PDA

View Full Version : How did the first Aryans look like?



Iranian
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 09:28 PM
What do you think?

Louky
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 02:49 AM
What do you think?

I think they probably looked like the Persians who now live in India, near Bombay, I think. Light-skinned, dark hair and dark eyes.

Kel`Thuz
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 09:30 AM
I think that due to different climatic conditions on the Iranian Plateau during the end of the Ice Age, the original Aryans were depigmented :) , although I suspect a variety of hair/eye pigmentation types, and obligatory dolichocephalic skulls :D

Evolved
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 11:20 AM
What do you think?

They were dark haired Irano-Afghanids with long noses, probably hairy and tall. I don't want to look through my 2,000+ posts to find pictures I've posted of Aryan West Asians. It's one of my favorite subjects, though. :-)

Pictures relating to Scythian (http://images.google.com/images?q=Scythian&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en)

I hope you can post some pictures of Aryans. :-)

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 11:59 AM
Are you refering to the Parsis?

Scythian is a collective name. All people in Eurasia were named as such during Herodotus time.

Herodotus wrote that the Scythians fought the "Persians". Persians refered to the Scythians as "Saka".

The Scythians were a federation of people who lived much more north, and they were described as having a blond element. They lived originally in the middle Volga and Urals. There are no Iranian toponyms there. It is only a theory that they were Iranian-speaking. You can read "Scythian history" by Andrey Lyzlov 1692, published by Novikov in 1787. He proves that Turks descend from Scythians.

A people can also receive a language without the physical type. There is a replacement model.






I think they probably looked like the Persians who now live in India, near Bombay, I think. Light-skinned, dark hair and dark eyes.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 01:10 PM
If by 'first Aryans' you mean first speakers of proto-Indo-European, then they were light-eyed, dark haired dolicocephals and looked like these Russians who are directly descended from them:

Louky
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 01:12 PM
Yes, I was refering to the Parsis.

I don't know a lot about the "Aryan Theory," but I suspect the blond element one finds in Iran today has a northern, maybe Scythian origin. Maybe the popularization of the ancient Aryans being blond got started from confusing the Scythians with the Aryas? I wouldn't doubt that the skeletal remains of the Parsis (rare, since they practice cremation) could be classified as Nordid.

Kel`Thuz
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 04:33 PM
Check out this link:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/aryan_people_origins.php

There's no point in pasting the whole article, anyway it clearly states, that original Aryans from Iranian Plateau were partially depigmented. At the end of the Ice Age they migrated northwards, eventually creating the Kurgan civilisation in Ukraine, and the Corded Ware culture in Poland, finally establishing themselves in Sweden (obviously absorbing the local inhabitants in the way of this migration). It seems that the Aryan invasion of India and the Middle-East (Hittites, Hyksos) in 1500s BC were some sort of a returning wave to their proto-homeland in Iran.
Or maybe the article is just a work of an Iranocentric maniac. :D

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 05:09 PM
Check out this link:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/articles/aryan_people_origins.php

There's no point in pasting the whole article, anyway it clearly states, that original Aryans from Iranian Plateau were partially depigmented. At the end of the Ice Age they migrated northwards, eventually creating the Kurgan civilisation in Ukraine, and the Corded Ware culture in Poland, finally establishing themselves in Sweden (obviously absorbing the local inhabitants in the way of this migration). It seems that the Aryan invasion of India and the Middle-East (Hittites, Hyksos) in 1500s BC were some sort of a returning wave to their proto-homeland in Iran.
Or maybe the article is just a work of an Iranocentric maniac. :D

Quite possibly. The central premise of the article is wrong; the original Aryans evolved in the Ukraine refuge during the last glacial maxim. They were not from the Iranian Plateau.

Prodigal Son
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 05:28 PM
Yes, I was refering to the Parsis.

I don't know a lot about the "Aryan Theory," but I suspect the blond element one finds in Iran today has a northern, maybe Scythian origin.

Quite possibly. However you define 'Aryan' (first speakers of Indo-European languages or the Iranian-speaking tribes that invaded Indian in antiquity), they were most closely related to modern-day Eastern Europeans, especially Russians.


