# Ultimate ancestry of Aryans a.k.a. Indo-Europeans



## dreamhunter (Nov 20, 2009)

It seems that the general view is that some guy called variously as Keiumers, Kaiumers, Kaiomerz, Gaiomard, Gaio Martan etc. was the mythical ancestor of the numerous Aryan i.e. Indo-European tribes of people. Ancient Persian legend, acording to one source I came across, would place him at ca 10,000 BC or thereabouts, in some vague place called Arya Vaeja.

Apparently, the near descendants (several generations subequently) of Kaiomerz had to migrate out from Arya Vaeja because at some point in time it suddenly became too cold (the ice age?) for habitation.

Some other scholars, among them some of the so called biblical, or scriptural, historians - or leaning towards such - would speculate that Kaiumers a.k.a. Kaiomerz a.k.a. Gaiomard a.k.a. Gaio Martan was actually the biblical/scriptural Gomer (called Gamir in, what, Hebrew, Qamir in Aramaic/Syriac, or Gimirraa in Assyrian, n maybe Ghumri in Arabic), son of Japheth n grandson of Noah.

Which means that he only appeared in, what, ca 2665 - 2775 BC or thereabouts.

Gomer, of course, is widely proposed as the first ancestor of the Cymmerian tribes.

Let's have your thoughts n guesses on this then, guys.


----------



## The Ace (Nov 20, 2009)

The problem is that there's too much legend ant too little historical fact for there to be anything other than opinion on this matter, and some of the opinion stinks.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 21, 2009)

So does an onion. But sometimes isn't it nice to have some onion in your soup? Or on your hamburger?

Now, go have yourself a bulb, lad. You need some. 

Seriously, though, Ace, even fact is never cast in stone. Including some so called scientific facts. What is commonly accepted as fact today may be reduced to legend in five years time. Or less.

In the, what, the early 17th century, guys still thought that the sun moved around the earth. It was so 'obvious' then, that everybody accepted that as a 'fact'. Then Galileo Galileii came along. In about 1610, I think, he theorised the exact opposite, n got ex-communicated for it by his Church. Galileo then proved it scientifically. But only a few years ago, the Catholic Church made an official admission of its mistake and offered a formal apology. A bit late for Galileo, though.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 21, 2009)

It is much less frequent that "facts" change -- rather it is the interpretation that changes. And, as we refine and hone our abilities to gather the information accurately, even that has less and less major implications; it becomes more fine-tuning rather than overhauling models altogether.

As for the bit with Galileo and the Church -- that's a rather mistaken presentation of the case. It has long been known that the Church leaders themselves knew the Copernican model was correct; but it conflicted with religious tenets to which the Church of the time, being strictly literal interpretationists, had to adhere. What caused the problem was that Galileo wasn't ready to keep his mouth shut when they asked him to, as they feared the impact of a general dissemination of the knowledge on the faith of the flock -- especially the uneducated -- and the social destabilization that might cause. So it wasn't scientific knowledge or fact that changed here, but religious dogma.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 22, 2009)

These Gomers/ Keiumers etc remind me of Lycurgus/ Romulus-style myths- individuals created much later and placed retroactively into history in order to explain the origin of a culture and/or its mores. People are more story-friendly than gradual social pressures.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation, then it just works out if we say that every ancient nation in history would have started from one man n his woman, or women. Accepting also that, along the way, there were admixings between families, clans, tribes n nations.

By that reasoning, we could then say that the Cymmerian/Kimmerian nation, for example, would have started from one man with a name close to Cymmer'Kimmer, or some variant of it. It would be a plausible explanation, wouldn't it? Accounting for the penchant of ancient people to name their clan, tribe or nation after the first founder that their ancestors have recorded. Often in the form of a legend. With that first founder, often, also having several different names/titles, and perhaps eventually deified into some god or godddess.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 23, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation, then it just works out if we say that every ancient nation in history would have started from one man n his woman, or women.



Yes, a nation of millions with no chin between them.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Possible examples being Teush (Shem) becoming Zeus, or Japheth becoming Jupiter or Jove. Well, at least for those who believe in the Shem, Ham and Japheth thing.

I like the idea that legend is often real history simplified, with the usual amount of embellishment, aggrandisement, magic, mystery, lore, fantasy, mythology etc. thrown in for good measure. I believe that there often is, each in its own way, some value in every legend and folklore. It is for the scholars, historians, archaeologists etc. to find inspiration in such legends n then to dig n keep digging for scientific evidence that could be presented later in an acceptable form to society.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Like, we wouldn't have been watching Brad Pitt n Eric Bana beating each other's brains out on screen, if it wasn't for some old, blind poet diligently crafting away thousands of verses about some murky tale that he had heard from other guys, thousands of years ago.

And then for some crazy archaeologist, thousands of years after him, to be inspired enough by those verses, to go digging away for stuff, in some desolate place, in some land thousands of miles away from his home. Cool, aint it?


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 23, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation, then it just works out if we say that every ancient nation in history would have started from one man n his woman, or women. Accepting also that, along the way, there were admixings between families, clans, tribes n nations.
> 
> By that reasoning, we could then say that the Cymmerian/Kimmerian nation, for example, would have started from one man with a name close to Cymmer'Kimmer, or some variant of it. It would be a plausible explanation, wouldn't it? Accounting for the penchant of ancient people to name their clan, tribe or nation after the first founder that their ancestors have recorded. Often in the form of a legend. With that first founder, often, also having several different names/titles, and perhaps eventually deified into some god or godddess.


 
The problems with this are numerous. The question of endogamy and exogamy is only one such -- and the distances between tribes/clans, etc. plays a part in this, as well. Look at the isolated tribes which have been discovered even in the last century or so, and look at the effects of endogamy on _them_, for one indication.

As for the name of a tribe, etc.... yes, those were (at times) _apparently_ taken from a very popular, even legendary, leader; but even this is often seriously in doubt, and relies more on oral tradition and speculation than on any other form of supporting evidence. (And a lot of this dates back to Snorri Sturleson's prose Edda and his derivation of the origin of the Norse gods -- or, more properly, those who influenced his thinking in this regard.)

It was quite a popular notion in the nineteenth century, especially with several fiction writers, and remained such well into the twentieth (Robert E. Howard, for instance, used it quite a bit, and had a fair amount of faith in it in fact, as I recall). But, from what I understand, the notion hasn't fared too well by further researches in anthropology. It is more a romantic notion than a factual one, I'm afraid; and the "ultimate ancestry" question is, by and large, a meaningless one (save perhaps linguistically), as such things as the origins of tribes and/or nations (i.e., cultural subdivisions of humanity) is far more convoluted than that.....


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Nov 23, 2009)

There's a linguistic group of Indo-Aryan languages, but insufficient evidence of an Aryan race. Certainly, it's been proven by genetic studies that the so-called Aryan higher caste Hindus are not significantly different from the so-called Dravidians. The identification of the higher Indian castes with a racial group supposedly including the Europeans may have been a product of the British divide-and-rule policy, allying the higher castes with their colonial overlords, against the lower castes. 

Similarly, the division of the Caucasian peoples into Aryans, Semites and Hamites was a linguistic divide and not a racial one. 

What people refer to as Aryans or Indo-Europeans includes a bewildering array of ethnic groups from the Sinhalese to the Celts, including Slavs, Gypsies, Hispanics and what have you. Any common ancestry is probably more likely to be the province of paleontology rather than some sort of amateur ethno-mythography.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 23, 2009)

Indeed, if we are speaking "racially" (a term I abominate, and which in fact I would say has been rendered nonsensical by modern science) than there is no such thing as "Aryan"; it is a complete misunderstanding of the original use of the term. Culturally, it may have some slight relevance, but even there I'd be extremely dubious. It is only linguistically that the term Aryan or Indo-European truly applies.

Incidentally, L. Sprague de Camp goes into this at some length in his biography of H. P. Lovecraft, who was a supporter of the Aryan myth. Here are the relevant passages from his *Lovecraft: A Biography*:



> The conquerors of Iran and India about 1500 B. C. called themselves _Arya_, "nobles". When scholars realized the kinship of languages as far apart as Icelandic, Armenian, and Bengali, they called this group of languages the Aryan family. Later linguists, however, preferred the term "Indo-European."[...]
> 
> The greatest of the scholars who solved the Indo-European linguistic problem was the German philologist Max Müller. In a careless moment, Müller alluded to the "Aryan race." He later corrected himself, saying: "To me, an ethnologist who speaks of an Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar.... If I say Aryans, I mean neither blood, nor bones, nor hair, nor culture. I mean simply those who speak an Aryan language."
> 
> But the harm had been done. The "Aryan race" was seized upon by a French diplomat and writer, Comte Arthur Joseph de Gobineau[....]


