Earth

• http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=3998&PN=2 - Phenotype of ancient Indo-Europeans
• http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4331&PN=3 - Proto Indo-European

You wrong and completly confused. Indo-european and aryan are two different notions:

IE is a new notion based on commun language.

Aryan is refered to an old ethnicity who created Vedas in India and Zoroastrism in Iran.

Nobody can be sure that aryans are at the origin of IE language...

Well "Aryan" tribes so to speak, such as the Alans, Sarmatians and Scythians moved into Europe and assimilated into the local populations or were absorbed by by newcomers such as Slavs in the Balkans and Tatars/Turks in modern Ukraine/Russia.  The Persians, Medians et al were indigenous to Asia having formed, according to most scholars, in the Central Asia region in what is present day Afghanistan/Tajikistan or possibly further to the North.

Before the large scale migrations into Western Iran, the Persians/Medians et al were pastoral nomads who ranged from modern Turkmenistan to Tajikistan and their culture was either adopted by or was similar to that of the Turkic tribes further east.

• Andronovo: at the origin of Indo-Iranians
  
• Wooden Chambers: at the origin of Scythians, later moved westward.

Reard indeed,

Maju ive heard that Androvo (or andronovi) whas an early Turkic culture, is there a chance that it whas an Turkic culture or is it wellknown and prooved that it is like you mentioned?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture - Andronovo culture
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Iranians - Indo-Iranians
  
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-Europeans - Proto-Indo-Europeans

This seems to be changing in regards to Wooden Chambers (otherwise better known as either Timber Grave, Srubna, or Srubnaya Culture).  Russian archaeologists are now saying that the origin of Scythian Culture (at least the nomadic component) lays further east.  In the 9th century BC, the region of the Srubnaya Culture became nomadic when easterners invaded the region.  On the whole we don't know where this eastern component came from, but we can see that there was a "dynamic interaction" between late Andronovo and Karasuk cultures which reached the Pontic region.  The Scythian culture of the Pontic steppe is now seen as the result of the mix of local eastern Pontic formerly sedentary populations and central Asian nomadic populations.

Also, the overlapping zone between the Timber-Grave and Andronovo Cultures resulted in the formation of the western component of the Sarmatians, the Sauromatians, themselves. 

(source:  Nomads of the Eurasian Steppes in the Early Iron Age, by Davis-Kimball, Bashilov, and Yablonsky, editors.)

interesting topic...

I have heard soo much from iranians talkin about being aryan thus germans.

and it makes one wonder, if they share the same bloodline, why there is soo much difference, interms of language, culture, apperance...so on and so forth.

I just can't find anythin in today's Iran & Germany to LINK them up somehow.

Arpad,

First you said because 1000s of years have passed and due to climate differences, your apperance has changed. and then you go on to say "northern iran has many blondes" and your personal story of your friend...I just dont get it....nevermind...

what about the following...

you did not mention anythin about language, culture and custom & traditions.

Can you show me any similiarities?

Who wrote that? Hooked noses are unique to Turco-Azeris? I have a hooked nose! Does that mean I am Turco Azeri? Are you on crack?  Why are you so deperate to prove Persians are white?

This thread is on the origins of Aryans, not what they may have looked like.

You might want to look at Sassanid coins and Hakhamanesh reliefs, seems they had a few with hooked noses, they must therefore have been Turco-Azeris.  And you might want to note that Northern European features crop up randomly in light skinned Northern and Western populations.

And why don't you read Xenophon's description of Cyrus the Great's features?  Might surprise you.

There r other forums related to 'Aryans' n I've posted my views on them.Aryan race theory,Aryan Invasion Theory n all such mumbo-jumbo was invented by European colonizers who wanted to justify their rule over India.Hilter further abused it n justified the genocide n war on other nations on the basis of this theory.

An 'Arya' in hindu scriptures is a person of noble conduct.Therefore Arya/Aryan is not a racial concept.It is a Cultural/Spiritual concept.

you right!

1. They both belong to the Caucasoid family/subfamily of Humankind (but this goes back to the Paleolithic).
2. They both suffered in the past invasions by related people (IEs) who succeeded in imposing their language and  large ammounts of their culture.(This dates back several milennia).

• Europe has a diferent geography and climate
• Europe has a somewhat diferent background, prehistory and history, that also shape the two diferent backgrounds
• Most of the Iranian and German bloodlines (to follow with your example) are autoctonous, linking back to Paleolithic times, what affects the physical appearence of the two peoples, as they have evolved separately for a considerable ammount of time.
  
• Finally, while Germany falls in the Christian cultural sphere, Iran belongs to the Muslim sphere. These two rather closed cultures have shaped many of the customs that make up how a people looks like and behave.
  

Ancient Iranian texts show that they called themselves Aryans, so you are wrong.

If Manu was "the first man" after the flood then we all are descendants of Manu.

On the contrary, according to the oldest Iranian account, their kings were descendant of Manushchifra (medievel Manuschehr), son of Airiya.

So, despite the clear differences in the geography, language, and genetics of the Indians and Germans, it is their descent from "Man" which rightfully makes them kindred?

They weren't the only barbarians.  Virtually all other Europeans were considered barbarians except the Greeks and Romans.  Therefore all other Europeans including the Celts and Slavs must have also been foreigners in Europe.

