Indo-European studies

I was reading the histories of the Armenians and encountered this line:

These assimilated foreign families were predominantly of Indo-European (Aryan) origin, such as Iranians, Alanians, Greeks and Romans.

Is Aryan really a synonym with Indo-European? Here that word is rather taboo and is only correctly used when referring to Indo-Iranians. For example the Tokharians called themselves Arya and the word means noble in Sanskrit or whatever. There is no reference to Germans, Romans, Kelts, or Greeks ever calling themselves that so...using it in the sense of Indo-Europeans as a whole sounds a little like Hitler-talk.

Also...one of the few connections Greeks and Romans have to the original Indo-Europeans is linguistic and that can only tell us so much. Scholars oftentimes forget the importance of the non-Indo-European Etruscans, Tyrrhenoi, and Minoans to the development of Greco-Roman civilization. It can be argued that influence from these civilizations far outweighs any contributions from Indo-European invaders that obliberated the cultures of the unwarlike natives

Actually, that statement is a red flag, because Aryan/Indo-Iranian constitutes a single language family of Indo-European culture, among which Greeks and Romans do not belong. Indo-Iranian culture is much underrecognized in influence, as with all steppe culture.

"We must also take a brief glance at that most loaded of Indo-European words- Aryan. As an ethnic designation, the word is most properly limited to the Indo-Iranians, and mostly justly to the latter where it still gives its name to the country Iran (from the Avestan genitive plural aryanam through later Iranian eran to iran). The great Persian king Darius described himself as Aryan. The term was also used widely in India where it referred to one who was a a member of the community"(Mallory 126). In Search of the Indo-Europeans

There is no relationship between race theory and Aryan just because Hitler and other mentally deficient individuals ruined the word with propoganda and pseudo-science, much like the swastika. India still uses the swastika, because it represents a sun and they don't have to worry about BS concerning PC or sensibility. Really, the swastika is a cool symbol... the arms of the sun are much like spokes on a wagon wheel, important Indo-European concepts.

Semi-similary, Germans were Arian in religion and it has nothing to do with Aryan, despite its apparent similarity.

These assimilated foreign families were predominantly of Indo-European (Aryan) origin, such as Iranians, Alanians, Greeks and Romans.

This statement is from the Europa Barbarorum history of Armenia...it rather shocked me. It kinda makes my great respect for the game drop just slightly. :book:

Hmm... I thought you meant Armenian history, like on some website somewhere...

I'm sure its a typo, I woudn't worry too much... one can easily see them condensing two phrases and forgetting/missing something. It IS something definitely that should be corrected, though. I say this because I have not ever seen a single EB member use the word Aryan except in the context of India, but it is possible someone with specific views wrote that who does not represent EB, but regardless, a good thing to catch- thank you.

*hmm, just looked it up in my Merriam Webster dictionary and Aryan is commonly used to refer to Indo-European, so I don't think the term was used for any reason other than simplification, but that doesn't mean it should not be changed... it still needs to go.


Also, I guess I missed that other comment, but I completely agree that pre-Indo-European peoples have been VERY important in the development of different cultures, to the point that some interesting theories take place, such as pre-Greeks or pre-Germans, who constitute quite a bit to what we think of as those cultures... luckily, we KNOW the Etruscans were influential, but it is a shame we have very little evidence of their language... the Basque get a good reputation as being non-Indo-Euro, but deserve it.

the swastica is found in armenia dating 5000 years. I dont care what hitler said and what is connected with ww2 but the swastica and the term aryan is connected with armenia.

Swastikas were also found in the cultures of the ancient Jews and on various Native American pottery...does that mean they are Aryans also?

sorry, my bad... swastikas are unrelated, as universal as the sun, but an example of how people bring their own baggage to art, not the other way around

well, the fact is that Indo-Iranians DID largely impact Armenia... the steppe is RIGHT THERE, thus why Indo-Iranians DID largely impact Persia... the only thing wrong with the statment in the historical description which was pointed out, is that Greeks and Romans are not "technically" Aryan... it's an easy typo to fix... and it IS important that it is fixed, not because of Hitler, because there is no reason his or anyone else's stupidity should affect fact, but because the term Aryan technically means a specific branch of Indo-European and was only mistakenly categorized the same as all Indo-Europeans, which is modern society's fault (yes I blame you, society ~;))

So basically it's just to remove the Aryan reference? The rest is correct? Easily done.

