Origin of the Aryans

Discussion in 'History' started by Vega, May 9, 2007.

  1. Vega Banned Banned

    INDIA: THAT LAND of mystery. It is a place where the spiritual arts flourish and the material arts wane. It is a country where nearly all life is held sacred, yet millions starve. To many people, the nation of India and the religion of Hinduism seem almost inseparable, as though they were created together and together they may one day die. The Hindu religion is adhered to by nearly 85% of India’s almost 800 million population, yet the India we have come to know and most of the religion it practices today were not created in India at all. The caste system, the majority of the Hindu Gods, the Brahmin rituals, and the Sanskrit language were all brought in and imposed on the Indian people by foreign invaders many centuries ago. (Well according to theory of course!)

    "Aryan" is derived from the Sanskrit and Avestan term arya-, the extended form aryana-, ari- and/or arya- of which the word Iran is a cognate. (Source: Wikipedia)

    Precisely who the Aryans were and exactly where they came from is a puzzle still debated today. Historians have generally used the word “Aryan” to denote those peoples who spoke the Indo-European languages, which include English, German, Latin, Greek, Russian, Persian, and Sanskrit. “Aryan” also has a narrower racial meaning. It has quite often been used to designate mankind’s non-Semitic white-skinned race.

    There are many theories about where Aryans first came from. A common hypothesis is that Aryans originated in the steppes (plains) of Russia. From there they may have migrated to Europe and down into Mesopotamia. Others believe that the Aryans arose in Europe and migrated eastward. Some theorists, occasionally for racist reasons, claim that Aryans were the founders of the ancient Mesopotamian civilizations and were therefore the world’s first civilized peoples. This theory was promoted during the brutal Nazi regime of Germany to bolster its “Aryan supremacy” idea. The Nazis even claimed that Aryans were originally created by Godlike superhumans from a different world. A similar belief was expressed earlier in history.

    However, some recent archeological discoveries in India, Russia and Japan have pushed back the antiquity of the Aryans to at least 6000BC and proved beyond doubt that the ancient Aryans were not nomadic tribes from central Asia but had very advanced urban civilizations. Russian archeologists and linguists also proved that the Aryans have migrated not from the Russian steppes but came to Russia via Armenia and Georgia. (Source: www
    President Putin's visit to the ruins of the ancient town of Arkaim, which is situated on the outskirts of the city of Chelyabinsk. Pravda reported (on 16 July 2005) about the starling discovery of ruins of a very advanced civilization of Indo-Aryan origin, which was at least 4000 years old in Arkaim. (source: http://www.ivarta.com/columns/OL_051212.htm

    If the Aryans did indeed invade India (according to Max Muller's invasion theory) then the evidence in the social system imposed on India by the Aryans were unmistakably designed to create human spiritual bondage. As elsewhere, this bondage was partially accomplished by giving spiritual truths a false twist. The result in India was a feudalistic institution known as the “caste” system.

    Nevertheless many indian historians and archeologists dispute claims that aryans migrated to India from central asia. Ruins in places like Dwarka and even submerged ruins off the japanese coast challenge these theories

    However deeply rooted the aryan influence in these regions there is still no definite basis for common originality on this race of people!

    Interestingly the most basic questions sometimes don't usually have the answers.
    Who were they? Where did they come from?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Certainly they were a wide-spanning northern empire/influence. I have wondered what their connection with the Greek termed "Hyperboreans" was.

    I suspect they were Aryan direct decendents of that great, but declining people.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. IceAgeCivilizations Banned Banned

    I tend to agree, and Hecataeus said that the Greeks traveled to the land of the Hyperboreans every 19 years (Metonic Cycle) to worship Apollo (Sun God), and I suspect that is Stonehenge, so the Hyperboreans could have been a generic term for the tribes to the North, just as Scythians came to be an over-arching term for the tribes of herdsmen north of the Black Sea.
    Last edited: May 9, 2007
  8. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    This is complete and utter pseudoscience. The "Ice Age icepacks" (sic) had long since retreated by the Late Bronze Age. Moreover, the collapse of the Bronze Age is more attributable to a systems collapse than a single factor such as "drying out." There was drought, but the collapse affected even those regions that were not affected by drought at the time. The likely causes include economic, climate, as well as natural catastrophe (i.e. tectonic movements).