 
-- p. 96​ 
As I remarked earlier, save for a linguistic application, the entire question is rather a nonsensical one....


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Aaaahhh. Now it's flowing along nicely. Let's keep it going ...


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

knivesout said:


> The identification of the higher Indian castes with a racial group supposedly including the Europeans may have been a *product of the British divide-and-rule policy*, allying the higher castes with their colonial overlords, against the lower castes.
> 
> Similarly, the division of the Caucasian peoples into Aryans, Semites and Hamites was *a linguistic divide* and not a racial one.
> 
> Any common ancestry is probably more likely to be *the province of paleontology* rather than some sort of amateur ethno-mythography.


(1) The caste system, which was certainly initially dominated by guys of a relatively lighter-skinned tribe, was already in place, put there by an invading or later-settling people, thousands of years before Brits turned up in India. Eventually, though, the native, darker-skinned, earlier-settled people managed to force their way up the established hierarchy.

(2) I'm more inclined to believe that it's neither solely linguistic, nor purely ethnologic, but mixed linguistic-ethnologic. Like, folks from different tribes meet, n they exchange some lexicon, thru trade, cultural etc. interactions. Some of them would interbreed n exchange genes. You see this even to this day. Prez Barack is a premier example of it, aint he?

(3) Nope. Why should I simply pass over something I hv an interest in, even a passing interest, to someone else wholesale. Why can't we all be involved, even as amateurs? If all football is only about professionals, then the British football industry would collapse tomorrow.

Like my engineering lecturer once said, "Nope. You cant just leave economics to the economists. We've all got to stay involved too."

And I said to him, "Oh yeah! I love involvement."

(4) Let's put it this way. I think most would agree that the Cymmerian/Kimmerian tribe, or nation, did exist, right? Of course they did, they even whupped the Assyrians at some point in time. Until the Scythians, a nephew tribe, but bigger n stronger, came along n whupped them on behalf of the Assyrians.

Now, IF there WAS an Aryan, or Indo-European, race, then the Cymmerian or Kimmerian tribe/nation was, to me, certainly at the core of it, or somewhere near there. But, if Aryan or Indo European was just a figment of someone's imagination, then that still does not negate the existence of the Cymmerian/Kimmerian tribe or nation. Whose first founder was still quite likely Gomer/Kaiomerz/Gaiomard.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

Now, wotcha think of my Cymmerian avatar? Good aye?


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Nov 23, 2009)

Dreamhunter: My point is that the identification of the lighter-skinned Indians with an Aryan root-race was an imperialist tool to subvert the higher castes in their favour. Not that the caste system was a western construct. 

Your entire inquiry is predicated on the existence of an Indo-Aryan race. I seriously doubt such a thing even exists. Even if you're trying to say that Cymmerians were the first speakers of PIE (Proto Indo-European), PIE itself is a theoretical construct of which no actual records exist. If anyone was to be at the 'core' of the Indo-European speaking phenomenon, it would be the first speakers of PIE. There are all sorts of theories about where PIE was first spoken - Armenia, Anatolia, India, northern Europe...we may never know for sure. PIE had already fragmented into daughter-languages by the third millennium BC, so it's hard to ascribe 'core' Indo-European identity to any one tribe. What little remains of the Cimmerian language seems to be derived from old Iranian.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

<FONT color=black><FONT face=Verdana>Knive, you just said it. Armenia, Anatolia n t


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 23, 2009)

(1) No, it's not. The Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, started out as one entity. Then at one point in time, they split into western, mostly Iranian, branch, n an eastern, mainly Himalayan branch. The Himalayan Indians themselves would be the first ones to admit to an 'Aryan' origin, with or without British endorsement. In ancient times their place was called Arya Varta, the Land of the Nobles.

(2) No, it's not. It does not live or die on such a precept. But Knive, you just said it. Armenia, Anatolia n the Western Himalayas were all the playgrounds of the Cymmerians. While Northern Europe, if that turns out to be true, could have been the cradle, the so called Arya Vaeja (which suddenly got too cold) of Persian legend. The Cymmerians split into 2 branches somewhere in northeastern Iran, at some point in time, due to pressure from another dominant tribe, possibly the then up and coming Medeans.

One branch shifted northwest, to the Caucasus, from where they later spread further outwards, including to Armenia n Anatolia, as well as Southern and Eastern Europe, remaining initially as Cymmerians. This branch eventually clashed with the Assyrians in Anatolia n the Syrian-Mesopotamian regions. They later blended into their Iranian relatives, the Scythians, n later their former nemesis the Medeans.

The other branch moved southeast, to the Western Himalayas, where they later became known as the Kamboja, after some later Cymmerian king named Kambujiya. The Tajiks, Farsi speaking natives of Tajikistan, are said by some to be the modern day pure descendants of this Kamboja Cymmerians.

The Achaemenid Persian kings, beginning with Khouroush-e-Bozorg (Cyrus the Great), profess descent, through Hakhamanesh (Achaemenes), from this first King Kambujiya (Cambyses in Greek), whose name kept recurring among several post-Cyrus Achaemenid kings. By the time of Cyrus, however, the Cymmerians had blended into the Persians. Cyrus, in fact, was recorded as the half Medean, half Persian king who merged Medea with Persia.

Let me clarify, my Cymmerian can exist with or without the Aryan. It's up to the reader. The Persians would insist on the inclusive, I think. Anyway, all I'm saying, at this moment, is that, my Gomer/Kaiomerz/Gaiomard would still be founder of Cymmerian.

If an Aryan race existed, then Gomer/Kaiomerz/Gaiomard would also be the first Aryan. If not, he would be only the first Cymmerian.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 27, 2009)

Now, we'll have another bout of amateur ethno-mythographic discourse. Maybe to rouse Knives into his next anti-imperialist diatribe. LOL.

The Kambhoja tribe, the branch of the Cymmerians who had migrated to the Western Himalayas, after a certain period of time, ended up conceiving their own creation myth. Just like so many other tribes in history, before n after them, had done.

They came up with the legend of Diti, their Moon Goddess, whose eldest son Chander Burman, or Chandra Varma, was, according to them, their founding ancestor. Now, Chandra Varma in Sanskrit mean 'Moon's Protected', i.e. 'Protege of the Moon'.

Now, if you research the history of Gomer n his father Japheth, you'll find that Japheth's wife, i.e. Gomer's mother, was someone named Udatu-an-Isas (Adataneses) a.k.a. Arathka a.k.a. Arisisah. She was said to be a woman of extraordinary, luminous beauty. A good candidate for eventual deification, after a thousand years or so, into some wayward tribe's Moon Goddess, if you like. Thus was how a mortal but extremely beautiful woman, Udatu-an-Isas, finally ended up as Diti the Moon Goddess of the Kamboja Cymmerians.

What this means is that the mythical Chander Burman, or Chandra Varma, was actually none other than Gomer, son of Japheth n his wife Udatu-an-Isas.

Japheth n wife, n their sons, however, were no ordinary mortals, for they were gifted with the gift of extremely long life. To enable them to repopulate their part of the earth fast after a huge flood had decimated other humans in their region. Which could further have contributed to their deification or semi-deification a millennium or so later. Gomer, for example, was said to have lived for a thousand years.

Because these guys all had like 1,000 year lifespans, that would have enabled them to establish n grow numerous kingdoms in many different places within their lifetime. For example, Japheth n Udatu-an-Isas could have reached Egypt to rule as King Osiris n Queen Isis, also becoming deified later on by the local folks. N thus Udatu-an-Isas also became Queen/Goddess Ishtar in Assyria-Babylonia, Queen/Goddess Innana in Sumeria, Queen/Goddess Astarte in Phoenicia, Queen/Goddess Uni-Astre of the Etruscans, Queen/Goddess Atargatis in Syria etc. etc.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 28, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation,



Wouldn't that be a nation of daddy uncles? 

Just sayin'.

Also, Dreamhunter, I understand what you are getting at, and I think it is unfortunate that what can be a good discussion has turned a blind eye towards presumptions regarding the use of the term simply because you used that term. You could have used any of the other synonymous terms though, and saved off a lot of silly replies. 

And for those who do not know Aryan is or what it means other than what has been spoon fed from modern historic media, I would highly suggest picking up a real book. If this occurred, it would be learned that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Nazis, anymore than the Swastika does before this last century. 

The Nazis were culture theives. Not heralds of modern terminology and image recognition for hatred.

I would also caution people to remain calm and kind hearted to opinions.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 28, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> And for those who do not know Aryan is or what it means other than what has been spoon fed from modern historic media, I would highly suggest picking up a real book. If this occurred, it would be learned that the term Aryan has nothing to do with Nazis, anymore than the Swastika does before this last century.
> 
> The Nazis were culture theives. Not heralds of modern terminology and image recognition for hatred.
> 
> I would also caution people to remain calm and kind hearted to opinions.