That is... I can't find that reference anywhere, neither in the internal or public version. Which version of EB, and which file are you reading this in?

It's on the website (fourth paragraph), don't know if the same text is used in the game somewhere.

It's on the site; first search in the Hayasdan history section for 'aryan' turned it up. Doesn't seem to me like any malice was intended.

Oh. I can't fix that.

the AR of ARyan is the root word for many words in armenian including ARmenia and ARmenians. the suffix yan is a common armenian suffix meaning of or from. AR is the root word for sun in armenian ARev. In pagan armenia sunworrshipiing was big. that is wwhere we get ARmen basicaly meaning men of the sun. In armenian the sunworshipers were known as ARev vorti or children of the sun. ARyan is another term refering to this ancient ritual basicaly refering to the people as from the sun ARyan armenian last names end with the same suffix yan or ian meaning of or from. In a more general sense the word Aryan can be connected with early indo-european cultures taking the theory that the indo-european homeland was in the armenian highlands and northern iran.

http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftB...onicle120.html



If the word Aryan offended anyone I suggest you take an advil and relax. Political correctness does not have the right to offend my culture.

I thought the Aryans were a people who invaded and the destroyed the Indus valley civilization? They spoke Sanskrit ,introducing the indo-european language to India, rather than the older Dravidian languages, they brought the Hindu Gods and their Vedic poetry and they introduced the caste system (with themselves mostly as the highest castes the brahmin and the khsatrya, the original Dravidian population as the lower castes). Something like this is what I've read in a quite good series of history books (Grimberg's "världshistoria"), also with "aryan" meaning "noble" in Sanskrit it's quite likely they referred to themselves as nobles compared to the original inhabitants whom were branded as "infidels and non-believers".

Quote:

---

the AR of ARyan is the root word for many words in armenian including ARmenia and ARmenians. the suffix yan is a common armenian suffix meaning of or from. AR is the root word for sun in armenian ARev. In pagan armenia sunworrshipiing was big. that is wwhere we get ARmen basicaly meaning men of the sun. In armenian the sunworshipers were known as ARev vorti or children of the sun. ARyan is another term refering to this ancient ritual basicaly refering to the people as from the sun ARyan armenian last names end with the same suffix yan or ian meaning of or from. In a more general sense the word Aryan can be connected with early indo-european cultures taking the theory that the indo-european homeland was in the armenian highlands and northern iran.

---

But don't the Armenians call their country "Hayastan"?

Quote:

---

for the Sanskrit term, Monier-Williams has: "a respectable or honourable or faithful man, an inhabitant of Âryâvarta; one who is faithful to the religion of his country; name of the race which immigrated from Central Asia into Âryâvarta (opposed to an-arya, dasyu, daasa); in later times name of the first three castes (opposed to shudra); a man highly esteemed; a master; Âryan, favourable to the Âryan people; behaving like an Âryan, worthy of one, honourable, respectable, noble; of a good family; excellent; wise; suitable"

---

That, I think, is the origin of the word "aryan"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

I thought the Aryans were a people who invaded and the destroyed the Indus valley civilization? They spoke Sanskrit ,introducing the indo-european language to India, rather than the older Dravidian languages, they brought the Hindu Gods and their Vedic poetry and they introduced the caste system (with themselves mostly as the highest castes the brahmin and the khsatrya, the original Dravidian population as the lower castes). Something like this is what I've read in a quite good series of history books (Grimberg's "världshistoria"), also with "aryan" meaning "noble" in Sanskrit it's quite likely they referred to themselves as nobles compared to the original inhabitants whom were branded as "infidels and non-believers".



But don't the Armenians call their country "Hayastan"?

---

Where did the Aryans come from that destroyed the Indus valley civilization? Also Sanskrit was the language used by early linguists when they saw similarities between it and english.

Yes Armenians call their country Hayastan. Germans call their country Deuchland, but it is also refered to as Alemania, and Germania. Alemania comming from the the German Aleman tribe, and Germania from I think Herman or in latin Arminius (connection with the armenian name Armen)

Armenia is as "Armenian" as is "Hayastan" such as Alemania is as German as Deuchland.

Quote:

---

Where did the Aryans come from that destroyed the Indus valley civilization?

---

I think to the northwest, in the Eurasian steppe, the theory which I have heard about the origin of the Indo-European languages (Proto Indo-European) which I think sounds most likely places them in the Eurasian steppe, away from oceans or large bodies of sea, something the early language had no words for, and also away from forests, which they had no word for either.