    The pseudoscience presented by IAC here also includes the correlation of the dispersion of Aryan linguistic groups at around the end of the Late Bronze Age rather than many thousands of years before in the Early Bronze Age or Neolithic where evidence shows it to have actually occurred.

    IAC's posts, if not supported by real science, will be split and moved to the pseudoscience forum. This is an academic forum, not a place to make wild speculations that have no basis in real science.
  9. UltiTruth In pursuit... Registered Senior Member

    Just wait a little more and the final theory will be that they are much older and originated in India!
  10. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Very well could be.
  11. Odin'Izm Procrastinator Registered Senior Member

    Aryans came from Persia.
  12. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    The Aryans (Iranis) came from Persia (modern Iran).

    Also, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan, Afghanistan are also related to the Iran in that they were part of the old Aryan influence.

    Zoroastrianism and the ancient Indian religions (now referred to as Hinduism) both emphasize the the superiority of the Aryan race.

    India is majority Hindu (about 80%), yet if we include Pakistan and Bangladesh, half of the Indian subcontinent is Muslim.

    Also, the historical land of the Aryan people in India (Panjab, Kashmir and Sind, the Sapta Sindhu river valley) are majority Muslim regions.

    So, Indian (and Pakistani) Muslims are as much Indian as Hindus.
  13. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    I find it interesting that in Indian mythology, devas are the good guys, while asuras are the bad guys; in Iranian mythology the reverse is true, i.e. the asuras or ahuras as they called them are the good guys.

    I wonder what the history between them was.
  14. darious Registered Member


    I am Dariush, the great king, the king of kings
    The king of many countries and many peoples
    The king of this expansive land, the son of Wishtasp Achamenia
    Persian, the son of a Persian, 'Aryan', from the Aryan race
    Dariush's scripture in Naqshe-e-Rostam

    The above scripture is one of most valid written evidences of the history of the Aryan race, and as can be seen, Dariush, the Achamenian king, in the 5th century BC, declares himself a Persian and form the Aryan race. Herodotus, the father of history, writes at the same times: "In ancient times, the Greeks called Iranians "Kaffe", but they were renowned as Aryans among themselves and their neighbors". In another part of his book, Herodotus writes that the Medians were known as Aryans during a certain period. So in two of the oldest written human documents, the race of the Iranians have been mentioned as Aryan.

    On the other hand, in many contemporary books, one reads that the Aryans were not original residents of the land of Iran, and that they migrated to Iran from Central Asia or somewhere in the north of Europe. The point is that if some of the oldest written records of the human history confirm that the residents of the Iranian Plateau were Aryans, why should some claim otherwise?

    We will discuss the origins of the Iranian race, not in a bid to regard them as a superior race and fall into the well of racism. Rather, we will try to shed light on some unknown corners of history, which has been mixed with ignorance and lies.

    We want to extract the facts out of centuries and millennia and out of paleontological studies, old and new, to prove that Iran is the original land of the Aryan race, that this people has never migrated to any other land, and it has defended its homelands for centuries on end.

    There are all numerous reasons that the Aryan race has undergone its evolution from the primitive man to the white man in the Iranian Plateau.

    These reasons can be categorized as historical, geographical, mythological, anthropological and linguistically. Against the reasons we will discuss, no valid evidence has been produced to prove that the Aryans migrated from Central Asia or any other place to Iran. What European historians have written in this regard is based on unscientific and unproven hypotheses influenced by racist and political ideas.