All this proves is that an Indo-Aryan group appeared in Mesopotamia where literate societies recorded their presence.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Egyptians ruled Egypt.  Hittites ruled central Anatolia.  The Mitanni ruled northern Mesopotamia and Syria.  Kassites ruled Babylonia.  Elamites ruled Elam.  The Chinese ruled China.  Hmmm, am I missing something?

According to avestan texts Aryans came from a place called Airyanem Vaejah, the "home of the Aryans" located "along the Vanguhi Daitya" which was the Oxus which point to a region to the south of the Aral Sea.

Listen baba, the descendants of Medes today are generally lighter than Persians, and were so in antiquity, when I was in Iran i saw a picture of my cousin's class in Kermanshah, half of them had flaxen blond hair. I have two cousins with blond hair, many with brown hair and one newborn with red hair, we are all generally descended from Medes and have never seen many Persians with the general lightness of of our area, maybe in the North. 

You want to see what ancient Persians looked like?  Look at the immortal reliefs in Susa.

[quote]"Among all these people of various tongues there are differences of
physical type as wel as situation. But if I am to give a general
descrition of their appearance and character, I would say that they are
almost all slight in build with a darkish or livid  and
bloodless complexion*.  their eyes are like goats' eyes and have a grim expression. Their
eyebrows are arched in a semicircle and meet in the middle. They have
handsome beards and wear their hear long. All without distinction carry swords in their girdles even at banquets and on public feast days. ...." ~ Ammianus Marcellinus [/quote]

*Just like today.

Have you ever been to Iran? I think not, your blog is one of the most inaccurate things I have ever read.  Iran has no Nordics (blond and red hair does not = Nordic), we have some Alpino but are mostly Med if any of those stupid categories. 

You sound like a deluded Nordicist.  And Rudi Bakhtiar?  She dyes her hair, it is very dark otherwise. And having a name like Bakhtiar I presume she is Bakhtiari and therefore Lori, these people cosider themselves descended from the "dark, hook nosed" Medes.

what if we all say 'yes YES YES FINE we agree that you persians are BLONDE GERMANS'

can we then move on?

On the contrary, according to the oldest Iranian account, their kings were descendant of Manushchifra (medievel Manuschehr), son of Airiya.

[/quote]

Interesting -- however Manu was the first man, son of the Sun, Surya.  His full name is Vaivasvan Manu, born of the Sun.

er, yes -- both were organized in "gotras" or "gau" communities.  Even today Indo-Aryans are organized in Gotra communities.Persians weren't.  Indo Aryans used to wander a lot, either with chariots or as spiritual seekers.  Indo Aryans are found as far as the Mitanni in the middle east and scholars agree their gods are similar to INDO Aryans NOT persians.

and your point is?  However, the Germanics if you read their texts used to have hair of modern day INDO ARYANS and practiced many of the practices of the INDO aryans.

no, all this proves is that Indo-Aryan literature and gods are older than any of the Persian stuff.  And IndoAryan literature supports they came from himalayas.  No other spiritual text supports that Aryans came from anywhere else.

Actually, the Mitanni were intermarried with them.  Most of the nobility was intermarried with the Egyptians...and China calls men "min" in the Chinese language-- you are missing something.  The Chinese nobility were Aryans.

Interesting -- however Manu was the first man, son of the Sun, Surya.  His full name is Vaivasvan Manu, born of the Sun.

er, yes -- both were organized in "gotras" or "gau" communities.  Even today Indo-Aryans are organized in Gotra communities.Persians weren't.  Indo Aryans used to wander a lot, either with chariots or as spiritual seekers.  Indo Aryans are found as far as the Mitanni in the middle east and scholars agree their gods are similar to INDO Aryans NOT persians.

and your point is?  However, the Germanics if you read their texts used to have hair of modern day INDO ARYANS and practiced many of the practices of the INDO aryans.

no, all this proves is that Indo-Aryan literature and gods are older than any of the Persian stuff.  And IndoAryan literature supports they came from himalayas.  No other spiritual text as old as the Indo-Aryans supports that Aryans came from anywhere else.

Actually, the Mitanni were intermarried with them.  Most of the nobility was intermarried with the Egyptians...and China calls men "min" in the Chinese language-- you are missing something.  The Chinese nobility were Aryans.

Hittites were a branch of indo-Aryans -- their warriors were known as "khatti" Indo Aryans called themselves"khattia".

Interesting -- however Manu was the first man, son of the Sun, Surya.  His full name is Vaivasvan Manu, born of the Sun.

er, yes -- both were organized in "gotras" or "gau" communities.  Even today Indo-Aryans are organized in Gotra communities.Persians weren't.  Indo Aryans used to wander a lot, either with chariots or as spiritual seekers.  Indo Aryans are found as far as the Mitanni in the middle east and scholars agree their gods are similar to INDO Aryans NOT persians.

and your point is?  However, the Germanics if you read their texts used to have hair of modern day INDO ARYANS and practiced many of the practices of the INDO aryans.

no, all this proves is that Indo-Aryan literature and gods are older than any of the Persian stuff.  And IndoAryan literature supports they came from himalayas.  No other spiritual text supports that Aryans came from anywhere else.

Actually, the Mitanni were intermarried with them.  Most of the nobility was intermarried with the Egyptians...and China calls men "min" in the Chinese language-- you are missing something.  The Chinese nobility were Aryans.

What do you base your Indian is the oldest Gene??? please present evidence, Persians/medes same race different tribes. Both Iranian, Aryans = Persians/medes etc the fact that the oldest inscription ever found that indicates Aryan as a race is by Daruis....