Well, anyway the chaps I call "Aryans" are the ones who destroyed the Indus valley civilization, and I also doubt they were blond blue-eyed people seeing as the caste system made mxing pretty difficult (The Aryans settled in the country and made placed themselves in the highest castes). Though it might not have been right to call only them "aryans" because even though it is from Sanskrit it undoubtedly comes from a root word in Proto Indo-European and it doesen't seem unlikely for a people to refer to themselves as a "noble breed" especially if they conquer and govern many other "infidels or non-believers". Alternatively you could just call these Aryans the "Vedic people" or something like that, as they spoke "Vedic Sanskrit".

Quote:

---

Deuchland

---

minor correction: "Deutschland", no offence intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

I think to the northwest, in the Eurasian steppe, the theory which I have heard about the origin of the Indo-European languages (Proto Indo-European) which I think sounds most likely places them in the Eurasian steppe, away from oceans or large bodies of sea, something the early language had no words for, and also away from forests, which they had no word for either.

Well, anyway the chaps I call "Aryans" are the ones who destroyed the Indus valley civilization, and I also doubt they were blond blue-eyed people seeing as the caste system made mxing pretty difficult (The Aryans settled in the country and made placed themselves in the highest castes). Though it might not have been right to call only them "aryans" because even though it is from Sanskrit it undoubtedly comes from a root word in Proto Indo-European and it doesen't seem unlikely for a people to refer to themselves as a "noble breed" especially if they conquer and govern many other "infidels or non-believers". Alternatively you could just call these Aryans the "Vedic people" or something like that, as they spoke "Vedic Sanskrit".



minor correction: "Deutschland", no offence intended.

---

Ohh dont get me wrong, The whole blue eyes and blond hair thing is propoganda but those "Aryan" invaders were caucasian similar to what an armenian, northern iranian, greek, spaniard, or southern itaian looks like. Have you ever seen indian movies?? check them out most of the stars look "diffrent" than the typical indian you or anyone knows. About 10-15% of india are not mixed with the dravidian population.

Armenia is not close to water either. please read the link i posted it gives very good points on the indo-european homeland being in the armenian highlands and norhtern iran.

having blond hair and blue eyes, is due to a lack of sunlight. It is human adaption to the enviroment. when thousands of years ago these indo-european tribes began to migrate, and settle in the difrrent parts of europe and asia the people adapted to the enviroment. In essence if we take a person from a northern eurpean climate and darken the hair and darken the eyes and give him a little tan I assure you he will look like a Greek or Armenian or Spaniard and vise versa. THe facial characteristics and structures are similar. BUt if we take a man from saudi arabia and give him blue eyes and blond hair he will not look like a northern european because he has diffrent facial characteristics and structers. Physical Anthropology is intresting to me.

Yes, but isn't blond blue eyes people ( that Hitler loved so much even though he was brown hair brown eyes) referred to as ARIAN, and not ARYAN. I think there two different words with two different meanings, there just often confused. I could be wrong though.

Quote:

---

Ohh dont get me wrong, The whole blue eyes and blond hair thing is propoganda but those "Aryan" invaders were caucasian similar to what an armenian, northern iranian, greek, spaniard, or southern itaian looks like. Have you ever seen indian movies?? check them out most of the stars look "diffrent" than the typical indian you or anyone knows. About 10-15% of india are not mixed with the dravidian population.

---

Oh, I didn't say that you said that, though it might have seemed that way, I just meant to say that I don't think they were "Hitler's kind of Aryans", which many immediately think of, especially here in Norway.

And yeah I have seen Indian movies, and I know a couple of Indians, and some of them could very well pass for a Greek or Spaniard or whatever, though one of them said they might have Portuguese heritage.

Quote:

---

Physical Anthropology is intresting to me.

---

Yeah, I'm interested in it as well, but then again, there are differences in facial features between Northern and Southern Europeans, trust me, I can much of the time see the difference between an awfully tanned (solarium + normal suntanning) Norwegian and the average Spaniard or Greek :P

Anyway the normal Norwegian hair colour, which is not blond per se, when you don't get much sun (in the winter) it's nearly dark brown and when you get lots of sun (in a sunnier country or during a sunny summer) it looks more blond, but you can also see that it looks sort of brown. There aren't as many "genuinely blond" people here as nordicists want to believe, lots of fake blondes actually. Sounds very weird for a nordic country :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Yes, but isn't blond blue eyes people ( that Hitler loved so much even though he was brown hair brown eyes) referred to as ARIAN, and not ARYAN.