With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).

Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise. 

And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 28, 2009)

J-WO said:


> With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).
> 
> Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise.
> 
> And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.



The term Aryan has been around for a very, very long time.  

So...........................

Its also from the Sanskrit for Noble,

And was used to describe people who settled Iran,

The propoganda part didn't come around until the last century or so. 

I think its sad that people tend to ignore history and just take the persuasive propoganda meaning of something to be the whole of the definition.

If I were in charge, I would strongly focus education on the fact that the Nazis stole words from Sanskrit and symbols and perverted them. 

It makes me sad that people today would rather wallow in that perversion than learn.

The term is not used in modern academics due to the influence of white supremesists and nutcases. 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/37468/Aryan

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/286348/Indo-Aryan-languages

Also, there was most definitely a group of Indo-Aryan peoples. And there most definetly is a collection of Indo-Aryan languages. This does NOT mean that the white supremecists and Nazi versions are CORRECT.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Its also from the Sanskrit for Noble,
> 
> And was used to describe people who settled Iran,
> 
> ...


I like it when folks feel stimulated n they respond. Not only Sanskrit, Dusty, but also ancient Iranian languages, like Avestan, which to me was likely a sibling language of Sanskrit, from an even older common parent. It might hv been sometimes spelt 'Airya' in Avestan.

More correct to say 'Iranian' or Iranic' peoples, than to say 'people who lived in Iran', simply because those ancient 'Iranian' or Iranic' peoples lived over an an area easily 4 - 5 times larger than today's Iran. Including places in today's northern India, n eastern n southern Europe.

If some guy feels uncomfortable about the word 'Arya' or 'Aryan', I cant help him.

Also, if some guy likes to believe his particular race - whatever meaning you attach to that - is superior to another, or others, than I cant help him either.

Taking into account the fact that every powerful nation in history -whether 'Arya' or 'non-Arya' - has always made a habit of claiming ethnic-national superiority and propagating/perpetuating that belief among its citizens. Presumably for patriotic, strategic, nation-building or other purposes.

Has WWII n its outcome put a stop to that die-hard habit? Nope. Apparently it hasnt. 

My preferred meaning of 'Arya' is the most inclusive, not the exclusive 'blonde, blue eyed people' version. Not any hijacked meaning, certainly. My intent is to revive, liberate n expand the understanding n interpretation of 'Arya' n 'Aryan' back to their correct, broad-based, original meaning.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

PC problem. Post deleted.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

something wrong with my PC


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

J-WO said:


> With all due respect, its not just a question of Fascism's purloining ways. Modern academia doesn't use the term Aryan, not because of any politically correct sentiment, but simply because its obsolete. As our understanding increases the measuring devices--as with any science--become more accurate. These days, as far as any academic output goes, Aryan only appears in 'Indo-Aryan' with reference to Indo european language groups found in the subcontinent (If memory serves me well).
> 
> Aryan of itself is not offensive, just imprecise.
> 
> And I, obviously, am a bit of a pedant.


Why obsolete? Because some politicians said so?

Cant they say Iranian = Aryan? No, cos it would fly in the face of their whatever political leanings. But Iranian IS Aryan. For the word 'Eran' was simply the Persian way of saying 'Aryan'.

Funny, but nobody questions the historical correctness of the word 'Europe' or 'Europa'. Purportedly, it came from then name of a Phoenician princess, named Europa, who was kidnapped by God King Zeus, manifest as a bull, n carried off to Crete n made his queen.

Now I tell ya, Princess Europa was, again, Udatu-an-Isas (Adataneses a.k.a. Ar-is-Isah a.k.a. Arathka). While Zeus was a case of mixed-up identity between Udatu-an-Isas's husband, Japheth, n her brother-in-law, Shem, whose nickname was Teush, meaning teacher. Japheth was, meanwhile, eventually deified as Jupiter or Jove.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 28, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Why obsolete? Because some politicians said so?


I'm not going to join in the debate about whether or not Aryan is a useful term today - for no other reason than I am almost completely ignorant about such things - but lots of scientific terms have become obsolete without the need for the intervention of politicians. It happens when a term has been shown to have no current relevance**. Or should our chemistry textbooks still use the term, phlogiston and should our physics textbooks use the term, (luminiferous) aether?




** - Other than in books describing the history of science.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 28, 2009)

As indicated earlier, it became obsolete in this usage -- not necessarily linguistically, at least for sometime, when even there it became obvious it was imprecise (precision being one of the mainstays of scientific usage) -- because it was an error to use it ethnologically to begin with. It was a slip of the tongue which was picked up by those who wished to support their own ethnic/racial agendas in the nineteenth century. The term itself is not an offensive one, but it has taken on offensive overtones because of such abuse.

However -- the point is that ethnically, there never was an "Aryan" people; it's a nonsensical term -- again, see Muller's comments concerning dolicocephalic dictionary, etc. And recall that this comes from the man who was one of the major figures in the decipherment of the entire linguistic puzzle, and whose inadvertent slip began the entire mudslide in the first place; and his response to this slip was made _*long*_ before use of the term in an ethnic connection became unfashionable.

Politicians be damned. The term is no longer used because it ceased to be the right term for what was being described; and was_ never_ the right term for a completely bogus set of ethnological assumptions which were based on folklore and myth rather than scientific fact.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 28, 2009)

Whoa! You dont like politicians so much then, do you? LOL.

Apart from the word 'Eran' being the Persian way of saying 'Aryan', there is also still a state in today's India, called "Haryana'. Care to guess where the name came from?

So, what do you think of the word 'European' then? Do you reckon that there is, ethnologically, really, such a thing as a 'European' people?

Unless you really, really believe that all 500 million odd 'Europeans' of today are all descended from Princess Europa.

Like I said before, there is some value in lore, legend n myth. N scientists, no matter how smart they think they are, should still reserve some respect for them.


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 28, 2009)

Dreamhunter: No; as I said earlier, the history of the various currently existing ethnographies is incredibly complex, and can't be reduced to anything resembling such a simplistic format. The term "European" itself simply indicates inhabitants of the landmass known as Europe. It has nothing to do with either ethnology or linguistics. As for "single ancestors" -- for that, you're going to have to go back _one hell of a lot farther_ than the supposed Aryan forebears... about a million years farther, not much below the era of "Lucy" and her congeners. 

The "politicians be damned" was in reference to your comment about the disuse of the term "Aryan" being due to politicians. It was an emphatic way of saying: "Nonsense." As stated, the reason it has fallen out of use is because it simply isn't accurate or precise enough for the linguistic use it was originally intended for; and as far as the racial/ethnological/cultural aspect... I'm afraid that one never was worth a good damn, no matter how popular the myth became. It simply is refuted by every branch of science which has ever investigated it (which would include not only the linguistic sciences but archaeology, anthropology, historiography, paleontology, genetics, etc., etc., etc.) -- and this by no few members of the scientific community who would have been perfectly happy to have supported it.

Of course myth, legend, and the like have a value -- but _not_ as a guide to facts; not unless there is supporting evidence which, in this case, there is not. You brought up Schliemann's search for Troy earlier. The point there is that this was a lot earlier, when archaeology was still in its infancy, and we had none of the knowledge or the precision tools we have now. Such things make an immense difference, just as such advances have made similar differences in, say, medical treatment of various illnesses. Or would you have us go back to bleeding people rather than using what we have learned through biology, microbiology, genetics, virology, radiology....?

That the nobles of particular tribes which used the same linguistic groups called themselves "arya" (nobles), and that that word has since been used as an element in place names proves only the commonality of these languages, nothing more. To claim any conclusions on ethnicity can be drawn from such would be like claiming that the inhabitants in the parts of Africa brought under Roman sway were of the same ethnicity as the inhabitants of the Imperial City.

Before denying the evidence which has been garnered by all the various branches of science mentioned, especially in favor of a mythologically-based ethnic or racial belief, I think you'd better familiarize yourself with how the evidence for each is garnered, sifted, and finally accepted. I think you'll find that the claims _for_ really have nothing but a huge amount of verbiage to support them, whereas those _against_ are based on very solidly attested and demonstrable _fact_. Otherwise, what you are spouting here is, frankly, very much in the realm of Symzonia or the flat earth theories....


----------



## dustinzgirl (Nov 28, 2009)

You know, this thread is about 50% mythos, 45% archeological history, and 5% of....I have no idea.

I think that the problem is that for much of our modern anthropology and archeology, the majority of our understanding of ancient history is complicated by the influence of myths that conflict with modern science as well as the fact that much of the area that we are discussing has had its history destroyed by dust (yes, I did it!) and war and religion. 

But I really like that this thread has turned into an interesting discussion (moving away from attitude and grumpiness) and I've been reading, and while my knowledge is rather limited in this area, everyone has added some interesting concepts. 