India had Harrapian culture, which is thought to have come from Elam.... read fagaan or wenke. There is no evidence for pattern of migration into Iran from India, this was thought to have happend but has not been proven, however there is evidence of migration via Caucas and Afghanistan, the fact that Hindi has many Persian words.

There is this misinterpertation that India is the home land of Aryans, sanscrit cannot be found written in india before 1500 BC Persians adopted writing with Cyrus, before that no written record, only hymms same, sanscrit was written later as well. Evidence to suggest Aryan migration into NORTHERN india can be found at Harrapian sites with dead boies, scattered and abondoned cities.....

Harrapian culture also found in Modern day Pakistan, it seems Indians are trying to claim things with no evidence archaeologically with no archaeological evidence to support your arguement it cannot be true, where as there is more to suggest oppisite Inidan claim to Aryan origin in India..... Do not forget the Zoraosterian influence on Hindu religion, and buddism... it was the most dominate and tolerant relkigion in the world once. Also no Aryan weaponary found in Indian before 1500 BC = 3500 BP, if you are going to prove this wrong and say all archaeological evidence is a conspiracy by Persians and weterners then proved evidence, I do not believe in a mass conspiracy. However Iranian history is under played and tossed aside alot.

But in the old days of europe it was not so, even the time of the Shah, he had to fight it, this is all new world mentality. Aryan entered european imaginations in the 1600 AD, transl;ated from the Avesta, by a french man. laughted at by the English till it was proven. Look at the ruling class of India they are Parsi's

Saying Parsis are the ruling class in India is like saying Jews are the ruling class in the West.

Dharma, if you wish to make further sweeping Hindutva inspired statements please provide a source. 

Dear friends, I have an article about Indus Civilisation, but it is in Turkish, I won't be able to send it to you but I will try to summarize it. It is written by Bergil. (Bergil, Mehmet Suat, 2000, "Indus ya da Eski Hint Uygarlýðý (Indus or Ancient Hindu Civilisation)", Bilim ve Ütopya, No: 78, p.14-26).

• After neolitic revolution and first settlements of people, 4 important civilisations using written texts had appeared in history. The common characterestics of these 4 civilisations:  They appeared around 4 great rivers.
• Egyptians, ~4000 BC, around Nil River, they used writing
• Sumers, ~4000 BC,  in Mesopotamia, they used writing
• Chineeses, ~4000 BC, around Yellow River, they used a writing called "bone writing"
• Indians (Hindus),  ~4000 BC, around Indus River, they used writing.
• The Eurocentric historical aprochment have always talked about an "Aryan invasion theory" telling an invasion of Indoeuropeans to India ~2000 BC. This theory said that Rig Veda had been written between 2000-1500 BC.
• The origianal scripts of Indus civilisation, which had been thought to be belonged to Dravits, couldn't deciphered for many years. Natuar Jha and deciphered these scripts and wrote a book with N. S. Rajaram.
• The arceological findings and decodings of the clues and the Hindu historians clues show that the Hindu civilisation had originated from Indus civilisation since 4000 BC and some texts of Rig Veda had belonged to 2500 BC and the origin of Indian language was Indus language (It was proved after the deciphrement of Indus scripts)
•  The language of Indus civilisation (language deciphered from the scripts and seals of Indus) was the same language whic was used in Vedas and it was Sanskrit. So The "Aryan invasion theory" was wrong because the Sanskrit had been used around Indus since Indus civilisation. The  languege of scripts of Indus are mostly related with Veda literature
• "Ari/Arya" is a word first seen in Vedas. It was not used to name an ethnic group/a race. It means "gentile, well-charactirised, noble, honest person".  (Bergil, 2000: 14-26)

I summarised a little of the article. I found also a web about Jha's and Rajaram's book:

"The beautifully crafted 5,000-year-old Indus seals, discovered in 1921, long baffled scholars who attempted to decipher the script accompanying the images. The scholars failed largely because of the assumption under which they labored-- they uncritically assumed the inscriptions had to be pre-Vedic and Dravidian. These assumptions stemmed from the prevailing Eurocentric, colonial dogma that Sanskrit-speaking invaders came to India from the West and could not have composed the Vedas before 1200 B.C. This date was insisted upon by writers like Max Muller, who worked long and hard to deliberately distort the Vedas for their hidden agenda to persuade Hindus to convert to Christianity. Muller insisted on the very late date for the Rig Veda to fit into the Judeo-Christian time scale, which posited that the world itself had been created in 4004 B.C.!

The Aryan invasion theory is in tatters now. No Aryan journey to the east; instead, Sanskrit speakers migrated westwards into Kassite Iran, Hittite Anatolia, Greece, and much further. N.Rajaram and David Frawley, in their acclaimed book The Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization: A Literary and ScientificAnalysis date the composition of the Rig Veda at 3750 B.C. They base this date, in part, on Subhash Kak's brilliant work on the astronomical code contained in the Rig Veda.

In the introductory chapter ofVedic Glossary on Indus Seals,  Jha discussed how the Indus civilization ended. He cited recent Indo-French LANDSAT satellite mappings of the shifting courses of the Sarasvati river over many centuries during the third millennium B.C. The final drying up of the Sarasvati occurred in 1900 B.C. because tectonic plate movements made the mighty river lose two of its tributaries, Yamuna and Sutlej. (Noting the centrality of the Sarasvati in the civilization of Sapta Sindhu or seven rivers, from 7500 B.C. to 1900 B.C., and the repeated homage this river receives in the Rig Veda, Subhash Kak has suggested that the Indus civilization be renamed as Sarasvati civilization and the script on the seals as Sarasvati script.)

