Who were the Aryans?

No, "Aryan" isn't something the Nazis made up when they were high on meth.

The term "Aryan" was originally used by the authors of ancient Sanskrit and Persian texts, such as the Rig Veda and Avesta, to refer to themselves. These Aryans inhabited regions of Iran and extended eastward into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Therefore, the term "Aryan" should be confined to this Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. However, during the 19th century, the Vedas became a source of mystical fascination, and the term "Aryan" spread beyond its proper linguistic and geographic confines.​

-David W. Anthony, The Horse, the Wheel and Language (2007)

Dear Nevermorons,

Back in 2020, David Graeber announced that he and his friend David Wengrow had completed an ambitious project that had they had been working on for ten years.

The book, which was called The Dawn of Everything, was meant as a “Grand Narrative” about the history of humanity. To understand the scope of their ambition, one need look no further than the title of a paper they co-published in 2018. It was called How to Change the Course of Human History.

The Dawn of Everything was meant to synthesize recent findings of anthropology and archaeology in a way which offered a way out of the Miserabilist paradigm that humanity has been stuck in for a very long time now.

As you probably know, David Graeber was then the world’s most famous anthropologist. David Wengrow is a widely-respected British archaeologist.

David Graeber died mysteriously in 2020. It is believed that he was murdered by his wife, Nika Dubrovsky.

DAVID GRAEBER AND THE ARYAN RACE

One of the things that Graeber and Wengrow do in The Dawn of Everything is to vindicate the work of an archaeologist named Marija Gimbutas. She is best known for the theory that the original cultures of Europe were peaceful Goddess-worshippers, but that they were overrun by Aryan invaders from the Caspian steppes.

In The Dawn of Everything, the two Davids write:

“[I] you read the books of Gimbutas – such as The Goddesses and Gods of Old Europe (1982) – you quickly realize that their author was attempting to do something which, until then, only men had been allowed to do: to craft a grand narrative for the origins of Eurasian civilization. She [argues] that, in some ways (though certainly not all), the old Victorian story about goddess-worshipping farmers and Aryan invaders was actually true.”

I read this with great interest. I was already familiar with this idea, partly thanks to Paul Cudenec, who has mentioned it in passing several times over the years.

So who was Gimbutas and what was she right about?

Well, according to Wikipedia:

Marija Gimbutas was a Lithuanian archaeologist and anthropologist known for her research into the Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures of "Old Europe" and for her Kurgan hypothesis, which located the Proto-Indo-European homeland in the Pontic Steppe.

Marija Gimbutas

Basically, Gimbutas is known for her interpretation of Neolithic Europe as a peaceful, matrifocal society disrupted by an invasion of patriarchal warriors from the Eurasian steppes. She associated these invaders with the spread of what later became Indo-European languages.

She was very popular in the Women’s Liberation movement back in the 1970s, and a whole cohort of women began building on her work to create a political-spiritual Mythos for the feminist movement.

This became known as “the Goddess movement”, and its most famous proponent today is Starhawk, who was a friend of Graeber’s. Other figures associated with the Goddess movement include Merlin Stone, author of When God Was a Woman, and Riane Eisler, author of The Chalice and the Blade.

But my main subject today isn’t the Goddess Movement. It is the Aryans. If it is true that Aryan invaders overran Europe and subjugated its native population, then who were the Aryans?

Most importantly, why have they been written out of history?

I think it's interesting how deeply taboo the word Aryan is. Since WWII, the word Aryan is almost never used by historians, and most people associate it with Nazi mythology.

But almost every single European language spoken today is descended from the language of those Aryan invaders.

Shouldn’t we know a thing or two about them?

WHO WERE THE ARYANS?

Since WWII, the word Aryan has been associated with Nazi propaganda which held that ethnic Germans were racially superior to all other people.

Prior to the Third Reich, however, the term was heavily used in linguistics.

For a typical example, take the following passage from The Loom of Language, a classic of linguistics published in 1943:

Semitic languages constitute a sharply marked type characterized by root inflexion, in contrast to amalgamation, which is characteristic of the old Aryan languages such as Sanskrit, Latin, or Russian.

It may surprise you to learn that Sanskrit, Latin and Russian are considered Aryan languages.

For the record, so are English, French, Spanish, Italian, Polish, and all the Germanic languages.

If you’re reading this, chances are extremely high that your native language was classified as an Aryan language up until 1945.

DID YOU KNOW THAT IRAN MEANS “LAND OF THE ARYANS”?

You may be even more surprised to learn that the word Iran comes from the word Aryan. Etymologically, Iran means “land of the Aryans”.

Don’t believe me? Take it away, Zephyrus!