    The reason for the migration of Aryans from Iran to other places of the world should be searched in climatic events. At the end of Ice Age, as a result of excessive rainfall on the Alborz and Zagros Mountains and the melting of the ice accumulated on the mountains, the rivers flowing through the Iranian Plateau were much larger than they are today. Therefore there was a large lake in the place where to day is the Central Desert. One of the most interesting mythological texts says in this regard: "...In the second phase of the creation of the world, Ahura Mazda created the waters, and the waters flowed towards Farakhekrat Sea which covers one third of the world from the southern outskirts of Alborz." With the continuous warming of the earth and the decrease in rainfall, this lake gradually dried up and the peoples living around it, who had a common language and Aryan culture, was forced to migrate from Iran. The routes of this great migration are an evidence for the central position of Iran, for the Aryan peoples have set Iran as the center and set out on migration in any direction.

    As a matter of fact, many Western historians have declined to accept the politicizes version of history, admitting that Iran was the origin of the Aryan race.

    Hegel writes in his book The Philosophy of history: "The principle of evolution begins with the history of Iran". Another prominent orientologist says that: A large part of our cultural and material legacy was unveiled in southwestern Asia the center of which was Iran." Petri, in a famous speech, said that "When Egypt had only just begun the art of pottery, the people of Susa (in Iran) were painting beautiful pictures on ceramics." this shows that the Iranian civilization was 3,000 years ahead of that of Egypt, dating back at least to 12,000 years ago. In other words, when Central Asia was totally buried under thick layers of ice, Iranians were creating pictures on earthenware, which indicates their art and creativity.

    Considering the existence of this 12,000 years-old civilization in Iran, would it not be unlikely that 6,000 years ago, a group of people spontaneously crossed the ice covered Siberian lands, suddenly wiping such a civilization off the earth. The word Aryan has roots in world that Iranians called themselves by Ayia, meaning free, noble and steady. The world Iran is derived from this very root, having been transformed from to Ayran Iran, meaning the land of the Aryans. This is the most ancient term applied to the Iranian Plateau, and such a term has never been detected anywhere else in the world, e.g. Europe or Turkistan.

    The myth of Aryan's migration to Iran implies that a people have come to Iran from a remote land, giving their name to an already inhabited land which had no name, and that no trace of their name has been remained in their name has been remained in their original homeland. In historical records, Central Asia has been mentioned as the land of Sakas, Masagets, Touran, Soghd, Kharazm, Khiveh, and Turkistan, none of which words has any relation to the word Aryan.

    Paleontology is one of the sciences that confirm the formation of the white race in Ian. The Homo sapiens evolved from its Neanderthal ancestors in a 30,000- year process between 50,000 to 20,000 years ago. In the Hutu and Kamarband caves near Behshahr, Iran, bones of men from different historical periods have been found, showing that a kind of human race has continuously dwelled in this area and evolved, meaning that there has been no migration.

    In Babylonian and Assyrian sources, one of the largest ancient Iranian tribes has been mentioned as Kas Su, Kassi and Kashi, which in ancient languages and also in the modern language of the people of Gilan means fair-eyed and fair-faced. The name of central city of Kashan (Kassan) is a relic of this ancient Aryan tribe. Many relics of the Kassi tribe has also been found in the Khorramabad region, including paintings in the cave of Dusheh which date back to 15,000 BC. In these paintings, people can be seen riding horses. This is a very valid evidence against the erroneous theories which say that the Aryans brought the horse form Central Asia to Iran around 4,000 BC. Like its ancient riders, the horse is indigenous to Iran since at least 17,000 years ago.