In the second part of Vedic Glossary on Indus Seals, Jha claimed the Indus script as "the first and the oldest scientific script of the world, which later on crossed the national boundary and went to West Asia and Europe, where it developed as Semitic and Greek." Jha presented a convincing, stage-by-stage comparative study in the next 50 pages.

Some of the main features of Jha's decipherment are: the old-Brahmi script is written from left to right, although sometimes it is also written right to left like plough lines on soil ("halayudh lekhan paddhti"); there are 61 basic signs in total comprising 55 consonants, 1 Onkar, 3 Vowels, and 2 Ayogwah (combination of vowel and consonant); there are also 162 composite signs; Phoenician is a reduced subset of 22 signs from the old-Brahmi's 61 signs; some seals are inscribed with the swastika as well as a cross without arms; a few of the signs are pictographic, but most of them are alphabetic.

The Indus/Sarasvati script or old-Brahmi developed in two divergent directions in India: Devanagari and related North Indian regional variants; and Ashokan Brahmi from which derived Bhattiprolu Brahmi in South India.

Jha also charted the evolutionary stages of the five point numeral system, shown on the reverse side of several seals, into Greco-Roman numerals. Some of the seals carry mathematical formulas. One seal is carved with the formula for the circumference to diameter ratio or p from "paridhi vyas anupati"from which derived the term pi of the Greeks. Another seal shows the formula for the circumference of a circle as 2 times p times radius.

Jha cites the work of Navaratna Rajaram and A. Seidenberg, an eminent American historian of science, for establishing the source of both Egyptian and old Babylonian mathematics in the technical manuals for the construction of complex geometrical Vedic fire altars, Sulba-Sutras."

http://www.indiastar.com/wallia27.htm - http://www.indiastar.com/wallia27.htm

So the IVC language was Sanskrit? Interesting.

There is also this theory: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6239&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6239& ;PN=1

You say it was deciphered, interesting, look at this website then

http://www.sizes.com/units/harrapan_weight.htm - http://www.sizes.com/units/harrapan_weight.htm

also on Harappan culture

http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html - http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.ht ml

Passage from it

It does appear, however, that the major sites of this civilization are in Pakistan. In fact it is in Pakistan that an earlier phase of it has also been unearthed. This happened between 1955-57 when a Pakistani archaeologist, F.A.Khan, discovered a town of the pre-Indus period (c. 3300-2800 B.C) at Kot Diji in Khairpur, Sind.⁷ Such sites were also discovered by Rafique Mughal in Bahawalpur, especially in the Cholistan desert, extending the area of this culture to the whole of southern Pakistan.⁸ The area was further extended by Professor Ahmad Hasan Dani, the famous Pakistani archaeologist and Sanskritologist, when he discovered the sites of this civilization at Gumla, seven miles from Dera Ismail Khan.⁹ In fact Dani identified six cultural periods and Professor Farzand Ali Durrani , who excavated Rahman Dheri which is fourteen miles north of Dera Ismail Khan city, provided more details about the extension of this civilization in the North West Frontier Province. ¹⁰

The Language of the Indus Valley

Unfortunately the few symbols on the ceramics of the Kot Dijian culture have not been deciphered. F.A.Durrani, following B.B. Lal and B.K.Thapar, suggests that these symbols may be the beginning of writing in the Indus Valley.¹⁴ There are, however, nearly 4,000 specimens of a script from the Indus Valley Civilization carved on stone, fragments of pottery and other objects.¹⁵ They have not been deciphered satisfactorily but a history of the attempts at such decipherment is available in Asko Parpola's most recent book on the subject.¹⁶ The script, or at least the pictographs, appear to have been uniform but that is not proof that the language too was one. In fact, as in all parts of the world, the language must have been divided in dialects or area-bound varieties. It is possible, however, that these were varieties of a language belonging to one language family. The question then is what that language family was?

The Coming of the Indo-Aryan Languages

Contrary to the popular myth in Pakistan, the Aryans did not roll down the northern mountains like a tidal wave carrying all the Dravidians before them. According to some scholars they came in at least two major waves in Pakistan as well as small trickles. The first wave came 'around 2000 B.C, and the second some six centuries later'. After the second wave, when they became dominant, their language too spread over northern India. It is this language, or rather a number of dialects, which we call Old Indo Aryan for convenience. The language of the first wave, which remained confined to the Pamir mountains of Pakistan, is identified as Dardic while the second one may be called Indic.³¹ The chart given in Figure -1, based on George Grierson's classification, may be useful in illustrating the hypothesized relationship.

http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/India/Harappa.html - http://www.thenagain.info/WebChron/India/Harappa.html

http://www.harappa.com/har/har1.html - http://www.harappa.com/har/har1.html

Note: This chart is abstracted from Grierson, Vol. 1 (P. 120).

But you said that Aryans are Indians and that Persians don't have that descent.

I didn't say anything about Persians, I said something about ancient Iranians.   According to their sacred scriptures, they are Aryans.

Antiquity of genes does not make any text "more valid".  That is simply not true.  You realize that now you have to prove that Indian genes "are the oldest" and that Indian texts "hold more validity" because of it.  These two statements are easily doubted. 

Iranians consider themselves Aryans.  So, who has the right to say that they are not?

