[taking up JayKeeley and Spaffe's debate, and dammit, my internet timed out while writing this so I had to reboot]
spaffe said:
Yeah, I don't claim to have any absolute truths to show, just a different version, but that's pretty obvious I guess. Anyway according to
this book (the main litterature in the university course I did) claims that the aryans emerged somewhere south of India and conquered India (and other lands as well perhaps) and its indigenous people in 1500 BC and later on mixed with the locals and merged.
haha, I've got that book in front of me right now and I was just going to read part of it to try to clear this up.
It claims that "aryan" comes from Sanskrit, meaning "arya" or noble, and that the Aryans emerged from within India, or came outside of it and migrated inwards. The
Rigveda claims that the Aryans invaded the area around the Ganges river, although being epic poetry you can take it from having as much credibility as Homer's Illiad or the Bible. The Aryan/Vedic civilization lasted from approx 1500-500 BCE. Darius of Persia came between c. 521-486 BCE and mind you both Persians and the "Aryans" came from a common Indo-European language speaking nucleus as the prevailent theory proposes. Perhaps Darius and the Aryans in India had a common ancestor who called themselves "Aryan"?
I've also seen a more broad definition of Aryans being Indo-European speakers, which taken in any way could be the descendants of Indo-European speakers or just any person who speaks an Indo-European language.
Complications with this is that it conflicts with the modern Nazi Party proposed "aryan ideal" which is most comparable to modern germanic peoples, so in that sense the word has been popularly redefined in recent times.
Again, I do not claim to be an expert whatsoever, and even experts can't agree on this.