    Geology and meteorology confirm the evolution of man in the Iranian Plateau. The supporters of the theory of the migration of the Aryans from the north to Iran assume that with the fall in the temperature during the ice age, men were forced to migrate from the north (Central Asia) to the south (Iran). But the homo race was formed at the end of the third ice age, i.e. when the weather was gradually warming from the south to the north. Therefore, it would have been natural for people to migrate from south to north, and not the other way round. In fact, Central Asia was not habitable for men for thousands of years after the ice age, it only became so in the historic age as a result of the melting and receding of the arctic ice cap. Later groups of Iranians and Chinese migrated to these areas and formed the Turk race through cross breeding. The Indians are a hybrid of early Dravidians and the white Iranian race, a fact, which is evident from their dark skin.

    So why have some European historians said that the origin of the Iranians is Central Asia? Because in 1833, an Oxford University professor used the term Aryan to describe a group of languages with common origins. Although he later admitted that parts of his theory were erroneous, the theory of an Aryan race was used by a group of romanticist writers and racist historians.

    The Germans, eyeing vast expanses of land in Central Asia, called themselves Aryans . They used the Swastika, which, as a "wheel of fire" used to be the arm of the Aryans since ancient times, as a Nazi symbol, to have an alibi to invade Russia. The French, the British, and the Russians found different reasons to call themselves Aryans.

    group - Guruhhh
    star - Setareh
    And - Ud -> O
    Hair/waist/arm-band - das band et al
    Moon - Mah
    Jungle - jangal
    name - naam
    is - ast
    bad - bad
    door - dar
    key - keeleed
    series - seri
  15. kmguru Staff Member

    Recently saw BBC story of India> they connected the old ruin in India to digs in Tajikistan. As Russians doing research suggest, there was a major ancient civilization that spans the Eurasia before a major ice age. It is possible that there was a world war between the East and West (Devas and Ashuras).

    see also:
  16. Fraggle Rocker Staff Member

    The Uzbeks are a Turkic people and the Turkic peoples are of Mongolic origin. But the Pushtuns of Afghanistan and the Tajiks are indeed Persian tribes.

    I'm not clear of the sense in which you're using the name "Aryan," since it's a term that has fallen out of favor since Hitler got hold of it--the same fate that befell the venerable swastika.

    Aria is a Sanskrit name for the speakers of North Indian languages--members of the Indic language group such as Hindi, Bengali and Punjabi, as distinguished from the unrelated Dravidian language family of southern India that includes Tamil and Telugu. In the 18th century when linguistics was in its infancy, scholars borrowed the word Aryan into English, with exactly the same meaning.

    Soon it was discovered that Farsi has a very similar word to describe speakers of the Iranic languages, and linguists quickly figured out that the Indic and Iranic languages were members of a larger Indo-Iranian language group.

    In the 19th century the word "Aryan" suddenly came into use to mean the entire Indo-European language family, and the people who speak those languages. As antisemitism and other racist feelings were raging, "Aryan" became an expression of racial superiority. The Nazis co-opted the word and twisted it to mean northern Europeans, as ironically and allegedly superior to the Persians and Indians (the original Aryan peoples) and their more-or-less close relatives the Slavs, but most especially the Jews, a Semitic people.

    Since WWII, as I noted originally, the word "Aryan" has fallen into disuse. The language family is called Indo-European, the blond people of Germany and nearby countries are called "Nordic," and "Aryan" usually pops up only in discussions of Nazi politics. Linguists occasionally use the term "Indo-Aryan languages" to refer to the group that is more usually called simply "Indic," to highlight its subordinate relationship to the larger Indo-Iranic group. Even the Indians don't call themselves Aryans any more.

    As for the migration history of the original Aryans, it's generally accepted without controversy that the Urheimat or homeland of the speakers of the proto-Indo-European language was somewhere around Anatolia or perhaps slightly eastward in the region of Georgia or Armenia, around 2000BCE. We can tell this from the names of the plants and animals they brought out with them, as opposed to the ones the various Indo-European tribes invented along the way or picked up from the people they met.