Hopefully we can all continue to discuss such things in this same manner.


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 30, 2009)

The mythos part is what makes it interesting for me, I think. Ya know, lore, legend, fantasy. No wonder fantasy books sell so well. Even this very forum site has a substantial fantasy component, doesnt it? In fact, looking at its name, SF&F, it's almost like its _raisson d'etre_.

Ha ha. Dust destroyed its history? In that case maybe Dust could help resurrect it then. LOL.

Oh yeah, I like it that way too. Discussion should not only be exclusively for the highly knowledgeable, or dominated by the highly knowledgeable. It should be inclusive, open to everybody. That should be the spirit, I believe.

As Kung Fu Tze once said, "Let a hundred flowers bloom. Let a thousand thoughts prosper."

I agree. We shall continue to discuss n discourse in a happy, relaxed way. No point getting all worked up about something some guys are adamantly insisting didnt exist, is there?


----------



## Peter Graham (Nov 30, 2009)

> Still, if one goes by the idea that one man meets one womsn, starts a family, the family grows into a clan, the clan expands into a tribe, the tribe multiplies into a nation, then it just works out if we say that every ancient nation in history would have started from one man n his woman, or women.


 
I think this is a highly unsafe notion. Many cultures (and I only know about cultures who have been part of British history, so I shall limit my examples to them) have genealogies which trace the royal line back to one person. Sometimes, that one person is a god - with the exception of the royal house of Essex, every other Anglo Saxon kingdom traced their kings back to Woden, a non-existent deity. They would then give the names of other early Kings - apparently sons and grandsons of Woden - who had suspiciously similar names to one another and were often grouped in threes, which has echoes of the balladic form. Chances are that a few of these fictitious king-trios were chucked into each king list in order to provide the necessary vintage and pedigree for the real royal line.

The Celts did something similar. Nearly all of the 5th and 6th century Celtic kingdoms of what is now northern England and southern Scotland traced their dynasties back to a chap called Coel Hen (and then beyond to the gods or heroes of Roman Britain). 

Coel Hen (the Old King Cole of nursery rhyme fame) might well have been a real person, but by the time the genealogies were being committed to writing, he had already achieved semi-mythical status - in some accounts he had a wife whose old Welsh name translates as "Wall" and a son called "Street". These may have been their real names, but my guess is that those names are personifications of actual structures - Hadrian's Wall and the Stanegate and/or Ermine Street - which give us clues as to the context of Coel Hen, or at least those claiming legitamacy from his bloodline. 

Myth is therefore a useful tool for preserving scraps of evidence - a bit like dinosaur DNA getting locked into bits of amber - but is less useful whan it comes to trying to understand what was really going on. The myth has to be stripped away and critically examined for whatever real clues are locked up in there.

People have a need for tribe, be that clans, families, nation states or empires. The further removed we are from the sources of that power, the more we try to order them - feuding warlords snatching power from one another will ultimately be neatly recorded as fathers handing power to sons, for example. If you believe some of our early acocunts, Totnes is the oldest town in the country and Britain is named after Brutus, a colleague of Aeneas who fled Troy. Similarly, the Anglo Saxon Chronicle tells us that Portsmouth is named after a warlord called Port, which is interesting until you realise that 'porth' is the Welsh word for a bay or inlet. 





> By that reasoning, we could then say that the Cymmerian/Kimmerian nation, for example, would have started from one man with a name close to Cymmer'Kimmer, or some variant of it. It would be a plausible explanation, wouldn't it?


 
I'm afraid not. Possibly the notion of a god of that name, but as a genuine attmpt to identify a once-living person, it falls down.




> Accounting for the penchant of ancient people to name their clan, tribe or nation after the first founder that their ancestors have recorded.


 
Many just name their clans after where they live or what they do:-

Northumbrians - people living north of the river Humber.

Cumberland - the land of the fellow men

Cornwall - land of the Cornovian Welsh

Cornovii - people of the horn

I accept that the mac- and the o'- surnames do allegedly refer to real people, but if they did exist, those people would have lived much, much nearer to the modern day than your Cimmer example.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## dreamhunter (Nov 30, 2009)

I was just going, when I saw your post.

About Woden, he was said to have a son called Thor, right? The God of Thunder. Some guys speculate that this 'Thor' was the mythification, or deification, of Tiras (Hebrew: Tursha; Egyptian: Teresh).

Other guys go further, saying, Tiras was the ancestor of the Trojans, the Thracians, the Etruscans, n possibly even the western Turks (Oghuz) n the early Bulgars (Olgar/Oghar, said to be a variant of Oghuz). The Thracians, by the way, were believed by some to be the first coloured-haired, coloured-eyed guys recorded in ancient history.

Will continue later. Stay cool.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Nov 30, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> (1) No, it's not. The Aryans, or Indo-Europeans, started out as one entity. Then at one point in time, they split into western, mostly Iranian, branch, n an eastern, mainly Himalayan branch. The Himalayan Indians themselves would be the first ones to admit to an 'Aryan' origin, with or without British endorsement. In ancient times their place was called Arya Varta, the Land of the Nobles.
> 
> (2) No, it's not. It does not live or die on such a precept. But Knive, you just said it. Armenia, Anatolia n the Western Himalayas were all the playgrounds of the Cymmerians. While Northern Europe, if that turns out to be true, could have been the cradle, the so called Arya Vaeja (which suddenly got too cold) of Persian legend. The Cymmerians split into 2 branches somewhere in northeastern Iran, at some point in time, due to pressure from another dominant tribe, possibly the then up and coming Medeans.
> 
> ...



A big problem, I think, with your reasoning, is that you're using near history to describe prehistoric events with a degree of certainty that would be difficult to accept.

For example, if we're talking about PIE, we're talking about a language that was in development around 5000 BC, and yet the peoples you're talking about are effectively bronze age and upwards.


----------



## Peter Graham (Dec 1, 2009)

> Will continue later. Stay cool.


 
Speaking as the least cool man in Britain, this may pose some problems!




> About Woden, he was said to have a son called Thor, right? The God of Thunder. Some guys speculate that this 'Thor' was the mythification, or deification, of Tiras (Hebrew: Tursha; Egyptian: Teresh).


 
"Speculation" is the key word here. The further back one goes in time, the thinner the written records become, until eventually they vanish altogether. People can speculate all they wish, but without evidence, their claims must be regarded with extreme caution. 

Look at King Arthur. On the basis of three scraps of dark age text, the earliest of which was written at least 100 years after he was supposed to have existed, so-called historians have seriously sought to argue that it is possible to surmise that not only did he exist, but that he was a king who really lived in a place called Camelot (or something like it) and was in charge of a mobile cavalry band who whizzed up and down the country beating up Saxons and Picts in equal measure before establishing a large, independent Celtic kingdom which he held and ruled effectively until his death. The theories leak like sieves are are usually predicated on certain assumptions which any sober look at the contemporary sources would tell you in an instant are utterly bogus. And this all relates to a period which was only 1500 years ago.

Your chosen period seriously predates surviving written (carved?) records, so in the absence of any other evidence, all you can really do is to point at a possible link between names which sound a bit similar when translated into modern English. It's not much, I'm afraid.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 3, 2009)

I said:


> A big problem, I think, with your reasoning, is that you're using near history to describe prehistoric events with a *degree of certainty* that would be difficult to accept.
> 
> For example, if we're talking about PIE, we're talking about a language that was in development around 5000 BC, and yet the peoples you're talking about are effectively bronze age and upwards.


But I never stated with exact precision what my degree of certainty was, did I?

Anyway, Persian legend postulated that Kaiomerz/Gaiomard came around on the scene, paving the way for the foundation of the proposed Peshdad dynasty, like ca 10,000 BC.

Only later, someone else, influenced by Scripture, proposed that Kaiomerz/Gaiomard was actually the Gomer of Scripture, i.e. son of Japheth of the Big Flood story. While someone else later estimated the time of Gomer, i.e, Big Flood, was like 2665 - 2775 BC, something not yet fully attested, as I understand it.

Huge difference, I agree, but then, there you are. That's what the scientists among us need to keep digging at. Let's put it this way, if ya cant pinpoint with absolute certainty where your grandpa was at 5 o'clock in the afternoon 3 years ago, n what he was doing then, how could anyone say with certainty when Gomer, or Kaiomerz/Gaiomard, was born, n whether they were the same one person, thousands of years ago. All ya could do was speculate, on circumstantial evidence, at best.

Another possibly related thing: the Gathas, the ancient scriptures of Zoroastrianism, were written in Avestan, believed to be the most ancient recorded Iranian language contemporary with Sanskrit, ca 2,000 BC. Which, to me, would suggest that Avestan as a language could possibly have emerged like even 1,000 years, or more, previously.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 3, 2009)

Peter Graham said:


> Speaking as *the least cool man in Britain*, this may pose some problems!
> 
> "Speculation" is the key word here. The further back one goes in time, the thinner the written records become, until eventually they vanish altogether. People can speculate all they wish, but without evidence, their claims must be regarded with *extreme caution*.
> 
> ...


