Ancient Aryan civilization achieved incredible technological progress 40 centuries ag

[S'mon]

"Ancient Aryan civilization..."

The Politically Correct term would be "Caucasian cultural community". From my reading into older (pre WW2) textbooks, the words Caucasian as it's used now, & Aryan as it was used then, appear to mean exactly the same thing.

 

[Desdichado]

The Politically Correct term would be "Caucasian cultural community". From my reading into older (pre WW2) textbooks, the words Caucasian as it's used now, & Aryan as it was used then, appear to mean exactly the same thing.

Yes, but Aryan has a post WW2 definition that's completely different from the older one, and is still a valid academic terminology. And it's not equivalent to Caucasian. In fact, Caucasian itself is a bit of a passe term; you won't see that one in very many modern textbooks anymore either.

If you're really into physical anthropology, its too generic; you'd be better off using "Proto Europoid C" or something like that, and if not, it's also a bit of a loaded term these days.

Aryan was never used to be equivalent to Caucasian, though. Aryan was primarily a linguistic derivation, although there was an assumed physical type attached to the linguistic groups. Caucasian was always more generic, and included groups that were demonstrably not Aryan and never had been.

Aryan is still a linguistic designation today, although it's a different linguistic designation than it used to be. Formerly, Aryan was used synonomously with Indo-European, but the idea that the root of the word is so ancient is out of favor these days. Today it's used specifically to refer to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European.

 

[Mystery Man]

Yes, but Aryan has a post WW2 definition that's completely different from the older one, and is still a valid academic terminology. And it's not equivalent to Caucasian. In fact, Caucasian itself is a bit of a passe term; you won't see that one in very many modern textbooks anymore either.

If you're really into physical anthropology, its too generic; you'd be better off using "Proto Europoid C" or something like that, and if not, it's also a bit of a loaded term these days.

Aryan was never used to be equivalent to Caucasian, though. Aryan was primarily a linguistic derivation, although there was an assumed physical type attached to the linguistic groups. Caucasian was always more generic, and included groups that were demonstrably not Aryan and never had been.

Aryan is still a linguistic designation today, although it's a different linguistic designation than it used to be. Formerly, Aryan was used synonomously with Indo-European, but the idea that the root of the word is so ancient is out of favor these days. Today it's used specifically to refer to the Indo-Iranian branch of Indo-European.

dude you totally cut and pasted that from somewhere.

However what was your source?

tia

 

[Desdichado]

Naw, I just talk like a textbook.

J.P. Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans has most of that information. I liked that book so much I bought a copy, and I reread it every few years.

And yes, I'm a bit of an anthropology and linguistics nerd, I admit.

 

[S'mon]

Aryan was never used to be equivalent to Caucasian, though.

In "The Evolution of Civilisation" (pub 1921) which I am currently reading, it is, as far as I can tell. He uses "Aryan" to mean the white race*(s) originating in the Caucasus region, the group(s) commonly referred to as Caucasian today.

*Including Iranians.

 

[S'mon]

When I said "textbooks" I probably erred, I didn't mean works aimed at a specialist academic audience, I meant popular textbooks aimed at the general public. The general public certainly does use "Caucasian", esp if they don't want to say "white".

 

[Mystery Man]

And yes, I'm a bit of an anthropology and linguistics nerd, I admit.

I wouldn't do that everywhere.

 

[Desdichado]

In "The Evolution of Civilisation" (pub 1921) which I am currently reading, it is, as far as I can tell. He uses "Aryan" to mean the white race(s) originating in the Caucasus region, the group(s) commonly referred to as Caucasian today.

That just goes to show you the strength of the assumed ties between Indo-European and the "Nordic" physical type that were assumed at the time, and the confusion that ensued because many authors didn't differentiate between the linguistic and assumed physical groups. In 1921, there was no general consensus that the "Aryans" originated in the Caucasus region, though--many people believed they originated in Northern Europe, others in the Himalayas, others that they were descendents of the Sumerians--there were as many theories as there were academics in the field. There were always other white race(s) that were non-"Aryan", ironically, including the Caucasian Georgians, Kartvelians, etc.

I've never heard usage like you're describing--that author using terms in a way that, in my experience, would have been controversial and oddball--or at the very least imprecise--even at the time he wrote.

Interestingly, the leading theory of Indo-European origins today puts them in the Pontic-Caspian steppes, which is at least adjacent to the Caucasus.

When I said "textbooks" I probably erred, I didn't mean works aimed at a specialist academic audience, I meant popular textbooks aimed at the general public. The general public certainly does use "Caucasian", esp if they don't want to say "white".

OK, that makes a more sense to me then. He was probably just speaking generally and slightly imprecisely. At the time, most of the "Caucasian" type folks were also "Aryan"--white people by and large have an Indo-European linguistic heritage. That's still true, it's just that nobody uses Aryan that way anymore with the exception of some "white pride" organizations that still cling to pre-WW2 anthropology, and a few other contries who still cling to terminology that's been outdated in most other Western research.

In a way it's too bad--Indo-European, while much more precise, is also much more cumbersome than Aryan. But the combination of Aryan only being "proved" as a common term amongst the Indo-Irandian branch of Indo-European and the stigma attached to the term thanks to the Nazis, there's no way that it'd still be used in the way it used to be.

 

[S'mon]

I've never heard usage like you're describing--that author using terms in a way that, in my experience, would have been controversial and oddball--or at the very least imprecise--even at the time he wrote.

Well it's an hilarious book, much odd stuff along with some theories that seem to be coming back into fashion (like the influence of the ice ages on the development of human intelligence, or the relatively recent ape-human split - not so long ago that was placed at ca 20 million years ago, his estimate "over 1.5 million" is too recent but is a lot closer to current DNA evidence indicating the last split for existing DNA lines, chimp-human, was ca 3.5-4 million years ago). Of course his post-Great War belief in progress & rationality seems incredibly overoptimistic from a perspective 84 years later - "Of course no one today doubts the truth of evolution" and such. The funniest bit so far (leaving aside racial commentaries) was his determination that Crete was the true original civilisation, a European civilisation, of which Egypt & Sumeria were later, somewhat degenerate offshoots. That the archaeological evidence _of his own time_ didn't really support this, and he knows it, made it a lot funnier. Author is Joseph McCabe. I'm finding it very Howardesque, it's a good source for Conanesque thinking.

 

[tarchon]

In a way it's too bad--Indo-European, while much more precise, is also much more cumbersome than Aryan. But the combination of Aryan only being "proved" as a common term amongst the Indo-Irandian branch of Indo-European and the stigma attached to the term thanks to the Nazis, there's no way that it'd still be used in the way it used to be.

In Germany, they prefer the even more curious indogermanisch, "Indo-Germanic."