---

That's just a difference in spelling, like "Czar" and "Tsar"

Quote:

---

Armenia is not close to water either. please read the link i posted it gives very good points on the indo-european homeland being in the armenian highlands and norhtern iran.

---

I'll read that link and then I'll re-read the part from the book I have that is about the Indo-European homeland (a chapter in the book, not the book itself), then I'll try to take a stance :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Randarkmaan

Oh, I didn't say that you said that, though it might have seemed that way, I just meant to say that I don't think they were "Hitler's kind of Aryans", which many immediately think of, especially here in Norway.

And yeah I have seen Indian movies, and I know a couple of Indians, and some of them could very well pass for a Greek or Spaniard or whatever, though one of them said they might have Portuguese heritage.



Yeah, I'm interested in it as well, but then again, there are differences in facial features between Northern and Southern Europeans, trust me, I can much of the time see the difference between an awfully tanned (solarium + normal suntanning) Norwegian and the average Spaniard or Greek :P

Anyway the normal Norwegian hair colour, which is not blond per se, when you don't get much sun (in the winter) it's nearly dark brown and when you get lots of sun (in a sunnier country or during a sunny summer) it looks more blond, but you can also see that it looks sort of brown. There aren't as many "genuinely blond" people here as nordicists want to believe, lots of fake blondes actually. Sounds very weird for a nordic country :P



That's just a difference in spelling, like "Czar" and "Tsar"

---

Good point I forgot to mention the sub catagories of caucasians. most souther europeans are of the mediteranean and dinaric type, while most northern europeans are of the nordic and brunn type. Armenians are mostly Dinaric, Alpine, and Mediteranean with about 10% nordic.

The thing is before ww2 the term Aryan was used to refer to indo-european peoples. After the whole hitler thing that word has become taboo. Yes the true blond is actualy a minority in europeans I think the highest concentration being in Finland.

yeah, umm... Arian is not Aryan at all... in no context is it a reference to ethnicity.... Arian refers to the religious sect of Christians "of or relating to Arius and his doctorines, esp. that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father but was created as an agent for creating the world"


Just because it is highly likely that the Indo-European peoples came from the steppe above Armenia (the steppe!) that does not mean that Armenian lays claim to everything about them... even the idea that they originated above Armenia is a theory, so I'd try and keep an open-mind, especially since so many Indo-European cultures do not imitate Armenia in every way.

True Aryan would be those called Aryan as mentioned in Vedic... also, those who have been proven to have used the term, such as Persians, or Armenians, they would be Aryans... "Caucasians" in the general sense cannot be proven to have used that term in the same way, thus why Aryan most appropriately refers to those people who used it as a self indentifier. That word "Caucasians" is an excellent example of how we just assume the theory of Indo-European homeland is from the Caucaus area, which is right, imo, but mostly it's the result of ignorance, since it means generic white man and not interesting and vast culture of steppe people.

There is absolutely no conclusive proof that Arminius = Herman... in fact, it most likely is based off of Proto-Germanic Ermun- which means "Great" or "Tall" but it could be possible that Armen and Ermun are based on the same root. There is also no conclusive proof that German means anything other than 'Germani' which is a tribe noted on the Rhine when Celts were on both sides of the Rhine, and later used to refer to the Germanic languages, even though the convention was invented by Caesar for propoganda purposes against any tribes on the other side of the Rhine to justify his actions.

Quote:

---

yeah, umm... Arian is not Aryan at all... in no context is it a reference to ethnicity.... Arian refers to the religious sect of Christians "of or relating to Arius and his doctorines, esp. that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father but was created as an agent for creating the world"

---

Ofcourse! I should have remembered that :sweatdrop: :shame:

I take an interest in anthropology as well...and going to the #2 (I think) party school in America w/ 80% of the women being blond sorority girls, one can easily tell the differences between badly tanned Nordics and Mediterranean peoples. :2thumbsup:

I would just like to see the typo (I honestly think it was some type of propaganda though) corrected...and not this forum turned into a 19th century meeting of German anthropologists and geneticists who are trying to link their history to that of superior horse warriors who introduced civilization across Eurasia.