I wouldn't doubt that the skeletal remains of the Parsis (rare, since they practice cremation) could be classified as Nordid.

1. The Parsis do not practice cremation. Their religion (Zoroastrianism) forbids them from defiling earth, fire and water. They place their dead in 'towers of silence' for the vultures to devour their flesh.

2. The Parsis are not Nordic by any stretch.

Allenson
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 05:30 PM
If you can find a copy of Indo-European Origins: the Anthropological Evidence by John V. Day, I highly recommend it. In short, it is an expansive search for the racial make-up of the PIE speakers. I photocopied the whole bloody book that I checked-out through interlibrary loan. Anyway, perhaps I can post some info that I glean from this work.

Glenlivet
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 06:25 PM
The blond element is very weak, and it does not need to mean the morphology is Nordid. Most blonds are from relatively recent (200-300 years ago) immigrants.

The Parsis are not Nordid at all. They are mostly from the central parts of the country, Yazd, which I doubt have any blonds at all. They first fled from the conquerors who were imposing the Islamic faith. So it is not such an ancient emigration.

The issue is that Aryan is not synonymous with Indo-European.

We should separate the ideas of a blond physical ideal in Nazi Germany, a Nordic person of non-Jewish descent, and the people whom actually refered to themselves as Aryan, and not because of some political doctrine. Schlegel linked Aryan with the German word Ehre, which means honour, and that Aryan means honour, and that all Indo-Europeans called themselves that, something like the honourable folk.

One of the Indo-European Migration theories (http://www.verbix.com/documents/pie/). Lundman placed the centre more west.

What the Indo-Europeans share as an effect of the great cultural expansion is that they speak related languages and worship similar deities (at least they did before Christianity and Islam). They had a pastoral economy. We have to thank the Jews for modernity : - ).




Yes, I was refering to the Parsis.

I don't know a lot about the "Aryan Theory," but I suspect the blond element one finds in Iran today has a northern, maybe Scythian origin. Maybe the popularization of the ancient Aryans being blond got started from confusing the Scythians with the Aryas? I wouldn't doubt that the skeletal remains of the Parsis (rare, since they practice cremation) could be classified as Nordid.

Louky
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 08:26 PM
Since when do individuals have to be Nordic to have their skeletal remains classified as Nordic? :-)

I don't think the Parsis are Nordic, either. I'm just refering to the habit of some physical anthropologists of finding "Nordics" everywhere they look - whence comes the idea that half the Middle East and South Asia was, at one time, blonde.

Iranian
Wednesday, December 10th, 2003, 09:39 PM
Hi! At first sorry for my bad english. :)

Ok! I heard mainly and often that the first Aryans were fair.
But the question why? The oldest IE founds are from Madia(Today East Anatolian) and Parsua(Today the center of Iran).
Many people think that the first Aryans were fair. Ok I will speak about this. So the Germans are the pure Aryans. But what were the Germans for 3000 years? We Iranians had in that time a world power.
So I will say. If the first Aryans were fair we Iranians would not be Aryans. The theory that the ancient Medians and Persians were pase are lies. If you read the book of Zoroastrian or other ancient iranians books you read only "we the iranians with a skin like the day and hairs like the night are the noble mans of this world".
The Zoroastrian says also that in the north like today europe 2 empires are. At first small people "i think alpin" and then fair hairs with a strong body "i think nordic". But Zoroastrian says also too that they are very prmitively. He orders the world in to 7 parts. And the nordic, and the alpin part are one of this world orders. If you see persepolis you will see in the pictures the iranians of today.
:) Ok good night! At least I think the Europeans are a mix of Alpin, Nordic and Iranians.

Kel`Thuz
Thursday, December 11th, 2003, 10:41 AM
Quite possibly. The central premise of the article is wrong; the original Aryans evolved in the Ukraine refuge during the last glacial maxim. They were not from the Iranian Plateau.