    The proto-Indo-Europeans split into two migrations. One went north into what is now Russia and then headed west into Europe in several waves: first the Celts, then the Germanic and Hellenic tribes, with the Romans and Albanians coming later. The other migration went eastward, leaving the Armenians near the original starting point, with the Indo-Iranians (or "Aryans" in the terminology of the 18th century) heading southeasterly. The Balto-Slavic peoples broke north and settled in the Ukraine, before finally populating Russia, Latvia, Lithuania and eastern Europe in historical times. This was a second wave of Indo-European migration into many of those areas, displacing the Celtic and Germanic tribes who had settled there.

    Mesopotamia was not founded by Indo-Europeans or "Aryans." When Babylonian civilization was in its glory the proto-Indo-Europeans were far to the northwest of that region, still living in the Neolithic (pre-civilization) era or possibly having barely entered the Bronze Age as the technology of metallurgy gradually spread out from the cities. I'm not sure of the ethnicity of the original Babylonians (and I don't know if anyone else is either), but by the time the Indo-European diaspora was underway, Mesopotamia had been shaped by the Akkadians, Amorites and Aramaeans, all of whom were Semitic peoples, and it's as good a guess as any that the original Babylonians might also have been a Semitic tribe.

    The only one of the Earth's six independently-created civilizations that was founded by Indo-Europeans is the civilization of India, and it was in fact founded by the people who first came to be called "Aryans."
  17. nirakar ( i ^ i ) Registered Senior Member

    My hunch is that the individual Indo-European ethnicities and languages did not exist prior to the migrations. I am thinking that the Celt became Celts when the the Indo-European invaders moved into the Pre-Celtic lands and dominated the pre-Celts. I think that in all of the now Indo-European lands the pre-Indo-European DNA probably still accounts for the majority of the DNA there.

    I think the diversity of pre-Indo-European languages is a big part of what created the early diversity of Indo-European languages as the Indo-Europeans merged with the people they lorded over. My guess is that the languages of the Indo-European invaders were probably very similar to each other.

    I am thinking that a nomadic cattle herding, slave taking, tribute demanding group of tribes that traveled in very large groups was able to spread in many directions. I think the cattle people grazed on the farmland of farming people and the farming people were unable to do anything about it and were taken as slaves and brought into the Indo-European culture. Where there were agricultural cities tribute was probably demanded but the invaders probably would not want to fight if they did not have a 4 to 1 numerical advantage.

    I am thinking that the original Indo Europeans were not so large in numbers but their numbers grew quickly as they assimilated and incorporated their slaves into their tribes.

    My ideas come from noticing how languages and cultures spread in later times and from the few clues that Indian-history/myth/religion gives. I believe that the pre-Indo-European Indians and Pakistanis were the only literate advanced people that the Indo-Europeans encountered during their invasions and that is why the only record of the invasion comes from their lands. The Arayan interest in ethnic purity may have derived from their discomfort with their complete lack of ethnic purity. I am guessing that the Indo-European invasions happened later than conventional wisdom says they did.

    The Kurds are Indo-Europeans and the Hittites were Indo-Europeans. I think the Mesopotamians and semitic people from Syria/Canaan defeated the Indo-European invasion.

    The Kassites did take over Mesopatamia but that was later.
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2009
  18. RobDegraves Registered Member

    I am currently doing my phd in history, though my expertise is medieval, not ancient.
    It is very important to be concise in what words you use to describe specific events or people. History, like most other sciences, requires exact phrasing in order to be accurate.

    The term "Aryan" is seldom used nowadays. As Fraggle Rocker points out, the term has come to mean a number of things that have no historical reality. Those who might have called themselves Aryan would have spoken a language similar to Hindi and likely would have little else in common. There was likely never such a thing as an Aryan kingdom or anything else of the sort.

    Later, the term was used to indicate a wild assortment of things, including a mythical people. That is one of the reasons we don't use the term much anymore ... if at all.