Blimey! Could be bad for your heart, ya know. Especially with the unpredictable British weather. I'd be worried big time if I were ya. Now then, _that_'s something to be dealt with, with extreme caution! He he he.

Oh yeah, the speculators who speculated wrongly had better watch out then. They might have to pay massive compensation for damages, losses incurred etc. LOL.

So your good friend Arthur was some kind of a whizz kid, then. I suppose he didnt beat up his Saxons hard enough then, since they're sitting on his lands now ha ha.

Afraid that's all we've got for now, mate. Links between names.

Japheth for Jupiter/Jove. Teush (i.e. Shem) for Zeus. Udatu-an-Isas (Adataneses) for Diti & Isis/Ishtar/Astarte. Tursha/Teresh (Tiras) for Thor, the Thracians, the Trojans, the Etruscans, the western Turks etc. Gamir/Gimirraa (Gomer) for Kaiomerz/Gaiomard, the Cymmerians, the Kamboja etc. Yaun/Yawan (Javan) for Ion, the Ionians. Well as as long as they make sense, why not?


----------



## Urien (Dec 3, 2009)

DreamHunter,

What do you want to be true? I think that's what you're arguing for. As Peter said the evidence is virtually non-existant except for a few names that might vaguely sound similar, or are written similarly, what they sound like in foreign or dead languages is another thing altogether. Spanish and Portuguese look very similar written down, but spound very different; I believe Cantonese and Mandarin are identical when written (or very close to identical) yet are different spoken languages.

It's possible to force a square peg into a round hole, if you scrunch up your eyes when you look at the result it's possible to postulate that it fits.

We don't know what was in the time before written languages, we don't know who did what, or where. We have some DNA clues but little else. It's possible to argue that you are right as it's white space and therefore anything could be true. However, that a particular thing, namely your supposition is true, is vanishingly unlikely. Consequently although we do not know what was, it's fair to say your theory is highly improbable.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 3, 2009)

No, I _dont_ want anything untrue to become true. I just want for what was really, really true not to become untrue.

Yes, you _can_ fit a square peg into a round hole. No, you _dont_ have to scrunch your eyes.

All you need to do is, make the square peg a bit roundish, n the round hole a bit squarish, n then ... voila ... it fits!


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 3, 2009)

Which is tinkering with the facts in order to make what you want to fit, fit. It isn't following the evidence to the genuine conclusion.

You seem to forget that the scientists do precisely that: they go at these things based on such sources, investigate in all manner of fields from linguistics to genetics to anthropology to... etc.; work with others who also investigate, propose their hypotheses, tear each other's work to shreds where it doesn't fit the evidence, or becomes highly speculative; look for further evidence to see where that takes them; discard theories when they don't fit... and eventually reach solid conclusions which are based not on what they think, or what they wish to believe, or any of that, but on the facts. Are there areas where speculation enters in? Yes; but with such things as this, they tend to keep them to a minimum, and these are based on analogs which are known to be more accurately developed from factual evidence.

Speculation is fine, as long as it doesn't lead you down the garden path to a big gaping pit; but before you go arguing that any speculative view is actually more likely to be true, you need to inform yourself of the genuine facts as known, look for any problems with that, and see which of the various possibilities for an explanation of those gaps is most probable. Going about it the other way simply reinforces ignorance and muddy thinking; it doesn't get at the truth.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 4, 2009)

Nope. Not tinkering, but playing, and playing skillfully. Anthropolgy, archaeology, history, paleontology, ethnology etc. etc. are a bit like economics. They are not, each of them, a hard science, like mathematics. They're flexible, pliable disciplines, not rigid ones.

In mathematics, mostly you only have one answer to one problem. Very occassionally two. Very rarely three. But in anthropolgy, archaeology, history, paleontology, ethnology etc. etc., 50 different researchers working separately on the _same_ one problem would give you 50 _different_ answers. It's just, if you like, the nature of the beast.

Just pick up 15 books on _either_ Troy, Egypt, Persia _or_ Greece, and you'd get 15 _different _versions. 

But get 25 mathematicians, or physicists, to calculate - separately - how much younger than you, your twin brother - yes, your _twin_ brother - would be _if_ he flew to Alpha Centauri on a spacecraft travelling at 0.99 times the speed of light, and returned to earth, and you'd get - exactly - the _same,_ _one_ answer.

Not leading down, but leading _up_, the garden path, mate. Up to the temple. The temple of greater truth. Not the narrow, restrictive truth of closed-minded tunnel visionists.


----------



## The Judge (Dec 4, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> But in anthropolgy, archaeology, history, paleontology, ethnology etc. etc., 50 different researchers working separately on the _same_ one problem would give you 50 _different_ answers. It's just, if you like, the nature of the beast.
> 
> Just pick up 15 books on _either_ Troy, Egypt, Persia _or_ Greece, and you'd get 15 _different _versions.



That doesn't make any one of them right.  

Wishful thinking, spurious logic, does not an increase in knowledge make.

J


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 4, 2009)

That's precisely the point. Bravo!


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 4, 2009)

Are we back to the monkeys again? Eventually, one of the monkeys will chance upon the correct etymology. But how will we know which one?


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 4, 2009)

Dont know. Maybe even back to the hares.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 4, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Nope. Not tinkering, but playing, and playing skillfully. Anthropolgy, archaeology, history, paleontology, ethnology etc. etc. are a bit like economics. They are not, each of them, a hard science, like mathematics. They're flexible, pliable disciplines, not rigid ones.


 
No science is "rigid" in the sense of inflexible. Any science must, of necessity, be open to accepting new evidence; it must be _falsifiable_. Without that, it becomes dogma, not science.

As for these particular sciences -- they are a good deal more exact than you seem to think. Not only that, but they do not work in isolation -- they work in conjunction with numerous other disciplines, including physics, chemistry, geology... even, at times, such things as plate techtonics have impact on them. And, again, while popular books on the subjects may be a good deal more loose, the actual research papers on them are not. Again, they are subjected to peer review not only by peers in their own field, but from the scientific community at large, which constantly hones and refines the methodologies and results of these and countless other fields. As has been pointed out before, there is no such thing as an "exact" science in the older, nineteenth-century-positivist meaning of the term, but you'll find that even the more "flexible" sciences have to meet some very strict standards in order to have any theories accepted.

Speculation, on the other hand, simply has to have a lot of words which _sound_ as if they mean something. 



> Not leading down, but leading _up_, the garden path, mate. Up to the temple. The temple of greater truth. Not the narrow, restrictive truth of closed-minded tunnel visionists.


 
Again, this is simply empty verbiage; mystification (not even mysticism proper). It is obfuscation, throwing out red herrings to confuse issues, not winnowing through the chaff to get to the kernels of truth. It is pseudoscientific gobbledygook, nothing more.

As I said, get the facts straight -- _all_ *the pertinent facts which have stood up to rigorous testing* -- and _then_, where you find gaps, ask questions. _Don't_ propose answers based on empty speculation, myth, or folklore (unless these latter are in fact supported by some independent evidence), but on what is the most likely solution to those gaps; _then_ look at whether those solutions themselves stand up to such rigorous examination. If not, they're not worth a good damn. If they do, then you may be on the road to something.

And by all means, if you can find something which genuinely stands up to such testing, and which backs up your proposal, _present it_; if it has substance behind it, that is precisely the sort of thing which makes scientists turn handsprings, as it makes things even more exciting, opening up new realms of discussion, exploration, and research in the fields they love.

But until you can do that, please don't continue to issue such utter nonsense as being on a par with the answers which have been found by such slow, arduous, painstaking effort -- it is an insult to intelligent researchers in the field (not to mention people genuinely interested in finding out the truth of the matter), and one they most certainly don't deserve.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 5, 2009)

Nope. As I said earlier, this discussion - or, for that matter, any discussion - should be allowed to remain free and open. Guys are allowed to make their own judgement. And it aint exclusive to those with the most highly knowledgeable views, either self-supposed or other wise.

Nope. I dont think anybody in particular should feel that he ought to make an attempt to close things down. Even if he in particular finds things in it that may be unpalatable to his own personal taste.

Hey, this thread was never meant to be an out an out academic paper on the subject. I think anyone here has enough sense to realise that. It's supposed to be a light hearted, light mooded discourse. Just like the other threads, like: 'Rome vs Sparta'; 'Which Greek God are you?'; 'Which was the greatest ancient empire?'; 'Who's the coolest general?' etc. etc. Guys are free to throw in their silliest opinions on the matter.

