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

[dreamhunter]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[dreamhunter]

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]

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

 

[Jayaprakash Satyamurthy]

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]

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

 

[dreamhunter]

(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]

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]

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.