This is a funny statement... did these academics forget to tell everyone else in the world about how "resolved" the theory is? There is no proof resolving such. Other than claiming to know everything and being right simply because they are themselves, not a bad website.

Quote:

---

The landscape described by the protolanguage as now resolved must lie somewhere in the crescent that curves around the southem shores of the Black Sea, south from the Balkan peninsula, east across ancient Ana tolia (today the non-European territories of Turkey) and north to the Caucasus Mountains

---

nobody is refering to Germany in the sense you are refering, so you should open your mind (imo) if you're reading that anywhere. if there is an attitude about it, like no one should be able to discuss the matter for fear of offense, maybe we should leave it in... the world needs to "harden the #$%^ up" as Chopper's doppleganger would say.

also, one of the reasons it was German anthropologists and genecists who did coin the term Aryan is because they led the world in science and education. it has nothing to do with "German"-ness or need for German superiority (the Indo-Europeans factually did exist and were so influential that a good part of the world speaks their languages), just like computer terms being coined in English are because of America and not a conspiracy either.

"badly tanned Nordics" - I love it!! That is the truest statement I've read in a while.
I personally truly think we have skin color for a reason (such as where along the equator one's people lived and thus you might want to live) and we should live thus if we want everything to work properly, not earning cancer because we think it's cool to be something we cannot ~;p short, heavy people will not have a fun time in the desert where one should be tall and skinny, nor would tall and skinny people have fun on the cold steppe... it's science really... that said, Las Vegas is pumping all kinds of water from actual locations where it belongs, just to suppport a wasteful population and gimmick water-show [have I gone completely off topic yet?]

Yes...Las Vegas is a waste of resources...humanity should come to understand that it doesn't have the power to completely conquer nature...then something like hurricane Katrina hits...New Orleans should be abandoned to what it will be in 50 years...an underwater Atlantis!

btw, when do I become a full member to this forum? I want the little banner with my favorite faction too!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

yeah, umm... Arian is not Aryan at all... in no context is it a reference to ethnicity.... Arian refers to the religious sect of Christians "of or relating to Arius and his doctorines, esp. that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father but was created as an agent for creating the world"


Just because it is highly likely that the Indo-European peoples came from the steppe above Armenia (the steppe!) that does not mean that Armenian lays claim to everything about them... even the idea that they originated above Armenia is a theory, so I'd try and keep an open-mind, especially since so many Indo-European cultures do not imitate Armenia in every way.

True Aryan would be those called Aryan as mentioned in Vedic... also, those who have been proven to have used the term, such as Persians, or Armenians, they would be Aryans... "Caucasians" in the general sense cannot be proven to have used that term in the same way, thus why Aryan most appropriately refers to those people who used it as a self indentifier. That word "Caucasians" is an excellent example of how we just assume the theory of Indo-European homeland is from the Caucaus area, which is right, imo, but mostly it's the result of ignorance, since it means generic white man and not interesting and vast culture of steppe people.

There is absolutely no conclusive proof that Arminius = Herman... in fact, it most likely is based off of Proto-Germanic Ermun- which means "Great" or "Tall" but it could be possible that Armen and Ermun are based on the same root. There is also no conclusive proof that German means anything other than 'Germani' which is a tribe noted on the Rhine when Celts were on both sides of the Rhine, and later used to refer to the Germanic languages, even though the convention was invented by Caesar for propoganda purposes against any tribes on the other side of the Rhine to justify his actions.

---

See, I knew they were different somehow. When I think of the word "Aryan", for some reason I think of ancient India and the caste system. When I think of the word "Arian", crazy skinheads come to mind. I know that's not what Arian started out as, but I think that's what most people correlate it with today.

No, it's spelled Aryan... if skinheads don't spell it that way, it's because they can't spell... although it is considered an alternate spelling I guess ~:) since Wikipedia indeed mentions that, but I am repeating this because doesn't come from Arius (no blame for that great man), it comes from Aryan... maybe something like defense and defence

