The Aryans

Discussion in 'International Politics' started by Kunal Biswas, Nov 27, 2010.

  1. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,569
    Likes Received:
    28,314
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    The Aryans







    The Indo-Aryan tribes mentioned in the Rigveda are described as semi-nomadic pastoralists, subdivided into temporary settlements (vish, viś) and headed by a tribal chief (raja, rājan) assisted by a priestly caste. They formed a warrior society, engaging in endemic warfare and cattle raids ("gaviṣṭi") among themselves and against the "Dasyu" or Dasa. The size of a typical tribe was probably of the order of a few thousand people.


    The king is often referred to as gopa (protector). He was aided by several functionaries, including the purohita (chaplain) and the senani (army chief; sena: army). The former not only gave advice to the ruler but also was his chariot driver and practised spells and charms for success in war.

    The expansion of the Indo-Europeans is attributed to their pioneering military use of horses and early chariots. The first strong evidence for the domestication of the horse comes from the Sredny Stog culture north of the Azov Sea in Ukraine, and would correspond to an early PIE or pre-PIE nucleus of the 5th millennium BCE. The earliest known chariot was discovered at Krivoye Lake and dates to c. 2000 BCE.

    Subsequent expansion led to the Indo-Europeanisation of vast areas and populations, which later diversified into a number of branches. Among them were the Indo-Iranian cultures, who controlled a large area just past the edge of eastern Europe around 2500 BCE.

    The separation of Indo-Aryans proper from the Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 1800 BCE. The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are classified as either remote Indo-Aryan dialects or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. By the mid 2nd millennium BCE early Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west (the Indo-Aryan superstrate in Mitanni) and the northern Punjab in the east (the Rigvedic tribes).








    The Scythians were a nomadic tribe that dominated the steppes for nearly five hundred years (From the 8th to approximately the 3rd Centuries BC). The Scythians spoke a tongue from the Northeastern Iranian language family. The Scythians were renowned for their ability to shoot their arrows with deadly accuracy from horseback. This talent astounded their neighbors, who referred to them as the “horse-bowmen.” The greatest amount of territory under Scythian influence extended west to east from Ukraine to an area of Siberia just above Mongolia. Scythians settled as far west as what is now modern-day Romania and Hungary and appeared in what is now modern-day Iran just as the Assyrians and Medes were battling for supremacy in the Near-East.






    Sarmatia

    The territory of Sarmatia was an expansive stretch of land reaching from the Caspian Sea in the East to the Vistula River in the West, and as far south as the Danube. Essentially, Sarmatia was a collection of independent tribes, much like ancient Germania, that encompassed parts of modern Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic States, Central Asian nations and into central European countries such as Romania and Poland. The Sarmatian people were a blend of Iranian nomadic horse tribes that were likely related to the Scythians. Herodotus suggested in the 5th century BC that the Sauromatae, perhaps the original Sarmatians, were descended from the Scythians and the Amazons.

    The Amazon legend was widely accepted among Greeks and later Romans, thanks to Sarmatian women having a much higher social standing than their Mediterranean counterparts. Regardless, Sarmatians moved west from the Central Asian steppes and into Europe between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC. These migrations brought them into direct contact with the Greeks, who at time proved to be adversary and friend. Some Greek coastal towns paid tribute to the violent horsement, while others traded and held alliances of varying degrees. These alliances helped the Sarmatians completely overtake lands previously held by the Scythians and they disappear from history for the most part.

    By the first century BC, Sarmatians came into direct contact with Rome through Mithridates VI of Pontus. In the employ of the Pontic King, the Sarmatians ran helped bring Asia Minor under his rule, and likely wreaking havoc in Greece and the Balkans, at the expense of Rome. These alliances would eventually be crushed by Pompey and by Caesar in the mid 1st century BC, but the Sarmatians would continue to be a threat to Rome for another several centuries. External pressures from marauding Huns and other eastern people pushed the Sarmatians farther west. The Iazyges, certainly the most commonly known tribe to the Romans, settled along the Danube, between Dacia and Pannonia, soon to be in direct conflict with Rome.