Nope. It has, also, nothing to do with supremacism, superiorism or anything like that. Just in case anyone is thinking along that line, or is worried about that. It's just like, something for guys to talk about. No need for anyone to get fired up over nothing.

Just learn to relax, dude. Your heart needs it.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 5, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> _Don't_ propose answers based on empty speculation, myth, or folklore (unless these latter are in fact supported by some independent evidence),



I'm not going to say that I agree with Dreamhunter's historical views or standpoints, but I do believe, and agree, that in history research, in archeology and anthropology and historical based sociology, myths and folklore are very important to understanding and studying the cultures, societies, and lives of ancient peoples. Entire schools of study are devoted to it, and it is a large part of how we define what the ancient people did and why they did it. Therefore I have to disagree with your statement there as you make it appear as though mythology and folklore are not part of scientific research, but they are, not in the context of forming modern systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior but in the context of forming an understanding of ancient systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior. 

However since there really isn't any historical evidence in myth and folklor to justify Dreamhunter's point, I don't agree with him, either. And what I mean by that is that there are no glyphs etched in stone, there are no ancient scrolls or other culture tales of conquest, there are no super old bones or clothes or bowls or flintnaps or spears, and so forth and so on....



dreamhunter said:


> No, I _dont_ want anything untrue to become true. I just want for what was really, really true not to become untrue.
> 
> Yes, you _can_ fit a square peg into a round hole. No, you _dont_ have to scrunch your eyes.
> 
> All you need to do is, make the square peg a bit roundish, n the round hole a bit squarish, n then ... voila ... it fits!



And I severely disagree with all of this. 

Truth, first off, is relative to the individual perceiving and interpreting it, and it is relative to what can and can not be physically contained and categorized scientifically. For example, you say these people existed in this place, but I find a bowl that shows they existed on the other side of the world. Possible slave trade or travel or a million other possibilities, but in both instances truth has been altered based on what has been individually perceived and scientifically categorized. Neither of us may be right, in fact it could have been a traveling salesman from a whole nother culture that left the bowl. 

You can not, in historical evidence, alter the findings to fit your perception of the truth. You can not say that since I found a bowl on another continent that it proves that your theoretical people existed on the first continent, because....

That's just bad science.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 5, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> No science is "rigid" in the sense of inflexible. Any science must, of necessity, be open to accepting new evidence; it must be _falsifiable_. Without that, it becomes dogma, not science.
> 
> But until you can do that, please don't continue to issue such utter nonsense as being on a par with the answers which have been found by such slow, arduous, painstaking effort -- it is an insult to intelligent researchers in the field (not to mention people genuinely interested in finding out the truth of the matter), and one they most certainly don't deserve.


When I was speaking of mathematics being a rigid subject: examples are 2 + 3 = 5; the cubic root of 8 is 2; etc. These things are absolutely immutable, they are not going to change, even for the next 10,000 millennia, are they? Now, _that_ was what I meant by rigidity.

Nope. The people who are _genuinely_ interested in finding the truth are not going to stop at one net thread n take what's in it as the gospel. No way, mate. No fear of that.

The intelligent researchers are going to feel _insulted _by some nonsense uttered by someone called 'Dreamhunter' in some net forum? Right. They are so thin skinned, huh? So emotionally fragile n insecure, are they? Wow!

Now then, there is a saying for this sort of thing: "Those who matter dont mind. Those who mind dont matter."


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 5, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> And what I mean by that is that there are no glyphs etched in stone, there are *no ancient scrolls or other culture tales of conquest*, there are no super old bones or clothes or bowls or flintnaps or spears, and so forth and so on....


Wasnt Troy a culture tale of conquest? A very, very ancient tale. Of conquest, of Trojans, or Thracians, or Turks, by Greeks.

But then, the Greeks would insist that, it was a conquest of Asiatic Greeks by Hellenic Greeks. Still, the jury is still out, whether Trojans were really Greeks, or another people, even perhaps related to Hittites.

You know, the Greeks called Thracia, 'Trakia', while the modern western, Anatolian Turks call their country today, 'Turkiye'. Sounds so darn close, doesnt it?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 5, 2009)

And ca-ca means **** in Spanish, and in English it doesn't mean anything at all really, so I don't really see your point, and I don't think that Troy has anything to do with my point....

But its all good!


----------



## Urien (Dec 5, 2009)

Did you know cows can jump over the moon. They can't really but they could if you want them too, or could they, maybe dude, just chill. Rock on... or not. Hat sounds like mat. There's a Georgia in America and Europe, China is a country and something you can eat dinner off, Mars is also confectionary. Makes you think doesn't it???!!!????

Did Alexander visit the moon? He might have found the buried space ship at Ankor wat. You can't disprove it... so chill out... hey I can do this all day.

So it seems.


----------



## The Judge (Dec 5, 2009)

Urien - and GOD is DOG spelled backwards.

Now then, there is a saying for this kind of thing: "Empty vessels make the most noise."

J


----------



## Dave (Dec 5, 2009)

Unfortunately Dreamhunter, there is actually a branch of science that can determine this and which does not leave a gap open for different answers - it is called Genetics.

The genetic evidence from y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA does broadly agrees with main theories already built up from the linguistic and archaeological evidence, especially toolmaking. It shows that Europe was settled in several successive waves of migration from South Asia and the Caucasus, at the earliest around 50,000 years ago. The timings of these mass migrations also broadly fit known Palaeoclimatological events. It is also possible to accurately measure the date when mutations such as blond hair and blue eyes first occurred. There is far more "immutable" evidence than you give credit for and little room for spurious theories based upon relatively modern legends.

I'm no expert on Phylogeography, and while there are some arguments over the details, it flies in the face of your theories, and it is something that can be most definitely scientifically proven. I suggest you read some current research on it and then get back to us.


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 5, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> I'm not going to say that I agree with Dreamhunter's historical views or standpoints, but I do believe, and agree, that in history research, in archeology and anthropology and historical based sociology, myths and folklore are very important to understanding and studying the cultures, societies, and lives of ancient peoples. Entire schools of study are devoted to it, and it is a large part of how we define what the ancient people did and why they did it. Therefore I have to disagree with your statement there as you make it appear as though mythology and folklore are not part of scientific research, but they are, not in the context of forming modern systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior but in the context of forming an understanding of ancient systems of belief, attitudes, and behavior.


 
Dustie: You left out the phrase in parentheses: unless supported by some independently existing evidence. Yes, folklore, mythology, etc., have their value in studying cultures (including our own); I said that earlier. And yes, they can provide clues even about historical facts at times. But they are not a good basis for putting forth any speculation scientifically unless they are also supported by independent evidence. The best they can be, in such circumstances, it put forth as a _very_ tentative hypothesis with the full realization that they are immediately subject to dismissal should contrary evidence arise.

Now, supporting evidence can be current cultural trends which echo aspects of the "history" included in the myth, or artifacts, or analagous phenomena in current cultures which can be studied as living systems, or any number of other things. But they cannot work as a sound basis for a hypothesis when taken _in vacuo_. They can intrigue, they can excite speculation, they can suggest possibilities... but from that point on, genuine evidence must emerge, or all they can ever remain is hypotheses. And, of course, the less evidence such a hypothesis has, and the more it conflicts with the evidence which has been gathered, the more likely it is to be pure moonshine.


dreamhunter said:


> When I was speaking of mathematics being a rigid subject: examples are 2 + 3 = 5; the cubic root of 8 is 2; etc. These things are absolutely immutable, they are not going to change, even for the next 10,000 millennia, are they? Now, _that_ was what I meant by rigidity.


 
Well, no, they're not. Theoretically at least, they too are subject to certain conditions. Mathematics is a construct; it has no genuine basis in the real world beyond simple arithmetic -- and even that is subject to alterations in the known physical laws. They are unlikely to change, but it is not impossible that they may change. Nothing in science is absolute, because, as I said before, it must be falsifiable. Mathematics is a system of signifiers, nothing more. The facts supporting those things signified change, the value of the signifiers change. It's as simple as that.

As for the rest: No, they won't be insulted. Nor will they be particularly interested in anything I have to say, either. But because they don't take offense does not mean such comments are not insults issued. They very much are, because, in putting such baseless speculation on a par with the results of decades, even centuries, of research, is tantamount to saying that a child's views of geopolitics is as valid as a real-world basis for understanding the subject as the views issued by someone who has spent their entire life studying and/or practicing the subject. It is promoting ignorance over genuine knowledge and understanding. And before you go saying that it isn't, all of your phraseology says that it is. The entire "higher truth" nonsense, to take only one example, is a glaring instance of this. It is obfuscation masquerading as openmindedness. But the thing is, a truly open mind is open to evidence, open to those things which have a genuine basis in reality; it does not dismiss those (which is what you have consistently done throughout the thread by the way you address them) in favor of a web of empty words and, again, baseless speculation -- especially speculation which flies in the face of what _has_ genuinely been ascertained.