The Iranian account is no less valid than the Hindu one.

Gotras are clans claiming descent from a common ancestor.  This is not unique among Indians or Germans.  Arabs and other Semitic peoples have the same practice.  They must be Aryans as well.

One of the things the Persian kings did was to cite their "gotra" in inscriptions declaring that they were 'son of ....., son of ......., son of ...... ' to the founder of their dynasty.  Darius I declared that he was "a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, of Aryan lineage."

Apparently your sources were not specific enough.  An honest reading of the sources indicates that, of the 25 gods worshipped by the Mitanni, only four were Indo-Aryan, and that two of these, Mithra, and Indra (Old Iranian, Indara), was also worshipped by the Iranians. 

The point is, since you connect the Germans being "foreign" and "barbarian" as also being related to Indians, then most other Europeans being "foreign" and "barbarian" must also be related to Indians.

You mean long hair?  Virtually every culture has "long hair".  This means nothing.

There is NOTHING in the middle eastern records that indicate that the Mitanni came from India.  As for the literature, the oldest literature of the Mitanni was in Hurrian, and that the gods the Mitanni worshipped were mostly Hurrian and Semitic with, as I've already revealed only four were Indo-Aryan.  The "Indo-Aryan literature" only relates to India, nothing more, nothing less.

We only know about the Egyptian royalty intermarrying with Mitanni princesses.  The rest is pure speculation.

So, of all the Chinese words which prove that their language is not even remotely connected to Indo-Aryan, you happen to pick the "one" word which makes them "Aryan".  Again, this means nothing.

No they were not.  Their language belongs to that part of the Indo-European family known as "Anatolian".  Indo-Aryan is a different branch of the Indo-European family.

"Khatti" was the name of the land they inhabited.  They never referred to themselves as "khatti" but as "Neshians".  The native Khattians spoke a language which was not even Indo-European!!!

On the contrary!!!  The Iranians were worshipping the devas until Zoroaster declared them "demons".

There are some who estimate that the Zend Avesta may be as old as about 1400 BC, so it could be just as old as the Vedas. 

It is not my place (or yours) to declare whose gods are "demons".  This is a history forum, not a religious one.  Regardless of whether or not "div" had been lost in Iranian, this does not them any less "Aryan" than other peoples.  Its purely a value judgement on your part; nothing more, nothing less.

Dharma, your words give a feeling of resentment against Iranians and in particular, Persians.

Dear Rakhsh;

Maybe you are from India or from a culture close to India. I am sure you would know your region's history and language more than me.

You say that: "You say it was deciphered, interesting, look at this website then"

I am From Turkey and I am interested in Zoroasterism and Aryan mithology as a hobby (and since my husband is a Kurd). We all have been read books and articles about "Aryan invasion theory" for years. I know it very well and I cannot bring any arguement against it myself. 

But I only want to learn your opinions and more about "Jha's and Rajaram's book of decifrement". If their theory is true or logical all the historical approaches will need to be reviewed. But if their clues aren't enough or they don't have strong findings, we will continue to accept the "Aryan invasion theory" as the only logical theory.

So I can say that I don't insist on anything but I only want to learn more about this book. 

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461& ;PN=1

Even though I am Iranian I am from Persian Stock of Iran, the biggest problem is that there are many theories to it all, my take there is no Pure race in the world, when talking about genetics we are all human being, that is to say Homo-sapien sapien so we are all genetically linked.

On my posts I have given my references and sources, hope you enjoy the read. Harappan culture predates any civilization in India, before that they were small villages, Harappans built cities with sewage systems and the out lay showed city planning, goats, sheep were eat showing they kept live stock, the goats and sheep where first domesticated in the Zagros and Taurus mountians, harappan is culture had trade with Elam and mesopotamia first through pakistan Iran then mesopotamia then through sea trade pushing them deeper into india.

Reading Wenke 'patterns in prehistory' this is a good book, try to stay away from coffee table books and look more at university books used in archaeology and anthropology, these tend to be less bias then persoanl theories.

For more suggested books PM me if you like

my opinion (personal one) Aryans came from central asia, became more civilised with contact with mesopotamia.

As for Zarthushti religion it is very difficult for a good answer read this book if you can get hold of it 'In search for Zathushtra (or Zoraoster)' I forgot the author sorry, I had this book but have lost it since, very good read.

As for Persian features herodotus does give a description on Persian features, one having Long faces and Thin noses (he does not say they are hooked or short or long)

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_history_book1.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_histo ry_book1.php

translation of Herodotus book

This is on Persian/Medes and Aryan racial features

The Iranic or Irano-Aryan race as a whole is dolichocephalic (long-headed), leptorrhine (having long, narrow noses), tall, robust, dark-haired, large-boned and fair-skinned with straight hair. These features are found amongst the Persians and Kurds. Due to the common features of Iranic skeletons with Nordics, some authorities consider the Nordics and Iranics as belonging to a common Nordic-Iranian macro-race. The main feature of the Dinaric sub-type of Iranics is that the head is long when viewed from front, but the circumference is short, giving the illusion of brachcephaly when viewed from the top. It is common amongst Armenians as well, and is often viewed as a breeding isolate of the Iranoid race.

