Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Dr. Derakhshani: Aryans were not Immigrants

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Dr. Derakhshani: Aryans were not Immigrants
    Posted: 06-Jul-2008 at 17:18
The term Arya in  Vedic India appeared before it was used in Persia
 
But I agree , Aryans didn't come from Europe and weren't blonde. Indian texts describe Brahmins as long , black haired.
 
 
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
  Quote Cent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Aug-2008 at 22:09
You do know that you'll be warned for posting this, right?
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cyrus Shahmiri View Drop Down
Administrator
Administrator
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6217
  Quote Cyrus Shahmiri Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2008 at 05:37
Ard_Alan, too bad as the first post! I hid it.
Back to Top
Ard_Alan View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard

Suspended

Joined: 23-Aug-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote Ard_Alan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Aug-2008 at 11:21

At least all I've wrote is true and all he writes is... ok, I've already said what it is. As for the style, of course it doesn’t match our Iranian custom, but I don’t think it's good idea to be polite with every mad turkophile, this is not the case. “Don’t cast pearls before swine” – do you remember the Bible? On the contrary, they should know who they are and what sort of  nonsense is their plain Turkish propaganda.  May be next time he will think twice before write the Ossetians are turks although I have a big doubt about it. Turkomania is something incurable.

Back to Top
mehranjangh View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard


Joined: 25-Sep-2008
Location: Tehran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
  Quote mehranjangh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Sep-2008 at 20:03
Well what I have read seems to be a bit shaky. first of all how do you define an Aryan, is it racial? Linguistic? cultural? the racial theory is almost certainly unacceptable since mt-DNA studies carried on by National Geographic in collaboration with IBM seem to refute it completely. Linguistic evidence is certainly scarce for 10,000 BCE and cultural evidence in the shape of various artistic motifs will probably be inconclusive as well due to the limited extent of means of artistic presentation at the time and archaeologist will probably stumble upon the same basic decorations seen all the world over. It seems that the oldest we can go in establishing Aryans (or rather Indo-Europeans) as an independent cultural identity will be the Andronovo culture (2300-1000 BCE) which fits well with mt-DNA evidence as well.
Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 50
  Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 09:32
Originally posted by Maju

I'm astonished how little criticism Aydin's article has found. The interview says nothing but generalities and explains close to nothing on why the author of that work thinks that Aryans (sic), that is Indo-Europeans, would have moved north and south in such early dates other than alleged legends (which ones?) and alleged climatic changes. What about the archaelogical registry.

So far, the only serious thing we can say about the spread of Indo-Iranians is that they are direct descendants of the culture of Andronovo, which spread from the Ural river to East Turkestan, and which is closely related to the Wooden Chambers' culture of southern Russia (proto-Scythians?). Apparently they migrated southwards, pressured possibly by Turks (?) and climate, mostly in the las half of the second milenium BC. Though some groups could have migrated before as early as the 3rd milennium.

(Ref.: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/prehistory/aryan_movem ent.htm)

I think that any new theory should be based in evidence (mostly archaelogical evidence) and not just in alleged legends which are not even specifically mentioned. The abusive use of the term Aryan is also rather suspicious.

I must say that I find truly frustrating that most members of some nationalities seem only interested in propagating pseudoscientifical nationalist theories and not in divulgating truly interesting scientifical pre-history. On which I would like to learn more about.

 
Yeah, every nationality these days claims that its ancestors sprouted out of the ground or something. 
 
It's possible that the Aryans went from Iran to the Baltic and back again.  Linguistic research suggests the Baltic as a possible birthplace of the Indo-European language family.  But they may not have been Aryans at the time.  The Aryans would be those who came back to Iran from the Baltic.  In that sense, they are migratory. 
 
If the Indo-European Language originated in the Baltic area, then the people who lived in Iran prior to that time were not Aryans.  The Indo-Euro languages and cultures are a thin
layer laid down on top of the previous languages and cultures in Europe and the Middle East.   Well over 90% of the genetic 'population' of Europe dates back to Paleolithic times. The people didn't change physically, but new languages and cultural traits were added.  The same probably happened to Iran.  People may have migrated out and then returned with new, Aryan, languages and cultural traits.
 
Something similar happened in Greece.  The Dorian invasion circa 1200 BC may simply have been the descendants of previous inhabitants returning after the ending of the droughts that forced their ancestors to leave generations earlier.  
Back to Top
capcartoonist View Drop Down
Knight
Knight
Avatar

Joined: 09-Dec-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 50
  Quote capcartoonist Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12-Oct-2008 at 09:34
Originally posted by oslonor

Originally posted by Zagros

Scythians were in Syria and Palestine and the Mitani before them. 

Although I don't support the guy's theory - YOU are THE fraud, Oslonor instead of making history up, you should learn it some time.  At least that guy has academic credentials.



I think you should read history. The oldest object that they have found in Palestine or Israel is 600 B.C. He is talking about Aryans going to Palestine in 3000 B.C. Also do not mix up Scythians with Aryans. These are different time periods. Scythians in Israel is a jewish theory based on some palestinians having light hair color!!! That is their evidence!!!!!! Nurstanis in Afghanistan are descendants of Scythians. Palestinians do not look like Nursitanis.
 
er....  They found settlements in Israel/Palestine that date back seven or eight thousand years or more.   Honestly.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 11:40
Cool, basically Out-of-India but different area. Smile
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
  Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21-Oct-2008 at 18:57
Funny theory with no proofs
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 300
  Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23-Oct-2008 at 06:24
Originally posted by Maju



So far, the only serious thing we can say about the spread of Indo-Iranians is that they are direct descendants of the culture of Andronovo, which spread from the Ural river to East Turkestan, and which is closely related to the Wooden Chambers' culture of southern Russia (proto-Scythians?). Apparently they migrated southwards, pressured possibly by Turks (?) and climate, mostly in the las half of the second milenium BC. Though some groups could have migrated before as early as the 3rd milennium.