It does not exclude a possibility, that before reaching Ukraine, the proto-Aryans had already been evolved on the Iranian Plateau, from where they migrated northwards, some 16000 years ago, as the article suggests. Of course one would greatly appreciate some material evidence from the author of that controversial thesis. Anyway, the Proto-IE had to come to Ukraine from somewhere, hadn't they? For if they were already aboriginal to Ukraine, under such climatic conditions they would be evolved Mongoloids, or at least semi-Mongoloids, like the Finno-Ugrians. 16000 years ago Middle-East and Iranian Plateau had a more temperate climate than today, so the proto-proto-Aryans could evolve on the Iranian Plateau as a fair race, not necessarily completely depigmented, but fair enough to recognize that fact in their legends. The bulk of the migration, which followed, reached Ukraine some 10000 years ago, creating the PIE culture. Maybe some of them did not go to Ukraine via Caucasus, but ventured westwards instead, reaching Sumeria and Egypt, although I highly doubt it, as the article says the proto-Aryans had already domesticated horse.
Anyway, there is no reason to think that modern-day Persians are direct descendants of the original proto-Aryans in terms of race, especially pigmentation.

Glenlivet
Thursday, December 11th, 2003, 10:55 AM
I see, you wouldn't doubt if certain circles classified them as such. So then you were simply ironic about some of the absurd claims of Nordicism.

I think one, among many issues, is that we tend to link blondism with Nordid, while I have seen Levantine Arabs with blondism, frequently with red beard, and even light eyes, but with features which are absolutely non-Nordid.

Blondism is important for the classification of Nordid individuals and populations where the majority are Nordid, however, let us quote Baker, "It is often supposed that blondness is an indication of Nordid ancestry. Taken by itself, it is
nothing of the kind".

So does this mean that some we cannot require a Nordid origin for some of the blond people in the Classical World? Perhaps so.

We should not become overjoyed because of some ancient descriptions about rosy complexions and blond (also note that is relative among a population who are mostly dark, and insofar as I know even the blondism in Northern Italy is more often Alpinid than Nordid) hair. It might not always mean that they were of a Nordid type. Few Finns are as Nordid as certain English gentlemen, but the frequency of blondism in the population of Finland is much higher. It is also of another shade, greyish, dull, pale colour. Those in colder and more dry regions (as opposed to humid Britain and Ireland) tend to have those shades.




Since when do individuals have to be Nordic to have their skeletal remains classified as Nordic? :-)

I don't think the Parsis are Nordic, either. I'm just refering to the habit of some physical anthropologists of finding "Nordics" everywhere they look - whence comes the idea that half the Middle East and South Asia was, at one time, blonde.

Glenlivet
Thursday, December 11th, 2003, 01:12 PM
I see. So you were ironic about the errors of Nordicism, linking blondism, wherever it occurs, to a Nordid origin.

We shall quote Baker: "It is often supposed that blondness is an indication of Nordid ancestry. Taken by itself, it is nothing of the kind".

We do not require a Nordid origin for the relatively blonder individuals in the
Classical World. Insofar I know, the blondism in Northern Italy is also more often Alpinid than Nordid. However, the lake dwellers of Lower Switzerland have retained more Alpinid features than the Lombards in Northern Italy, whom tend to be taller, leaner and blonder. There is also a certain Dinarid type there, which is more blond than dark, and perhaps we can call it Noric.

One should also mention that the observation made regarding the blondism of a population is relative, especially by common people and anthropologists alike, whom rarely use frequency-distribution graphs to support their statements.

The Finns have a much higher frequency of blondism than the English. Nevertheless, one can certainly find more English gentlemen of Nordid type than Finns. The blond hair of the Finns is also a dull, pale, greyish (almost like the colour of stone), and that is common for many Eastern Europeans who live in a cold and dry climate. Rufosity, with or without red hair, is more common in milder and humid climates.

Nordids have, strictly speaking, a doliocephalic head which is oval in shape when seen from above, relatively short and narrow nose, but not too long, strong chin with a deep mandible, low orbitae and a low head. The eyes are not too light, blue, gray or light-mixed. The hair is red-blond.

All of Europe have according to Schwidetzky a more robust (mainly defined by the greater bizygomatic breadth) Cro-Magnoid type alongside a gracile Mediterranid. Coon differ from many other physical anthropologists in the sense that he "The Nordic race in the strict sense is merely a pigment phase of the Mediterranean", but one should also read his note when he also mention that " "Popularly, the word "Nordic" is frequently applied to a blond or pigmentally intermediate conglomerate type or group of types in northern Europe, which contains other than blond Mediterranean elements". His Mediterranean family completely lacks "Neanderthaloid ancestry" (or he also say non-sapiens), and Coon divide the "white" (Europid) family into a Mediterranean and an Upper Palaeolithic group, which for him is "Mediterranean-Neanderthaloid".