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_aryan.pdf - http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/pdfs/traces_of_a ryan.pdf

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_history_book2.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/history/herodotus/herodotus_histo ry_book2.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/culture/020920_politicizing_linguistics.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/podium/culture/020920_politicizin g_linguistics.php

this is on Zoroasterianism

http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/zoroastrianism_under_achaemenids.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/religions/zoroastrianism_under_ac haemenids.php

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/splendor_persia_kings1.php - http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/splendor_persia_ kings1.php

This also on similarities by Herodotus on Persians and Medes (a taken from translation of Herodotus)

Herodotus says they had no luxuries. They despised comfort, unlike the Medes who lived in the northeast and were closely related to them in race. Already the Medes had acquired a written language and were compiling the great code of laws which the Persians were to take over. Meanwhile the Persians were living strenuously in their fortified huts or in castles which were usually built on high plateaux. The princes who ruled them possessed absolute power; there were no slaves; every man had his appointed place in the community. They give the impression of people deliberately and quietly training themselves for conquest. the sturdy Persians marched with their prince Teispes (675-640) at their head. They captured Anshan, once a stronghold of Elam, and Teispes began to call himself "King of the City of Anshan." It was the first of the Persian victories: there were to be many others.

It seems that Achaemenes, the father of Teispes, had prepared the ground and was chiefly responsible for training a hard-hitting force of cavalry, since forever afterwards the Persians regarded Achaemenes with a respect bordering on the reverence they paid to their gods. But they rarely spoke of his achievements. The man who gave his name to the royal line of Achaemenian Kings vanishes in the mist of history, and all we know of Teispes is that he extended the Kingdom and at his death divided it into two parts, giving the northern part to his son Ariaramnes and the southern part to his son Cyrus. Ariaramnes called himself "great King, King of Kings, King of the land of Parsa." Cyrus, more modest, or perhaps less powerful, contented himself with the title "great King of Parsumash." Within a few years Ariaramnes vanishes from the scene, but not before he had caused to be written in an ancient cuneiform script on a gold tablet which still survives the proudest of all the boasts uttered by the Persian Kings. Remembering that the hardy Persians had depended upon their horses for victory, he wrote:

Ariaramnes was the first to call himself "King of Kings," a title which Persian sovereigns have continued to employ until the present day, but we do not know how he lost his kingdom to his brother. For a few brief years Cyrus rules over Parsumash, Anshan, and Parsa He is followed by his son Cambyses, who married into the royal family of Media. From the union between the gentle King Cambyses and Princess Mandane was born a son called Kurush, whom we know as Cyrus the Great.

At great length and in enormous detail Herodotus and Xenophon (Cyropaedia of Xenophon, The Life of Cyrus The Great) have depicted the births the upbringing, and the military conquests of Cyrus, who captured Sardis and Babylon and ended for a thousand years the rule of the Semites in Western Asia. His childhood gamed his table manners, how he walked and how he addressed his soldiers --all these are recorded for us.

He is the first Persian to be presented to us in three dimensions. We know that he was so handsome that long after his death Persian sculptors continued to model his features because they represented an ideal of physical beauty.

He was tall and slender, with a straight nose, a firm chin, and thick lips. He had high coloring and walked a little stiffly, and was much given to laughter. He took his kingly duties seriously, but he was perfectly capable of being informal with his soldiers. (this is Herodotus' physical features of Cyrus the great, first ever recorded physical desription of Aryan features.)

He was merciful and deeply religious, but sometimes his enormous eyes flashed with anger and then the rage of kingship would descend upon him. At such moments he would drive himself and his armies into dangerous campaigns which swept him halfway across Asia, to die at last fighting some obscure tribesmen who, though a potential threat, were not worth conquering.

I have heard about this book. Believe what you want, but this is basically pseudo-science.

Since the river is essentially legenday, just because some modern scientists attribute the name Saraswati to a recently discovered ancient river-course, does not mean that it actually is the Saraswati river of the Rig- Veda.

thank you Idanthyrus

I only wanted to learn weather someone read or knew this book and weather its claims are scientific. Acording to Aryan invasion theory Aryans came from North and brought their language  with them ~2000 BC. And acording to this book the sankstrit  and Rig Veda was older than 2000 BC in this area and was spoken by Indus culture before people came from North.

You all know the original center of proto-european language is accepted as the area in the north part of the Black Sea.

There is no evidence of Sanscrit or veda being older then is highly unlikely, maily because there is no written records on it, look at my thread

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461& ;PN=1

this is all about sanscrit

lol, if anything is Iranian, it is a hooked nose.

But anyway, I believe Aryans originated inside Iran, their is a very good article on this by M. Sadeq Nazmi Afshar, see below

http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/FABastan.html - http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/FABastan.html

Wonderful!  A talk on the "Aryans"by using genetic studies of 1800.
Modern genetic testing states that there was only 1 tribe out of Africa and they came to India and it's there that many of the genetic mutations took place.

To compare the less than great record keeping of the Iranians with the Hindus who have more records in their language than any so called "indo-European" is a joke.  Let's have evidence from central Asians that the Aryans come from Central Asia- oops! Central Asians have sh*t for records!  The story in Hindu texts state, that Manu was a Southern Indian King who moved up north, it was from him that the Manushyas were born.  These were the Aryans.  And Indian texts agree with modern genetic studies.