I just want to make a point of repeating: I REALLY think the Indo-Europeans came from the steppe above the Caucaus area by the Black Sea, which is pretty much agreeing with you Artavazd, but it cannot be said it's conclusive. Linguistically, most evidence points to that, which is most of why I believe it, since linguistics are better guides than archaeology most of the time, imo. BUT many anthropologists/archaeologists will not give up the idea that Anatolia was the birthplace of the Indo-Europeans and it has much archaeological evidence, especially in comparison to other theories... I cannot support this theory, because it is really dumb to think that Germanics were in a good area like Anatolia or even Central/Eastern Europe, then left it to go backwards up into Russia and Skandinavia, then late decided it might be too cold and invaded the Roman empire... that makes no sense... whereas, living on the steppe which is harsh but vast, peoples can eventually go West until they find better land, which doesn't sound like completely stupid migration, besides language spread which proves the theory of the Black Sea area. BUT some people think that the Indo-Europeans were never unified and spread out all along, such as those cultures in Central/Eastern Europe which do not show any linguistic trends of having just gone upon a large migration, but rather that they had been sedentary quite a while.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blitzkrieg80

"badly tanned Nordics" - I love it!! That is the truest statement I've read in a while.
I personally truly think we have skin color for a reason (such as where along the equator one's people lived and thus you might want to live) and we should live thus if we want everything to work properly, not earning cancer because we think it's cool to be something we cannot ~;p short, heavy people will not have a fun time in the desert where one should be tall and skinny, nor would tall and skinny people have fun on the cold steppe... it's science really... that said, Las Vegas is pumping all kinds of water from actual locations where it belongs, just to suppport a wasteful population and gimmick water-show [have I gone completely off topic yet?]

---

People can move wherever they want. It's a fundamental right and has nothing to do with your physiology. racial differences derived from where people tended to live, but that has never precluded them from going anywhere.

The whole Europeans tanning thing is amazing recent. Through ancient Greece to Edwardian Britain, pale skin was considered a good thing, because it showed you didn't have to go out and work all day in the sun.

Coco Chanel, the fashion designer, changed all of this in the 1920s by popularising suntans as a sign that you can afford to go and lie on a beach somewhere hot. So the tendency is less than a 100 years old, just like Las Vegas. Although Rome also piped in water to satisfy its needs, so that's not so much of an argument.

What you say is true, the great thing about life is all of the unlimited possibilities for any person of any background. in fact, that is why Indo-Europeanism is cool... it just shows how universal everything is (rather than "special" and select, as racists erroneous interpret)... it's just too bad we cannot link other cultures further back

I think it is especially ironic, what you say about history in contrast to modern times concerning appearance (btw, the bit on coco chanel is interesting, never knew that), because being fat (just a little bit for some cultures rather than obese) and pale was a sign of prosperity before, whereas now being slim and being tan is most popular, partly because people are trying to pretend they're cool because they look like they do physical labor outside all day, without actually working. It is no longer in fashion to appear lazy, but it is ok to be lazy if you appear like the working class- wtf.

people say they are "active" and "like being outdoors", but then drive their SUV to the pool (the apartments where i live) instead of walking 1 block in the sun they're supposedly so adoring of. irony doesn't even describe that.

yes, i know what you guys are going to say, "it's their right to drive an oversized piece of #$%^ wannabe-tank and waste the world's resources because they cannot stand to lower themselves to the enivronment which they also claim to love so much in order to fit in with their friends," but isn't it rather absurd when those same people speak of "Global Warming" and go to awareness concerts, all the while professing their environmental concern in defiant tones? perhaps the most lovely yuppie trend of all.

it is my right to take a dump on the floor in front of somebody, possibly ruining their day... but here's the question: should i do it? each to his own, i suppose

blitzkrieg80 I did not say that All indo-europeans resemble armenians what I am saying is that The theory that I posted which states that the indo-european people came from the armenian highlands is just that. I am not saying they/we were all armenians:laugh4: what an armenian is or what a german is or what a greek is was formed thousands of years after this great migration.

If we look at the folk cultures of indo-eurpean peoples their folk music, their folk/pagan religions there are alot of similarites. Traditional armenian songs and dance resemble many eurpean even northern european dances. We have a dance that is similar to the Irish riverdance. There is a fundemental, root culture that is present amongs indo-european people.

Lets take the notion of noblity that is very much a part of eurpean culture. The obbsesion with being noble or nobility is prevailent in Armenian tales as is in for example german or Iranian. I know that there will be similar stories say in east asia or africa, but that sense of a noble warrior handsome and honorable is a BIG characterstic of indo-eurpean folktales.

"There is absolutely no conclusive proof that Arminius = Herman... in fact, it most likely is based off of Proto-Germanic Ermun- which means "Great" or "Tall" but it could be possible that Armen and Ermun are based on the same root. "


That is very intresting. In ancient and medievel armenian Ayr means Man (male) Arnakan means Manly, and in some armenian dialects Erikmart roughly translated to manly man refering to a tall great man.