Yes, you can talk about the subject all you want. No one is saying otherwise. But don't pretend to actually be interested in finding the truth when you dismiss every scrap of genuine evidence in favor of such things. That, too, is an insult to those you are conversing with. 

And a word about truth; I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Dustie; truth -- genuine truth, that is, not the misty misuse of the word which has become so common these days -- is not relative. _Interpretation_ of the facts may well be; _truth_ is not.



> truth -- 1. The state or character of being true in relation to being, knowledge, or speech. 2. Conformity to fact or reality. 3. Conforming to rule, standard, pattern, or ideal. 4. Steadfastness; sincerity. 5. That which is true; a statement or belief that corresponds to the reality. 6. Fact; reality. 7. A disposition to tell only what is true; veracity. 8. Fidelity; constancy.


 
Now, save for those entries dealing with human behavior (3, 4, 7, 8), the main point of each definition of the word is conformity to reality as an objectively existing entity. There is no such thing as a "higher truth" than truth. There is such a thing as a construct which appeals more to the emotions or imagination, or which is more fulfilling to them than the bald reality may be, but this is a far cry from _truth_. There is such a thing as being honestly mistaken in your statements based on your knowledge of the existing facts. This is truth only insofar as it is _honesty_; it is not truth in the sense meant so often above: the actual state of affairs, the reality _itself_.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 5, 2009)

Now now lets not be rude.

Also if Europe was settled and people moved up from the southern regions, I suppose that its possible not all of them moved in the same place or to the same region, right? I mean the possibility exists that there was a human tribe of fair skinned peoples who had advanced technologies that made them seem superior....wait..thats the Atlanteans...

Although I find it interesting that there are people, smart doctorate people, who spend their lives researching Atlantis....which is just all a myth anyways and can't possibly exist since no hard science ever discovered it? 

People seem vehemently against the idea of a pre-iranian human tribe called the Aryans, but willing to accept that there was a supreme utopian culture of electricity using fancy peoples that lived on an island?

And for some interesting thoughts and relations to SFF:

Vril Society - Crystalinks

So you don't have to click the link:

 Fictional Representations 
 Aryan master race ideology was common throughout the educated and literate strata of the Western world until after World War II. Such theories are commonplace in early 20th Century fantasy literature. For example, a distinct belief in the status of Aryan humanity as the "master race" underlies much of the work of fantasists such as H. P. Lovecraft and Robert E. Howard's literature. Howard's most famous creation, Conan the Barbarian is supposed to have lived between the fall of Atlantis and the "rise of the sons of Arya" (i.e. the Aryans). In his story Wings In The Night, Howard also wrote, 



The ancient empires fall, the dark-skinned peoples fade and even the demons of antiquity gasp their last, but over all stands the Aryan barbarian, white-skinned, cold-eyed, dominant, the supreme fighting man of the earth.
 In other cases, while the phrase "master race" itself is seldom used, the inhumane and barbaric treatment of those not belonging to the "master race" in the fictional fascisms seems to imply that such an ideology is present. S.M. Stirling's Domination of the Draka is a fictional empire which is explicitly based on the "master race" concept. After World War I in the Draka universe, the Draka citizens adopt an ideology which calls for all non-Drakan humanity to be reduced to chattel slavery. The Chosen, from Stirling's previous General series (which no doubt inspired the Draka) portrays perhaps a more realistic look at the "master race" concept, including the consequences of such a policy on a society. The Chosen, who treat other peoples with contempt, calling them "animals", are eventually destroyed by their own slaves, the lowest of the low, despite the Chosen's superior weapons, training, and centuries of eugenic breeding. The fictional fascist "Freedom Party" that rules the Confederate States of America in Harry Turtledove's American Empire series of novels also echoes the concept. 
The James Bond film Moonraker is another fictionalized account of a master race - the Adolf Hitler-like megalomanic villain Sir Hugo Drax pre-selected a diverse group of astronaut trainees to become the progenitors of a master race that will repopulate Earth after the planet has been nerve-gassed. Similar ideas are explored in science fiction. An episode of The X-Files is entitled Herrenvolk. It presents the story of Nazi scientists saved by Americans after the War - during the Operation Paperclip - and their connections with aliens, which led them to successfully create a superior race of alien/men hybrids. Likewise, in The Other Side, an episode of Stargate SG-1, the Eurondans are portrayed as white supremacists who have created a purified Nordic-like population, planning to annihilate other peoples, who they refer to as "Breeders" because of their indiscriminate breeding, in rejection of eugenics.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 5, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Although I find it interesting that there are people, smart doctorate people, who spend their lives researching Atlantis


Please don't confuse being smart with having sense. They are semi-independent attributes. (And having a developed - or even an overdeveloped - sense of curiosity is something else again.)


----------



## j d worthington (Dec 6, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Although I find it interesting that there are people, smart doctorate people, who spend their lives researching Atlantis....which is just all a myth anyways and can't possibly exist since no hard science ever discovered it?


 
To piggyback on the Big Bear here a bit... not only that, but there is a rather large difference between investigating something for which evidence hasn't been found, and continuing to investigate or support an idea for which plenty of contrary evidence has been found; i.e., evidence which strongly indicates that the model where said situation supposedly existed simply doesn't fit the facts. (Of course, when you go talking about the "superscientific" empire of Atlantis, rather than an island city-state or nation which was wiped out by a natural disaster, then you are stepping over into the "pure balderdash" realm of things. The origins of that Atlantis can be traced to quite modern times, and to darned near their primary sources; which rather leaves a gaping hole in the idea of this being a secret from the ancient past....)

As for vril... poor old Bulwer. Remembered for this, an opening sentence considered one of the worst in the English language, and one (very good) ghost story. Lo! how are the mighty fallen....


----------



## J-WO (Dec 6, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> Although I find it interesting that there are people, smart doctorate people, who spend their lives researching Atlantis....which is just all a myth anyways and can't possibly exist since no hard science ever discovered it?
> 
> People seem vehemently against the idea of a pre-iranian human tribe called the Aryans, but willing to accept that there was a supreme utopian culture of electricity using fancy peoples that lived on an island?



Sorry to butt in, yet I'd just like to make something clear. Atlantis is not a myth in the accepted sense-- it is something that Plato created in order to get his ideas across in his written dialogue _The Republic_. It appears in nothing before this and is not part of the general body of Greek myths, ie- there is no 'tradition of Atlantis'. No serious Classical scholar is trying to prove its existence. In fact, my lecturers went to great lengths to disabuse first years of this common misconception.

Plato doesn't mention electricity. Perhaps Madame Blavatsky does- I really couldn't say.

And please no one suggest that the Minoans are Atlantis, because there's a whole set of actual myths based on the Minoans where they are referred to as 'The Minoans' or 'Cretans'.

Sorry everyone. Bit of a bugbear of mine. Carry on.


----------



## Drachir (Dec 7, 2009)

J-WO said:


> Sorry to butt in, yet I'd just like to make something clear. Atlantis is not a myth in the accepted sense-- it is something that Plato created in order to get his ideas across in his written dialogue _The Republic_. It appears in nothing before this and is not part of the general body of Greek myths, ie- there is no 'tradition of Atlantis'. No serious Classical scholar is trying to prove its existence. In fact, my lecturers went to great lengths to disabuse first years of this common misconception.
> 
> Plato doesn't mention electricity. Perhaps Madame Blavatsky does- I really couldn't say.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  Finally a comment on Atlantis that makes sense.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 7, 2009)

That's alright. Sorry if I come across as patronizing, btw.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

That doesn't stop people from researching Atlantis as a real physical place with real ancient societies.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

Ursa major said:


> Please don't confuse being smart with having sense. They are semi-independent attributes. (And having a developed - or even an overdeveloped - sense of curiosity is something else again.)



And here is where our society gets interesting...common perception usually examines that people who don't finish school are dumb, while people who do finish school aren't necessarily smart. 





j. d. worthington said:


> To piggyback on the Big Bear here a bit... not only that, but there is a rather large difference between investigating something for which evidence hasn't been found, and continuing to investigate or support an idea for which plenty of contrary evidence has been found; i.e., evidence which strongly indicates that the model where said situation supposedly existed simply doesn't fit the facts. (Of course, when you go talking about the "superscientific" empire of Atlantis, rather than an island city-state or nation which was wiped out by a natural disaster, then you are stepping over into the "pure balderdash" realm of things. The origins of that Atlantis can be traced to quite modern times, and to darned near their primary sources; which rather leaves a gaping hole in the idea of this being a secret from the ancient past....)
> 
> As for vril... poor old Bulwer. Remembered for this, an opening sentence considered one of the worst in the English language, and one (very good) ghost story. Lo! how are the mighty fallen....