The recent advances in http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Archaeogenetics" title="Archaeogenetics - Archaeogenetics have some interesting results for the Aryan invasion theory but are still in the early stages. Genetic study shows that Indian population as a whole has little similarity to other areas of supposed http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Indo-European" title="Indo-European - Indo-European settlement, indicating there was no mass settlement. Indian maternal http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/DNA" title="DNA - DNA is generally similar right across the country indicating that the mass of population has been in place there for a long period. http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux_et_al_2003.pdf" title="http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux et al 2003.pdf" rel="nofollow - [2]  (http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux_et_al_2003.pdf) >>

More recent results (Kivsild et al. 2003b, see also Cordeaux et al. 2003) show that the combined results from mtDNA, Y-chromosome and autosomal genes indicate that "Indian tribal and caste populations derive largely from the same genetic heritage of http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Pleistocene" title="Pleistocene - Pleistocene southern and western Asians and have received limited gene flow from external regions since the http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Holocene" title="Holocene - Holocene ." >>

The Haplogroup R1a has been previously linked with the ancient http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Kurgan" title="Kurgan - Kurgans and/or Indo-Europeans of southern Russia/Ukraine, who supposedly migrated to Europe, central Asia and India between 3000-1000 BC. (Passarino et al. 2001; Quintana-Murci et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001). However, the high frequency of R1a found in Punjab and in the South Indian Chenchu tribe, together with a highter R1a-associated STR diversity in India and Iran compared with Europe and central Asia, indicates that R1 and R1a differentiation may have originated in South or West Asia.(Kivisild 2003b) The defining M17 mutation has also been found in several South Indian tribes (Kivisild 2003b, Ramana et al. 2001, Wells et al. 2001). http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Stephen_Oppenheimer" title="Stephen Oppenheimer - Stephen Oppenheimer , who reports upon the results of the Human Genome Diversity Project in his book "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey out of Africa, (p.152)" comments these findings with the conclusion that: "For me and for http://www.pineville.us/project/wikipedia/index.php/Toomas_Kivisild" title="Toomas Kivisild - Toomas Kivisild , South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; (...),thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India'." Oppenheimer further believes that it is highly suggestive that India is the birthplace of the Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups which he calls the Eurasian Eves. He believes that it is highly probable that nearly all human maternal lineages in Europe (and similarly in East Asia) descended from only four mtDNA lines that originated in South Asia 50'000-10'000 years ago. >>

The neolithic spread of farmers to Europe from Levant/Middle East has also been linked to 12f2 (haplogroup 9) and the markers M35 (haplogroup 21) and M201. But while M35 is present in Europe, Anatolia, South Caucasus and Iran, Indians generally do not have the Alu insertion in their Y chromosomes. The lack of YAP+chromosomes in India suggests that M35 appeared in the Middle East only after a migration from Iran to India had taken place, but earlier than the later migration of near- and middle eastern farmers to Europe. (Kivisild 2003a) >>

Since virtually all central asian haplogroups of M seem to belong to the Mongolian, and not the Indian type of haplogroup M, this indicates that no large-scale migration from the present Turkish-speaking populations of Central Asia to India could have occurred. (Kivisild 2000) >>

I highly doubt the Aryans migrated out of India. The groups indigenous to India.

No! There was more than one migration out of Africa. I suggest you read The Journey or Man by Spence Wells, where he studies human migration out of Africa based on y-chromosome. Indeed India is far too diverse to be categorized as one peoples. But the group indigenous to India came by boat, the Dravidians, who later moved on to Austrailia as the Aborgines.

Later another group moved through the middle east and up into central Asia and europe. In Iran these peoples formed the Aryan peoples who later migrated to India mixing their culture with the locals. Indeed Y-chromosonal evidence shows that most y-chromosomes are not Dravidian, while much mtDNA suggests more Dravidian materanl ancestors. This lends itself particularly to an invasion scenario.

Originally posted by Dharma And Iranians are nobodies in  any lineage of ancestors. Even the Greeks say the Hindus have recorded the longest lineages in history, longer than the hebraic.  So Hindus have more hard evidence than you or central asians do at this point.  So again, you better provide some evidence, besides our single puny little persian book says "I'm an Aryan" and so Persians are Aryan, any loser can say that.

haha, lol!

This isn't a contest to see who holds the longest lineage, we all go back to the same primal ancestors. Even if we dont have as many ancestors as you how does that make us nobodies. LOL!

Also I have secure documented evidence from M. Sadeq Nazmi Afshar and Spencer Wells book The Journey of Man. These are not random people but highly respected professors and their writings, especially Wells book, is very recent. That your point of view may differ, fine. But please tell where you found it or who wrote it or what.

In any circumstance have you read Darius' Tomb,

"I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
The king of many countries and many people
The king of this expansive land,
The son of Wishtaspa of Achaemenid,
Persian, the son of a Persian,
'Aryan', from the Aryan race"

Here is the site I got it off http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/FABastan.html - http://www.parsaworld.com/bastan/FABastan.html

Regardless though, both northern Indians and Iranians are, at the very least partly descendend from Aryan peoples.