    Initially, the Iazyges were cautiously welcomed by the Romans, as they caused problems for tribes in Dacia, but eventually they would ally against the common foe. The Roxolani, another Sarmatian tribe, had settled the region and joined with their cousins as well. By the early 2nd century AD, the Emperor Trajan led a massive campaign to conquer Dacia, and between 102 and 106 AD, he brought this region and these tribes under Roman rule. Just a generation later, under Hadrian, it was deemed more advantageous to allow the nomadic horsemen their freedom, though Dacia itself was kept under Roman dominion. Another generation later, the Sarmatians, now including the Alans who migrated all the way from the Caspian Sea, had joined with Germanic neighbors, mainly the Quadi and Marcomanni. Marcus Aurelius, in a series of bloody and protracted wars from the 160's until his death in 180 AD, eventually pacified the region, but this too would only be temporary. It's also during this point in history that the first 'Sarmatian Knights' or auxilia were moved to Britain to serve along Hadrian 's Wall.

    By the 3rd Century AD, political upheaval in the Empire and continued unrest among northern tribes, brought the Sarmatians back into permanent contact with Rome. They occupied Dacia, which was largely abandoned by the Legions, and began to settle more permanent homes, acting as buffers with migrating Germanics for the rest of the Empire's existence. A century later, many Iazyges were brought south of the Danube, and into the Balkans, under Diocletion and Constantine as farmers and tradesmen. Those Sarmatians who remained in the greater expanse of land to the north and east were eventually overrun by Huns and Goths and were either destroyed or absorbed by the 6th century AD.

    In regarding the Sarmatians, it's important to note their potential contributions to the lore and mythos of western civilization. Their foundation and relationship to the Amazons has already been alluded to, but their transfer to Britain has helped feed speculation on the origin of King Arthur. Lucius Artorius Castus, a Roman cavalry officer serving in the 2nd century AD has often been associated with one possible source of the true historical Arthur. Whether true or not, the Sarmatian contribution to the story is certainly one major piece of the huge Arthurian puzzle. The service of Sarmatian cavalry, from the 2nd century until the 5th century and the Roman withdrawal from Britain, along with the deeds and exploits of Artorius, may have allowed his legend to grow and foster with each successive generation of Sarmatian 'colonists'. They also provided an invaluable contribution in post-Roman Britain, fending off Saxon invasions, which certainly helped foster the growing Arthur mythology.





    http://www.unrv.com/provinces/sarmatia.php

    http://listverse.com/2010/01/05/top-...the-scythians/


    Indian subcontinent both the Jats and the Rajputs are supposed to be Scythians.

    India is reffered to as "Arya-vrat" in Sanskrit which means the home of the Arya which was another Sanskrit term for brave. Even Iran derives its name from the word Aryan. Iran is a cognate of the word Aryan which means "Land of the Aryans".
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
  2.  
  3. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    David Woods take on Indo-Aryans,part of BBC's Story of India' series,presents the hackneyed take of Indo-Aryans as invading/migrating conquerors into the Indian subcontinent.Western popular media and scholarship needs to update itself to the new and vibrant discourse taking place in the field of Indology,esp the late Bronze age, and a whole slew of new evidence and arguments to dispute old dogmatic understanding.
     
  4. anoop_mig25

    anoop_mig25 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,195
    Likes Received:
    2,223
    i have seen this documentary in discovery channel in past was good . India would be only country where its history by indians are never properly searched and documented and even wrongly depicted to fulfill their foreign masters oder or their own ego.

    its only some independent foregin that are trying to bring out original history
     
  5. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    There is a lot of debate on Aryan invasion theory, even on the internet lately. It is though accepted that Aryans came to India but the assertions differ mostly on:
    a) the nature of visit (migration/conquest)
    b) the time of their visit
    What is most intriguing is that every researcher/historian would present their own archeological facts, reasoning and genetic research etc to prove their points. It gets difficult to infer the truth.
    I personally think that none of them wrote complete turth or complete lie. It is half truth ... flavored.
     