    Lastly, again Nirakar speaks of the Celts as though they were one people. That was never so. Celt is a language group not a people as such. Oversimplification is usually wrong in historical exposition.
  19. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Aryan is still widely used in Iran, India, and, to an extent, Afghanistan to this day. The term has fallen out of use in modern Pakistan because of its attachment to Hinduism, the term Sindhi is used now (referring to Indus river valley civilization).

    According to the popular history of the region (as told in Iran, Pakistan, Northwestern India, and Afghanistan), the Aryans came from the north of the Amu Darya river in what is now either Western Kazakhstan, or Russian territory by the Volga river north of the Caspian Sea. The Aryans brought with them knowledge of horse drawn wheeled chariots and domestication of cattle. We need to realize that the Aryans did not come in one large migration but several migrations over a long period of time. There is evidence that the first settled people of the Indus river valley civilization (in the Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir regions of Pakistan, called Sappta Sindhu [seven rivers]), were actually relatives of the Aryans which Hindu scriptures claim came much later. There does not seem to be any evidence of a massive invasion. Though the Indus river valley civilization was destroyed, we haven't yet figured out the cause of it. It is still largely speculated.

    This page is quite informative on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryan_migration

    The current hypothesis is that the Aryans were a collection of related but diverse tribes who migrated in waves into present-day Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and some bordering regions of Northwestern India. The Aryans gave rise to several different civilizations: Persian (Iran), Parthia (Afghanistan, Northern Pakistan), Indus River Civilization (Pakistan, bordering regions of Northwest India). Influenced by the Aryans, various Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms also arose, including the Gandhara Empire, etc.

    A deception has been propagated in our present day that the majority of Indians are ethnically Aryan, this is simply not true. Along with the Indus river civilization, there was another civilization which started along the Ganges river. This gave rise to Bengalis and darker colored Indians. Culturally and linguistically, there are numerous differences between Indic and Gangetic peoples. The most obvious being physical appearance. One main proponent of this view is a famous politician/researcher Aitzaz Ahsan. There was never one India, as I have stated earlier, South Asia is like a continent with hundreds of different languages, dialects, and ethnic groups. In modern Pakistan, people still identify with their family tribal names, which can still be traced back hundreds of years.

    It seems that different Aryan tribes settled in differing regions giving rise to the various ethnic groups found in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Northwest India. There are apparent differences in physical appearance between a Punjab, Kashmir, Pukhtoon lands, or Faris, yet all are remarkably similar when compared to Europeans, Arabs, Mongols, Tamils, or Bengalis.

    One important point to make is that being Aryan does not make one superior to non-Aryans. This is a false concept, perhaps established by our ancestors to keep their supposed racial superiority. Whether Aryan, Semitic, Gangetic, Mongolian, we are all human beings first. That's very important.

    Also it is important to note that Uzbek, Turkmen, Kurd, Tajik, and other Western Central Asian, Northern Middle Eastern people are also Aryan. The regions of the Uzbek, Turkmen, Tajik were referred to as Khwarezm, the northern regions of the Persian empire. Not all Turks are from Mongolian blood, though they are related by language and culture, the different physical appearances shows us that there are mainly two types of Turkish/Mongolian people. Oghuz, western Turkish, and Chagatai, eastern Turkish. I use the term Turkish to refer to all the Turkic (Turaani) tribes, Mongolians, Tatars, and Turks (Turks of modern Turkey who are mixed with European, Byzantine blood). It is believed that from the Oghuz Turks, the Aryans originally came.

    This was a long post, so I will cut it short.
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Nice post DH, don't cut it short!

    I need to look into this.
  21. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    One more thing which bothers me is how did the German Nationalists appropriate the term Aryan to refer to their race, which to them is defined by blond haired, blue eyed people. Some Iranian researchers have speculated that a tiny group of Aryans may have migrated to Germany, but became mixed with the populace there. It seems rather odd that Aryans are defined by traits which are foreign among them.