Yeah...um...it was kind of just an example guys. 

But its a pretty old world, and just because we don't know that it exists doesn't mean that it couldn't have existed. Besides, I already know that Atlantis is on Mars.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 7, 2009)

The idea of Atlantis has spawned all kinds of weird, wacky and wonderful ideas, and some great fiction. If the remains of a 10,000 year old civilisation were ever discovered, it would be interesting for many reasons, but it would also kill all that speculation dead. If Atlantis ever did exist, I hope it stays hidden.


----------



## dustinzgirl (Dec 7, 2009)

HareBrain said:


> The idea of Atlantis has spawned all kinds of weird, wacky and wonderful ideas, and some great fiction. If the remains of a 10,000 year old civilisation were ever discovered, it would be interesting for many reasons, but it would also kill all that speculation dead. If Atlantis ever did exist, I hope it stays hidden.



Nah, Egyptians are still pretty live and well in myth and history.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 11, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> Well, no, they're not. Theoretically at least, they too are subject to certain conditions. Mathematics is a construct; it has *no genuine basis in the real world* beyond simple arithmetic -- and even that is subject to alterations in the known physical laws. They are unlikely to change, but it is not impossible that they may change. Nothing in science is absolute, because, as I said before, it must be falsifiable. Mathematics is a system of signifiers, nothing more. The facts supporting those things signified change, the value of the signifiers change. It's as simple as that.


I have to give it to ya. You have this fantastic gift for making something simple sound so darn high faluting n complicated. I wonder too where you learned your mathematics. Or arithmetic.

On my right, or, left, arm, I have 1 thumb n 1 forefinger. Then 3 other fingers. Tell me, show me, how - or when - or where - in this entire universe of space-time - those might not add up to my 5 fingers, then I'll listen to ya.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 11, 2009)

j. d. worthington said:


> As for the rest: No, they won't be insulted. Nor will they be particularly interested in anything I have to say, either. But because they don't take offense does not mean such comments are not *insults issued*.
> 
> They very much are, because, in putting such baseless speculation on a par with the results of decades, even centuries, of research, is tantamount to saying that *a child's views* of geopolitics is as valid as a real-world basis for understanding the subject as the views issued by someone who has spent their entire life studying and/or practicing the subject.


Now you've just issued an *insult *to all children of the world. Dismissing their capacity n capability wholesale in one reckless, contemptuous sentence.

You know, a child once jolted thousands of wise, prudent, intelligent adults into realising the error of their overzealous faith in n reverence for their exalted sovereign.

Read: "Daddy! Daddy! The Emperor is Not Wearing Any Clothes!"


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 11, 2009)

dustinzgirl said:


> And ca-ca means **** in Spanish, and in English it doesn't mean anything at all really, so I don't really see your point, and I don't think that Troy has anything to do with my point....
> 
> But its all good!


It has everything to do with your point, but you missed it.

You see, Trojans were Thracians. All descendants of Tursha/Teresh (i.e. Tiras), possibly the youngest son of Japheth. Whatever or wherever Tursha's place in the world historical chronology is. 5,000 BC, 10,000 BC, whatever.

If youve read the Troy story, The Thracians fought on the side of the Trojans. Thats cos they were the same people.

Troy was just the name of a city kingdom. It was called _*Truwa*_ by the Egyptians n *Taruisa* by the Hittites n the Trojans themselves. Ethnically, the Trojans were Thracians, not Ionians. But they were settled, civilised Thracians, not the nomadic, barbarian Thracians that lived in the north, across the straits.

Like the Cymmerians many centuries after them, the Thracians split into two branches. The western branch remained in Europe, later becoming assimilated by Greeks n southern Slavs. The early Bolgars were a Western Turkic people descended from the ancient Thracians. They only became Slavicised much, much later.

The eastern branch went back to Central Asia n mixed with Huns, Tartars n Mongols, coming back again many centuries later, to reconquer, stage by stage, the original Anatolian-Balkan homelands of their ancient Thracian forefathers, as first Oghuz Turkmen, then Seljuk, then Ottoman.


----------



## J-WO (Dec 11, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Now you've just issued an *insult *to all children of the world. Dismissing their capacity n capability wholesale in one reckless, contemptuous sentence.
> 
> You know, a child once jolted thousands of wise, prudent, intelligent adults into realising the error of their overzealous faith in n reverence for their exalted sovereign.
> 
> Read: "Daddy! Daddy! The Emperor is Not Wearing Any Clothes!"



I concur. In fact, I refuse to embark on any jumbo jet unless I'm 100% assured there's a toddler at the helm.  

Now I'm off to read 'the Troy story' by... that blind bloke.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 11, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Now you've just issued an *insult *to all children of the world. Dismissing their capacity n capability wholesale in one reckless, contemptuous sentence.



Since when is commenting on their lack of knowledge and experience dismissing their capacity and capability?  A child's capabilities will always be somewhat limited by what they (don't) know, but with time they should learn and grow.

For instance, I'm sure that most of the young people who refuse to spell out simple words now because they think txt spk abbreviations are so ultra cool will eventually learn better. 



> You know, a child once jolted thousands of wise, prudent, intelligent adults into realising the error of their overzealous faith in n reverence for their exalted sovereign.
> 
> Read: "Daddy! Daddy! The Emperor is Not Wearing Any Clothes!"



You mention that as if it were a historical incident instead of a literary fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen.  "The Emperor's New Clothes" _was_ based on a medieval source, but as I understand it the ending with the child proving all of the adults wrong was Andersen's own invention.


----------



## Ursa major (Dec 11, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> You mention that as if it were a historical incident instead of a literary fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. "The Emperor's New Clothes" _was_ based on a medieval source, but as I understand it the ending with the child proving all of the adults wrong was Andersen's own invention.


That's interesting, Teresa.

I've never read the story itself - I've only heard the bare bones of it - but the impression I've been given is that it's all directed to that ending. It would seem the original may have been quite a bit different.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 11, 2009)

Apparently, it wasn't even Andersen's original ending.  It was supposed to end with everyone admiring the Emperor's new attire, and he added in the part about the child after the story was at the printer's.

So, although it is adapted from a traditional tale (and cleaned up a bit in the process) the ending is not the traditional one, but something Andersen felt inspired at the last possible minute to change.

It's not even a genuine bit of folk-wisdom.  Although I think it's a good story and makes a good point, I think the point is sufficiently made without the child exposing the fraud.  (The child is a nice touch, though.)


----------



## The Judge (Dec 12, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> You mention that as if it were a historical incident instead of a literary fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen.  "The Emperor's New Clothes" _was_ based on a medieval source, but as I understand it the ending with the child proving all of the adults wrong was Andersen's own invention.



You mean it might be necessary to separate out fact from fairy tale?  Goodness, whatever next?!


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 12, 2009)

J-WO said:


> I concur. In fact, I refuse to embark on any jumbo jet unless I'm 100% assured there's a *toddler at the helm*.
> 
> Now I'm off to read 'the Troy story' by... that blind bloke.


Ha ha. You've just given me a great idea for my next kiddy story: Juvenile Johnny on a Jumbo Joystick. Or maybe Infant Ivan. Cheers ma'am.


----------



## dreamhunter (Dec 12, 2009)

Teresa Edgerton said:


> You mention that as if it were a historical incident instead of a literary fairy tale by Hans Christian Andersen. "The Emperor's New Clothes" _was_ based on a medieval source, but as I understand it the ending with the child proving all of the adults wrong was Andersen's own invention.


History or tale, the moral of the story, as well as the point I'm making, is that, sometimes we get ourselves lost and confused in our own made-up, glorified, convoluted, labyrinthian complexity and sophistication, when all it needs is the simplest, most down-to-earth way of looking at things.

And Hans Christian Andersen, to me, must be among the best examples of that.


----------



## Teresa Edgerton (Dec 12, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> ... the point I'm making, is that, sometimes we get ourselves lost and confused in our own made-up, glorified, convoluted, labyrinthian complexity



But isn't that what you have been encouraging people to do here?

Personally, I  love fairy tales, and I think you can learn a lot from them -- for instance, they can explain a lot about psychological landscapes -- but I wouldn't want to take them as a guide for life lessons.  They are sometimes shockingly amoral and/or cruel.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 14, 2009)

dreamhunter said:


> Now you've just issued an *insult *to all children of the world. Dismissing their capacity n capability wholesale in one reckless, contemptuous sentence.
> 
> You know, a child once jolted thousands of wise, prudent, intelligent adults into realising the error of their overzealous faith in n reverence for their exalted sovereign.
> 
> Read: "Daddy! Daddy! The Emperor is Not Wearing Any Clothes!"



Okay, I think this thread is fast going downhill into insults, so time to close it.


----------

