about a specific race or not? (AR)? Then since its 2008 soon we need be updated with the scientific facts about a certain so called "race" I provided some sources and there are tons more. Europeans do not have the same genetic "make up" as Persians.

R1a, which originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, Northern India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern EuropeR1a (Y-DNA)

on the other hand:

R1b (previously called Hg1 and Eu18) is the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup in Europe. It is an offshoot of R1 (M173), characterised by the M343 marker.

(However it can not include all Europeans since Danish and English seems to be closer to that of the I-I as well, this would go for many Americans as well, who shares this lineage.)

I predict that this is how future "race articles" will probably look like. No bias studies! No unsupported claims! Just a bunch of numbers and letters identifying, Human genetics, your history and specific genetic makeup. Cyrus111 (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont hope it will. Because we need other perspectives too, for neutrality. I.e. ethnology, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, etc. SenseOnes (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyrus111 (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)== Haplotype R1a1 ? == Haplotypes... R1a1 is the gene believed to have been inherited from people who left a clear pattern of archaeological remains known as the Kurgan culture, generally identified as early Indo-Europeans ("Aryans").

This furthers Marija Gimbutas, "the Process of Indo-Europeanization was a cultural, not a physical transformation. suggesting language replacement through the "elite-dominance" model. She writes in her book (The realdom of the Goddess) that The Proto-Europeans were peaceful agricultural farmers. So called Indo-Europeans (Aryans) were Mongoloidic nomads and warriors. They were wandering in the Northern bank of Black see. About six thousands years ago, they started invading to Europe and India. They obtruded their language and mixed with Proto-Europeans. That is why many modern Europeans have Mongoloidic features. (as stated above)

suggesting some physical transformation after all? R1a1 seems to be absent or in in low frequencies in western parts of Iran suggesting higher frequencies in the eastern portions, It is also in low frequencies in south and west Europe. Eastern Europe have high frequencies of this, but it has its highest frequency among Tajiks, an eastern Persian people group of Central Asia.

Unfortunately, there is not enough data to make the final conclusion about the R1a1 origin. And other theories have other suggestions. It seems however, for now, (according to some studies) that the Indigenous populations of Europe, Iran and India were military defeated by this Eurasian clan and that R1a1 may be in connection with the IE languages with the Tajiks having the highest "frequencies " 64%. Article needs to be updated Cyrus111 (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Theosophical Aryanism[edit]

Sumathi Ramaswamy, The Lost Land of Lemuria (University of California Press, 2004), p. 68: Indeed, Theosophy generates a complex geography of human races in which all the black peoples of the world are either Lemurians or their degenerate descendents, while the most advanced peoples of today--white Caucasians--are members of the fifth Root-race, far removed from them (77). In the Theosophical evolutionism, as Spirit--or Monad or Pilgrim--works its way through the history of the earth, it "is compelled to incarnate in, or rather contact, every race" (78). As it marches across the history of the earth, Spirit manifests itself in the form of the various Root-races and sub-races which it successively sheds as it surges upward toward our present Fifth Race, the most perfect so far. Those who get left behind--referred to variously as "sluggards" and "failures"--are destined to stagnate. Arguably, this enchanted evolutionary vision is much more racist and hierarchical than that espoused by many a contemporary disenchanted materialist, for millions of years separate the white Anglo-Saxon from the black aborigine whose origins are ascribed to the "racial decay" that besets the seventh sub-race in the closing years of Lemuria's life on earth (79). Further, rather than emerging from the more perfected forms of the Fourth Root-race on Atlantis, as the majority of northern humanity do, the blacks of the world--"fallen, degraded semblances of humanity"--are deemed to be descendents of a Root-race that was ultimately transcended by other, superior forms (80). Lemuria is handy in this regard as well, allowing the Theosophist to not only place the lower, degraded specimens of humanity in a different time, but also to isolate them further from the more evolved races by tracing their origins to a totally different continental configuration (81). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a verbatim quotation from Sumathi Ramaswamy's book, summarising and commenting upon Theosophical writings? Paul B (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Arische Rasse"[edit]

If anyone can find an authoritative quotation from Nazi Germany in which the German phrase "arische Rasse" is used, this would be illuminating, since to the best of my knowledge this phrase was not used, and indeed all leading authorities both academic and political rejected the use of "Aryan" in this way, noting that the term derived from linguistics. The entire historiography of this question needs to be rewritten - no Nazi race theorist would have disagreed with Max Muller that linguistic categories were distinct from racial ones, so endlessly citing him on this point without understanding his contribution to Aryanism is quite pointless.

Chrisbarnacle (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Can someone verify that they are indo-Euroepans? I have read on numerous occasions that they are a foreign people from India and northern Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are originally from north India, hence the term 'Indo-Europeans. The word Gypsy comes from Egyptian, but it's a misnomer. Paul B (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"still prevalent"?[edit]

My nose for OR strikes again...

Prior to my rephrase a short while ago, the "Origins ..." section said this:

According to a 1989 study by Renfrew, C, the usage of Aryan to mean "all Indo-Europeans" is still prevalent and this usage continues,[1] but is restricted to certain fields of science.

The original sentence to which that <ref> was added read:

It should be noted that this usage is now regarded by most people as "obsolete", though still seen occasionally.[citation needed]

As is (also) obvious from the edit comment, Renfrew is being cited as an example of "still seen occasionally." Not only is "citing" a source as an example of something still OR, that is not how examples ought to be cited. It was then just a matter of time before someone was misled to assume that that sentence can be rewritten as "According to". But the rest is unforgivable and OR on top of OR. A study in Scientific American?! "still prevalent"?! "restricted to certain fields of science"?! These are notions not present in the original sentence, nor in the provided citation. What statistical wizardry justifies a turn of "occasionally" into "prevalent"?

To cut it short: I've reinstated the original sentence (slightly rephrased). Under the assumption that it will be a cold day in hell when people begin to think, I have also preserved the "example" of obsolete usage as an inline comment. That should suffice to discourage thoughtless {{fact}} tags. At least until one of those idiots who gratuitously remove inline comments comes along. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:What is an aryan.jpg[edit]

The image Image:What is an aryan.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Renfrew, C. The Origins of Indo-European Languages Scientific American October 1989 Pages 106–114 The word "Aryan" is used to mean "all Indo-Europeans. (This article presents the Anatolian hypothesis, i.e., that the proto-Indo Europeans originated about 7000 BC in the city of Catal Huyuk.) Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "originsindorenfrew" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).