Originally posted by Dharma Originally posted by PrznKonectoid I highly doubt the Aryans migrated out of India. The groups indigenous to India. No! There was more than one migration out of Africa. I suggest you read The Journey or Man by Spence Wells, where he studies human migration out of Africa based on y-chromosome. Indeed India is far too diverse to be categorized as one peoples. But the group indigenous to India came by boat, the Dravidians, who later moved on to Austrailia as the Aborgines. Later another group moved through the middle east and up into central Asia and europe. In Iran these peoples formed the Aryan peoples who later migrated to India mixing their culture with the locals. Indeed Y-chromosonal evidence shows that most y-chromosomes are not Dravidian, while much mtDNA suggests more Dravidian materanl ancestors. This lends itself particularly to an invasion scenario. well the latest genetic tests say you and the book you read is wrong.  There was only 1 migration out of Africa.  Either way, so far it shows the oldest migration has always come to India even if your theory was correct. I hope you actually READ my post before posting on the ACTUAL genetic data and not what YOU personally would like to believe. Also, the genetic data also quite well corresponds with Indian history as recorded in the sanskrit texts.  The Aryans have EXPLICITLY stated they are Indian. From there Manu gives his sons rulership of the earth or separate kingdoms to rule. And Iranians are nobodies in  any lineage of ancestors. Even the Greeks say the Hindus have recorded the longest lineages in history, longer than the hebraic.  So Hindus have more hard evidence than you or central asians do at this point.  So again, you better provide some evidence, besides our single puny little persian book says "I'm an Aryan" and so Persians are Aryan, any loser can say that.

Persians were anything but puny, there was no contact between greek and indians, As far as I know India is a country made up of different cultures and ethnicity, actually mesopotamia and Summerians are older then hindu's.

If you doubt this guy bring evidence to your backing, there is Sanscrit was the language of the Elite and aryans not the rest of the darvidian population of india, actually harappan culture is older then india and is found mostly in modern day pakistan (look at my other posts). Hindu language today has alot of Persian words due to the fact Farsi was the language of the Elite before the british.

people writting sanscrit never once mentioned they were aryans the way persians did. As for persian belief lying was the greatest sin as for greeks they lied all the time.

SO my friend you better have better sources then nationalistic ones, there is actually no evidence of migration west out of India but there is evbidence of people (aryans) attacking and migrating to India, the Iranian terrotories had civilisation and Aryan influences in small migrations out of the caucas, the Medes and Persians came later that is true.

this: Also, the genetic data also quite well corresponds with Indian history as recorded in the sanskrit texts.  The Aryans have EXPLICITLY stated they are Indian. From there Manu gives his sons rulership of the earth or separate kingdoms to rule. -

is pure speculation, you are basing this on mythology, I suggest you read my post on Sanscrit http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6461& ;PN=1

Sanskrit became the elitist language of the Indus Valley from about 1000 B.C and remained in use in some domain or the other, generally religion and the state, till the Muslim conquest when Persian took its place. Thus, although the Prakrits which finally changed into the vernacular languages of the people of Pakistan were simultaneously in use as I will argue later, let us look into the development of Sanskrit first. The Rigveda itself gives importance to language which is personified as a goddess. In Esa Itkonen's translation it glorifies itself as follows:

This was hardly surprising because the Gandhara region was ruled by the Persians some time in the sixth century B.C. This is evidenced in the

inscriptions of Darius in which 'clear mention has been made of Hi (n) du, that is, the Punjab territory, as a part of the realm'. ⁵¹ Further evidence comes from the discovery of an Armaic-Greek inscription of Asoka, the great Buddhist ruler of around 250 B.C., a few miles west of present-day Kandahar in April 1957. Carratelli, writing on this discovery remarks:

... the region had been an old Iranian province and it is logical to assume that the tradition of the Achaeminian state language was maintained. Satrapal offices must have survived during Macedonian domination (when Greek was added) and continued their use of Armaic when the Mauryas took over. The importance of Armaic for administration purposes in the former Iranian provinces is borne out by the Taxila and the Pul-i-Durunteh inscriptions.

The Aryans have "explicitly" stated they are Indians? Do you even know the etymology of the word "India"? I suggest you clue up, or shut up.

Dharma, you are being explicitly warned, any further derogatory, chauvinistic remarks will result in a permanent ban.

I shall respond to the issue raised after completely reading.

Before I would be very much obliged if the learned participants could clarify the following:

1. According to historians, "Aryans invaded India", aryanized the natives - the Dravidians, thus the four division of society -Varnashrama dharma created.

2. If Aryans came from "some where" and visited / invaded other countries also, whether such "Varnashrama dharma" is there or not?

3. If not, why?

4. Whether Dravidians are /were there in those countries, because, historians and scholars say that they also came to India from outside.

5. So, where did the Dravidians come from?

Maju responded as: "As you probably know, that "Varnashrama dharma" is non-existent for anyone who doesn't have an Hindu faith. Like the theory of evolution, plate techtonics or the mechanics of the Universe, we must look at this without religious prejudices. You can adopt the viewpoint of the "illustrated religious peson", who considers the letter of the holy books as largely metaphorical, relevant only for faith and moral issues but irrelevant for science - that's your decission, of course. But don't complain if others shun you because you let your beliefs rule your wisdom instead of vice versa.

1, 2 and 3 questions answered".

In historical perspective, the Aryan-Dravidian issue has to be dealt with.

If "Aryans" and "Dravidians" were not there historically and archaeologically, then, there is no meaning in making them fighting each other socially or lingustically. This I have pointed out in my papers "THe Aryan Problem" and "The Dravidian Problem".

If Aryans with Vedas went on invading countries from "unknown place", then, same type of cultures should have been there. If not, then historians and scholars have to answer why the difference.

I hope what historians, scholars of all fields and of course, politicians do with "Aryans" and "Dravidians" in India. And of course, the historians and scholars from other countries too deal them accordingly without application of scientific methodology swearing in the name of science.

Skulls replaced colour,  color replaced blood, blood replaced chromosomes, now genes have come. But the issue remains.