  6. the aryan invasion theory was a mythical theory created by europeans in the 19 th century to justify the colonial rule in the indian sub-continent. this theory cannot be establised scientifically becaused it is not backed by bio-metric data using genome mapping technique.also there is no signs of evidence of war or destruction on the excavations of mohenjo- daro and harrapa the civilizations which were suposedly destroyed by aryans. the recent historian also propose an alternative theory called the indigeneous aryan theory which has much more scientific basis.
     
  7. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    'The arrival of Aryans' into India 'i'm afraid is merely an accepted dogma that is so entrenched in scholarly discourse with regards to Indology,backed up by almost 200 years of voluminous if only redundant scholarship,that any attempt to repudiate old 'facts' is treated with such academic vitriol that it eerily mics the reaction European renaissance received from Europe's clergy.

    A section of Indian scholarship,falsely termed as nationalist,over the last several decades has more or less succeeded in establishing that theories regarding the 'arrival of Aryans' are effectively that, just theories and have pretty much turned those very evidence, that has been touted by western scholarship for over 200 years as evidence for migration/invasion/arrival,against this false and unscientific reconstruction of a people and a nations history.

    While The history of the Vedic people remains to a large extent shrouded in myth and mystery except at places where their own lore dispels the mists cast by time,the idea of migration of Indo-Aryans or to conclude that Indo-Aryans must have arrived from somewhere,anywhere outside India,based on available evidence is an untenable exercise of constructing history out of 19th century myth and its resultant dogma.
     
  8. Tshering22

    Tshering22 Sikkimese Saber Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,404
    Likes Received:
    2,782
    Location:
    Gangtok, Sikkim, India
    ^^ 100% agreed. In fact, a recent research paper in Europe itself has proven that Europeans actually came from Indian race along with the Mongoloids of China and east Asia; this means that both East and West has its origins in our people who evolved over time to suit their new habitats. Anyone here, please remind me sometime to post the link to that research paper as I have to find it. If not I will ask a friend of mine to send it to me and I shall post. :)

    There's no such thing called "Aryan" in first place outside South Asia. "Arya" means noble in Sanskrit and if Europeans were indeed so-called "Aryans" then they should be Hindus and must be aware of Sanskrit reasonably well. Knowing the Europeans and Chinese who prize race, language and ethnicity rather than religion as defining characteristics, I think this itself is proof enough to see what rubbish was spread by imperialists and how gullible people were to actually have bought it! :emot15:

    The present-day Iranians to this day fantasize themselves as the "Aryans" ever since Hitler praised them with the word for being "racially superior" all while their modern Persian (more Arabic actually) has NO similarity to ancient Avestan that had slight striking phonetics and pronunciations as Sanskrit has. 'Fars' is their country's original name, Zoroastrianism is their actual faith and Avestan is their real language. And MOST of today's Iranians will either deny this or not understand in first place.
     
  9. Godless-Kafir

    Godless-Kafir DFI Buddha Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2010
    Messages:
    5,829
    Likes Received:
    1,799
    Not this again!! The same old Aryan Dravidian theory..!
     
  10. S.A.T.A

    S.A.T.A Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    1,804
    Likes Received:
    453
    One of the greatest tragedy of the study of indo-Aryans and as an extension the study of Indo-Europeans,is how what started out as an exercise to understand relative commonalty if philology of various disparate language groups in Europe and Asia,over the years turned into a semi academic orgy of race,ethnicity,of super race of white skinned men with blue eyes and blond mane........

    Indo-Aryans,Indo-Europeans strictly speaking are a linguistic group and have never been successfully associated with any material culture or have their origins traced to any of the world's extant ethnic or racial groups.Any such association to the contrary is only in the minds of the respective theorist.

    Anytime we start associating the Indo-Aryans/Indo-European with a certain people, we are treading on unsure grounds.
     

Share This Page