Ideas about Neanderthaloid admixture are old, e.g. from early 20th century Amsterdam anatomist, Bolk, whom linked the extremely low (while most of humanity are hypsicephalic, over 75 in Height-Lenght Index) skulls of the Frisians to a partly Neanderthal origin. The Terp dwellers in Groningen were higher-skulled, and described, and classified as the Reihengräber sub-type of the "Nordici". Still, Nyessen said that the Frisians were/are pronouncedly Nordid, of the very low-skulled Friterpian sub-type. The Reihengräber is probably the same as Coon's "Anglo-Saxon".





Since when do individuals have to be Nordic to have their skeletal remains classified as Nordic? :-)

I don't think the Parsis are Nordic, either. I'm just refering to the habit of some physical anthropologists of finding "Nordics" everywhere they look - whence comes the idea that half the Middle East and South Asia was, at one time, blonde.

Iranian
Thursday, December 11th, 2003, 01:54 PM
A Sarmatian Warrior very fair lol...
http://www.livius.org/a/1/iran/sarmatian.jpg

norda
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 01:19 PM
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/venusmelos_5.jpg
http://www.vroma.org/images/mcmanus_images/venusmelos_2d.htm
Its interesting how it influenced universal meaning of beauty
http://goldennumber.net/beauty.htm

Louky
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 02:23 PM
I see. So you were ironic about the errors of Nordicism, linking blondism, wherever it occurs, to a Nordid origin.


I agree, but I meant that some anthropologists appear to have engaged in wishful thinking when classifying the skeletal remains associated with Middle Eastern and Indian high civilization. For instance, some of the old texts state the ancient Sumerians and Indians were Nordid, while more recent classifications have been...Australoid :-O Quite a difference.

Until DNA analysis of the remains of these ancient people are made, no one will know for sure. Maybe the Nordicists will be vindicated. I try to maintain an open mind.

norda
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 02:39 PM
I agree, but I meant that some anthropologists appear to have engaged in wishful thinking when classifying the skeletal remains associated with Middle Eastern and Indian high civilization.
You are partly right especially regarding Egypt. There are no signs of Nordic but Mediterranean influences. Btw. Nordic (pigmentation) influences could be found almost exclusively among IE population Kurds, Afghanistan, N India.

Agrippa
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 07:56 PM
I think the first Indoeuropeans were of a type morphologically defined as "corded" by Coon and others.

I think they must have looked somewhat in between Eastern Nordids and Nordindids (like you can find in some Sikhs, Kafirs, Pashtuns, upper class of India and Nepal).

I really doubt they were as fair as modern European Nordids but quite light at all.

Whereas the first group (the IE in Europe) mixed partly with lighter pigmented people and were selected therefore, the other group mixed with darker ones and was selected for a more darker pigmentation in about 5000 years.

If I think about the time between the first immigration of IE and today, I dont wonder if they look somewhat different even if they didnt mixed with locals too much.

And do not forget that there probably was some difference in the IE speaking groups even in their homelands and just certain tribes were coming into Europe or Indoiran etc...
They were probably quite variable even in their homelands.

I would describe the basic IE type as a higher skulled Northern Mediterranid or Eastern Nordid variant of fair pigmentation but not fully depigmented.

But even if you call the IE more or less Nordid or Nordoid, that doesnt have to mean that all higher civilization must have a Nordid origin, especially if we are speaking about Egypt, Indus, Mesopotamia and the Minoan culture.
What again does not have to mean that there might be no Nordoid people in this regions. (just think about Berbers of Nordoid character in North Africa and even Egypt f.e.)

Vojvoda
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 07:58 PM
I would describe the basic IE type as a higher skulled Northern Mediterranid

Pontid! :D

http://www.hominids.com/donsmaps/lepenski.html

Euclides
Tuesday, February 3rd, 2004, 08:06 PM
What do you think?


Maybe depigmented cro-magnon hunters