CHAT GPT: The name "Iran" has ancient roots and is derived from the term "Aryān" (ایران), which means "land of the Aryans" or "noble land." Its etymology reflects the country's long historical and cultural association with the Indo-Iranian peoples.

The term Aryān (or Airyan) originates from the Proto-Indo-Iranian word *Arya, meaning "noble" or "honorable."

In Avestan, the sacred language of Zoroastrianism, Airyanəm vaējah (or Ariana Vaeja) refers to the legendary homeland of the Aryans, a central concept in Zoroastrian cosmology.

In Old Persian inscriptions, such as those of Darius the Great (6th century BCE), the term Ariya is used to describe the Persian peoples and their lineage.

The region encompassing the Iranian plateau was called "Aryānām Xšaθra" (the kingdom of the Aryans).

During the Sassanian Empire (224–651 CE), the name Ērān (ایران) became formalized as a designation for the empire. It was used to refer to "Ērānšahr" (the kingdom of the Iranians), which included much of the territory now known as Iran.

In Modern Persian, Iran (ایران) retains this historical meaning of "land of the Aryans."

So, by now you’re probably quite confused. After all, Iranians don’t tend to be blonde or blue-eyed.

Well, the short answer is that the Nazi racial Mythos is basically a bunch of bullshit. They claimed the term Aryan for themselves, even though Germans are descended from the same people that Poles, Russians, and Ashkenazi Jews are.

Since WWII, the term “Aryan” has been largely replaced by “Proto-Indo-European” in linguistics, which avoids the negative connotations of the word Aryan.

For the rest of this article, that will be the term I will favour. I am not trying to reclaim the word Aryan. I am only trying to clear up some confusion.

If you really want to understand the Story of the World, you cannot afford to ignore the Proto-Indo-Europeans, because they had an absolutely massive influence on world history.

They are the group that basically started the Bronze Age, and that’s not all. In addition to mastering metallurgy, they also appear to have domesticated the horse and invented chariots.

This combination of innovations allowed them to expand throughout Eurasian and the Indian subcontinent, and a huge proportion of the world’s population speaks languages that descend from the language they spoke.

How do we know, you ask? That’s a great question. Basically, by comparing different Indo-European languages, linguists have been able to reconstruct a significant amount of the vocabulary of the language that they all descend from.

A more detailed explanation of the methodology of historical linguistics is beyond the scope of this article, but if you are interested, I suggest watching the following videos:

WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE PROTO-INDO-EUROPEANS

Given how important the Proto-Indo-Europeans are to world history, you would think that an army of scholars would be hard at work finding out everything they can about these mysterious Bronze Age charioteers.

Strangely, it is mostly linguists who study the Proto-Indo-Europeans. Archaeologists and historians, for the most part, have little to say about them.

Thankfully, there is one book that synthesizes the finding of historical linguistics with those of archaeology. It is an absolutely monumental work called The Horse, the Wheel, and Language by David W. Anthony.

If you want to know what is currently known about the Proto-Indo-Europeans, this is the book you want.

And it does indeed confirm the basic thesis of Marija Gimbutas.

According to Wikipedia:

The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World is a 2007 book by the anthropologist David W. Anthony, in which the author describes his "revised Kurgan theory." He explores the origins and spread of the Indo-European languages from the Pontic–Caspian steppe throughout Western Europe, Central Asia, and South Asia. He shows how the domesticated horse and the invention of the wheel mobilized the steppe herding societies in the Eurasian Steppe, and combined with the introduction of bronze technology and new social structures of patron-client relationships gave an advantage to the Indo-European societies.

In a review in The New York Times summed things up nicely:

"Anthony is not the first scholar to make the case that Proto-Indo-European came from [the steppes of southern Ukraine and Russia], but given the immense array of evidence he presents, he may be the last one who has to."

So, basically, we can now say this about the Proto-Indo-Europeans:

1. They originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes North of the Black Sea.

2. They were not the first to domesticate horses, but they were among the earliest major groups to integrate horses into transport, warfare, and expansion.

3. They were very likely the first people to use horse-drawn wheeled vehicles.

4. In addition to horses, they herded cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs.

5. They practiced agriculture, including grain agriculture.

6. They were woolworkers.

7. They practiced metallurgy, including bronze-working.

8. They worshipped a god called Dyeus, which meant “Sky-Father”.

9. They made alcohol from honey, which means they must have been beekeepers.

10. They were patriarchal. Their kinship structure was patrilineal (descent was traced through the father’s line) and patrilocal (wives joined the husband's household).

So, today I was to include an excerpt from The Horse, The Wheel, and Language, which I hope you will find illuminating.