    For a long time people assumed that the Aryans were red haired and had light skin (from Indian standards). The people of Northern Iran, on the south coast are blond or red haired and pale (though with Iranian features), perhaps this refers to their ancestors. There is also the prevalence of light eye color and light hair color among these people, the people of Afghanistan, and Northern regions of Pakistan. Does this indicate a higher prevalence of Aryan blood? Unfortunately we have little way of knowing. The standard belief was that lighter skin was related to a higher proportion of Aryan blood, but modern archeological evidence contradicts this. Perhaps the Aryan society was one which contained these genes of light eye color, skin color, but was mostly representative of their black haired, and wheat (olive) colored descendants in Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. It might be that this trait was much sought after in Aryan society because it was rare. This is just a hypothesis of mine.

    Besides this, one more vexing issue is the Aryan superiority complexes found among Hindus, often used to discriminate against Muslims or other minorities. This is odd considering that the vast majority of Indian Hindus may have little to no Aryan blood whatsoever. As a matter of fact, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the bordering Indian states such as Punjab, Rajputana, and a small proportion of Indians from other states seem to have a higher proportion of Aryan blood. It has long been propagated in India by Hindu thinkers (from the 1930s) that the prevalence of light skin among the Muslims was because of Arab, Turkish, or Iranian mixing. Yet as we can see from the family histories of Pakistanis and Indian Punjabis and Rajputs, these people tend to be very thorough and precise concerning their lineages. Those with Arab or Turkish patrilineal lineage use titles such as Syed, Farooqi, Siddiqui, Qureshi, Hashmi, Baig, Mughal, Bukhari, Khan (not the title). These, though found among Muslims, are not very common when compared to the Aryan names such as Gujjar, Jat, Rajput, Bhatti, etc.

    I think the British too found it odd when dark-colored Indian rulers claimed a similar white Aryan heritage with them, to ally themselves against Muslims, who in many cases, looked more European than the Hindu Indians. It still makes me laugh when I see a dark southern or southwestern Indian claiming Aryan heritage to prove his superiority over a Pakistani Muslim, who most likely is more Aryan than the majority of Hindus. I think this obsession with light complexes has been a thorn in the side of the subcontinent's advancement for a long time. What need have we to prove we are somehow related to European invaders to prove we are somehow superior to our countrymen? This concept is deeply erroneous and reveals the simplicity and depth of psychological inferiority complex which plagues South Asia.

    Pakistan has recently rid itself of this complex in the last 60 years, due in part to pan-Islamic nationalism. Indeed, the term Aryan is basically extinct in Pakistan. India, however, still suffers from the mental baggage of a long history of self-hate, which is further perpetuated in the Bollywood and music industries. Until we accept our own appearance for what it is, and have pride in it, we will forever be mired by this.
  22. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Very simple. They were studying Sanskrit and decided that Aryans must have been Europeans since brown people could not have an advanced civilisation thousands of years ago.

    Thats very interesting, apparently ancient Scythians, were written about by Herodotus as having red hair

  23. DiamondHearts Registered Senior Member

    Unfortunately, much of the Indus river valley civilization has been lost in time. This is perhaps the greatest gap in the story we have at the moment, archeologists in Pakistan are trying to figure out the language, origin, and demise of this once great nation. Like the Mayans, they just disappeared mysteriously. We probably know more about the Mayans than the Indus river valley civilization.

    Actually I was once reading this paper written on the European colonial concepts of race. To them there were only five races, white European, black African, red Native American, yellow Mongolian, and brown Malaysian. Somehow we would be classified as Mongolian or Malaysian. Author of this theory was Friedrich Blumenbach.


    No doubt that the Scythians, along with the Parthians and Persians, must also have been descended from Aryan stock. The regions they inhabit, according to the map on this page corresponds to the Aryan migrations into Persia and modern-day Pakistan and Northwestern India.

Share This Page