(Ref.: http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/prehistory/aryan_movem ent.htm)



The link doesnt work. Neither did a search on SAIS. Is the linked article removed...?!


Originally posted by capcartoonist


 
If the Indo-European Language originated in the Baltic area, then the people who lived in Iran prior to that time were not Aryans.  The Indo-Euro languages and cultures are a thin
layer laid down on top of the previous languages and cultures in Europe and the Middle East.  

Well over 90% of the genetic 'population' of Europe dates back to Paleolithic times. The people didn't change physically, but new languages and cultural traits were added.  The same probably happened to Iran.  People may have migrated out and then returned with new, Aryan, languages and cultural traits.
 
Something similar happened in Greece.  The Dorian invasion circa 1200 BC may simply have been the descendants of previous inhabitants returning after the ending of the droughts that forced their ancestors to leave generations earlier.  


1. The first "aryan" or "caucasian" populations started to develop in the north - beginning with a bery small group of people that had survived ice-time in a so-called "refugia" - isolated from all the tropical populations for eons. Consequently they had developed these pale faces, the tall stature and the fire-and-tool-culture that made it possible to survive the arctic winter. But not before 10.000 years ago were this TINY population able to move out of their refugia and their genetic "bttleneck" - to reproduce in growing numbers and spread.

That spreading started as soon as the climate improved and the enormous areas of northern Eurasia became inhabitable.  The limits of this new, habitatual continents are (principally) marked by the the Pyrenes-Alps-Balkan, the Caucasian and the Himalayan mountains. Here we still find a distinct border between the sub-arctic and the  sub-tropic climate and nature, which the caucasian principally in the north. Thus it is fair to call these northern palefaces "arctic" or caucasian.

2. Consequently 90% of the northern people (Europeans and Russians alike) are characerized by their Paleolitic origin. We still dont know he exact place of this origin - but geneticans all agree that they came out of a "paleolitic refugia" - before they stated to spread. The location of is refugia is not known, but Spain or Ucraine are the hottest candidates - at the moment...

3. According to "The Palolithic Contination Theory" (PCT) the Indo-European language originated from this small group of refugees.

4. After the ice left and they were able to move around and smaller groups of them seem to have reached the tropical cultures of the Mediterranean, the Middle east and India. Thus we may find their imprints in the various cultures south of the climate border.
Their genetic and linguistical traces can be found in all these areas - but only as "thin layer" - the result of a mix with a far older substratum that (still) characterizes Indians from Arabs, Greek and Romans. Your obseration about their impact in Greece is most probably rigth.

5. The effect have been that all theese old (native) populations have been influenced by the same "Aryans" - leading to a higher degree of similarity in the DNA, the culture and the languages than they had before. Thus we may anticipate that these Aryans had a uniting effect on all the major populations of the paleoitic world - opening a channel of increased communication and cultral inter-change btween the larger populations of the old world.

6. The final effect can be seen in the modern world, where all the major populatons are able to communicate within the same range of sounds, words and semantics. 10.000 years after their scarce start we might even appreciate the effort that with time led to A world-wide understanding of the same cultural concepts - as we today may define "civilization" as "a thing" - all around the globe.

Ultimately - by combining the old tropical and the old arctical sound-systems (languages) - we have finally begotten A  common language, that can be fluently spoken and comparably understood by as good as ALL the peoples of the planet.

7. Though - Dr. Derakhsjani is rigth about a major point;  These Aryans did not "migrate" in large numbers into any area. The theory of their "succesful campains" are nothing but projection from modern scientists, who - inclined by or own, unrestful time - seem to associate evry cultural change by "warfare", "campaigns" and "conquest". With the evolution-theory at hand they have added Darwins concept of reptile-biology into human sociology and antropology - creating the misconception that civilisation could developed due to warfare. Only weapons, weapon-technoilogy and the politics of rude exloitation did.
Long after most of these Aryans were done...

The "Aryans" were not many enough to start large migrations into anywere, but the open lands given to them by the climate change. They rather made their influence by diplomatic and cultural radiation - as they could bring new (unknown), exiting and useful gifts to their neighburs. Thus we see a direct connection between the kings and nobilities of the old cultures and the Aryan corps de diplomatique, tat in many cases was married into the higher ranks of the original constitutions (= head families, nobility, chieftains...).

8. The start of the Caucasians - which is a newer word for Aryans - was their spread by reproduction and branching - all over the EMPTY areas of the northern hemisphere. MEANWHILE they also established and developed close contacts with their southern neigbours. Thus you may see their cultural impact - along with "a thin layer" of DNA (in various degrees) still deductible in both India and Asia, as well as Africa and America.  This impact is naturally much higher in the northern parts of these areas - which explain the close connections between N-Europe and Persia/India, the Levant and the Med, compared to their impact in the FE Asia, Oceania and America. Though, their new, "high-tech" culture - of ship-building, sailing, river-trade, agriculture, metalurgy and masonry - came to reach even these areas already durng neolithicum...
  


Edited by Boreasi - 23-Oct-2008 at 07:17
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
CiegaSordomud View Drop Down
Housecarl
Housecarl


Joined: 07-Aug-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 43
  Quote CiegaSordomud Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Oct-2008 at 22:02
The Andronovo origin for Indo-Iranians is only a vague theory, currently being replaced by other theories that connect them with Turkic groups.

http://dienekes.50webs.com/blog/archives/000374.html
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.