If you have any questions about the Proto-Indo-Europeans in the comments, I’ll let you know whether David W. Anthony answers them in his authoritative book.

for the wild,

Crow Qu’appelle

WHO WERE THE ARYANS?

by David W. Anthony, excerpted from The Horse, The Wheel and Language (2007)

The concept of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) began as a linguistic reconstruction of a prehistoric language, but over time, it was misappropriated into racial ideologies. This transformation led to the depiction of PIE speakers as a distinct biological population with specific physical and mental traits. For instance, they were described as a "slim, tall, light-complexioned, blonde race, superior to all other peoples, calm and firm in character, constantly striving, intellectually brilliant, with an almost ideal attitude towards the world and life in general."​

The term "Aryan" was originally used by the authors of ancient Sanskrit and Persian texts, such as the Rig Veda and Avesta, to refer to themselves. These Aryans inhabited regions of Iran and extended eastward into Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. Therefore, the term "Aryan" should be confined to this Indo-Iranian branch of the Indo-European family. However, during the 19th century, the Vedas became a source of mystical fascination, and the term "Aryan" spread beyond its proper linguistic and geographic confines.​

In the United States, Madison Grant's 1916 book, The Passing of the Great Race, became a bestseller. Grant warned against the dilution of superior American "Aryan" blood—by which he meant the British, Scots-Irish, and German settlers of the original thirteen colonies—through interbreeding with immigrant "inferior races," including Poles, Czechs, Italians, and Jews. Ironically, many of these groups spoke Indo-European languages, with Yiddish being a Germanic language in its basic grammar and morphology.​

The misapplication of the term "Aryan" was further exacerbated by interpretations of the Rig Veda that suggested the Vedic Aryans were invaders who conquered their way into the Punjab. This led to a fervent search for the "Aryan homeland." Sir William Jones placed it in Iran, while others speculated locations such as the Himalayan Mountains. In the early 20th century, German scholar Gustav Kossinna attempted to demonstrate archaeologically that the Aryan homeland lay in northern Europe, specifically Germany. He illustrated prehistoric migrations of the "Indo-Germanic" Aryans with arrows sweeping east, west, and south from his presumed Aryan homeland. Less than thirty years later, these theoretical migrations were mirrored by actual military campaigns.​

The problem of Indo-European origins became politicized early on, entangled with nationalist and chauvinist causes. It nurtured the dangerous fantasy of Aryan racial superiority and was even pursued through archaeological excavations funded by the Nazi SS. In contemporary times, the Indo-European past continues to be manipulated by various causes and cults.

For example, in the books of the Goddess movement, such as Marija Gimbutas's The Civilization of the Goddess and Riane Eisler's The Chalice and the Blade, ancient Indo-Europeans are portrayed not as blonde heroes but as patriarchal, warlike invaders who destroyed a utopian prehistoric world of feminine peace and beauty.

In Russia, some modern nationalist political groups and neo-Pagan movements claim direct lineage from the ancient Aryans. In the United States, white supremacist groups refer to themselves as Aryans. Historically, there were indeed Aryans—the composers of the Rig Veda and the Avesta—but they were Bronze Age tribal people living in Iran, Afghanistan, and the northern Indian subcontinent. It is highly doubtful that they were blonde or blue-eyed, and they had no connection with the racial fantasies propagated by modern bigots.​

The conflation of race with language and the assignment of superiority to certain language-and-race groups were critical missteps that led to these distortions. Prominent linguists have long argued against these ideas. While philosopher Martin Heidegger posited that some languages, like German and Greek, were unique vessels for superior thought, linguistic anthropologist Franz Boas contended that no language could be deemed superior to another based on objective criteria.

As early as 1872, linguist Max Müller criticized the notion of an "Aryan skull" as unscientific, emphasizing that languages are not characterized by physical traits like skin color or skull shape. He questioned how the Sanskrit language could be connected to a skull type and how the Aryans themselves defined "Aryan."

According to their texts, "Aryan-ness" was a religious and linguistic category. Some Sanskrit-speaking chiefs and poets in the Rig Veda bore names foreign to the Sanskrit language, indicating that even the original Aryans were not genetically "pure." The Rig Veda served as a ritual canon, not a racial manifesto. If one performed the correct sacrifices and prayers in the traditional language, they were considered Aryan, regardless of racial purity.​

To address the Indo-European problem, it's essential to recognize that Proto-Indo-European refers to a language community. Race cannot be reliably linked to language, as racial boundaries are culturally defined and vary across societies. Archaeologists have their own definitions of race based on skeletal traits, which are often invisible in living individuals. Languages are not typically sorted by race; diverse racial groups can speak the same language. Correlations between languages and genes occur only in exceptional circumstances, usually involving significant geographic barriers. Therefore, assuming a simple connection between language and genetics without considering geographic isolation or other factors is fundamentally flawed.