Quote:

---

superior horse warriors who introduced civilization across Eurasia.

---

I don't know if you were being serious or just using this as a statement of said German anthropologist, but the Indo-Europeans did not spread civilization across Eurasia, they settled in many areas sometimes overthrowing and absorbing and being absorbed by more advanced cultures (Indus Valley). Mostly however they just spread their language, people and beliefs, they were basically "barbarians", in that they were not a civilized/advanced society.

Quote:

---

"badly tanned Nordics" - I love it!! That is the truest statement I've read in a while.
I personally truly think we have skin color for a reason (such as where along the equator one's people lived and thus you might want to live) and we should live thus if we want everything to work properly, not earning cancer because we think it's cool to be something we cannot short, heavy people will not have a fun time in the desert where one should be tall and skinny, nor would tall and skinny people have fun on the cold steppe... it's science really...

---

If all had thought that way, we'd all still live in Africa... Also the whole reason for so many people speaking Indo-European (or Altaic or Semitic languages for that matter) is because of immigration/emmigration.

Also concerning "badly tanned Nordics"; Europeans who came to West Africa (during the age of exploration) were not known as white people, but red people... :laugh4:

sorry, artavazd, I misinterpreted ~:doh: anyways, I hope I didn't come off harsh, because I just talk too much in general :yes: (obviously, I already have exceeded my limit for this thread)

I just really don't like that name Herman (no offense to those of you if you were born with that crappy name- my name is Jeremiah and that name blows too: "Jeremiah was a bullfrog! <duh duh duh>") especially in reference to Herman the German ~;) I just hate it... I totally don't understand how calling him Herman gives him anything, in fact, I think of him as a simpleton, weakling, or Joe Schmoe with that name... plus, Herman isn't even old Germanic, what were historians thinking? It's like calling Theodric => Teddy :grin:

randarkman, that's interesting/funny! redskins... i hope nobody in Africa was offended by the US baseball team ~:) hmm, I think Papa New Guinea calls Germans/Europeans redskins also, which is especially apt, since no white man has ever been devoid of pigmentation

OK, I promise to shut up and let other people actually have space on this thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by artavazd

Where did the Aryans come from that destroyed the Indus valley civilization? Also Sanskrit was the language used by early linguists when they saw similarities between it and english.

---

Ehhh, well, it is debated as to whether the Aryans even destroyed the Indus civ. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were abandoned, not destroyed, so the Aryan origin story might not be 100% accurate.

But yeah, generally, Proto-Indo-Europeans came from north of the Black Sea.

See the Urheimat Hypothesis and the Kurgan Hypothesis. Both of these are ideas for the origin and spread of Indo-European peoples.

Be careful about the term "Aryan". It isn't that it is politically incorrect, rather it has the potential to be misleading when utilized. And linguists can attest that language spreads differently from genetics, and that many people who speak an Indo-European tongue might not have even a droplet of "Aryan" blood in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GodEmperorLeto

Ehhh, well, it is debated as to whether the Aryans even destroyed the Indus civ. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were abandoned, not destroyed, so the Aryan origin story might not be 100% accurate.

But yeah, generally, Proto-Indo-Europeans came from north of the Black Sea.

See the Urheimat Hypothesis and the Kurgan Hypothesis. Both of these are ideas for the origin and spread of Indo-European peoples.

Be careful about the term "Aryan". It isn't that it is politically incorrect, rather it has the potential to be misleading when utilized. And linguists can attest that language spreads differently from genetics, and that many people who speak an Indo-European tongue might not have even a droplet of "Aryan" blood in them.

---

There is also this theory http://www.geocities.com/Paris/LeftB...onicle120.html


I agree that language does not always have a connection with genetics, but it makes no sense to say that the ORIGINAL speakers did not have a cultural connection with eachother along side the language. For example, English in America. The original speakers of English who came from England did/do share genetic similarites, but today people of African, Ameridian, and other backgrounds speak English. The cultural connection alongside the genetic connection (there are genetic studies which show that the population of Armenia, and most of Iran have the genes which characterize the populations of Europe) can be seen when one studies the traditional folk culture of indo-eurpean peoples. The folk music, folksongs and folk tales do share suprising similarites from Ireland to Iran.