Who are the Aryans?

Where did the Aryans Slavs and "Indo-Europeans" come from? DNA genealogy provides the answer.

Haplogroup(in human population genetics, the science that studies the genetic history of mankind) - a group of similar haplotypes that are a series of alleles. The term "haplogroup" is widely used in genetic genealogy, where the Y-chromosomal (Y-DNA), mitochondrial (mtDNA) and MHC haplogroups are studied. Y-DNA markers are transmitted with the Y-chromosome through the exclusive paternal line (i.e., from father to sons), and mtDNA markers through the maternal line (i.e., from mother to all children). Thus, males are carriers of both Y-DNA markers and mtDNA markers, although they do not pass the latter on to their offspring.

Haplogroup R1a (M17) originated in the south of the Russian plain about 10-15 thousand years ago, on the basis of this genus, the Slavic ethnos was formed. It is generally accepted that these people were the Aryans.

Presumably, it was this clan that invented the wheel, designed the first carts and tamed the horse, which allowed him to leave primitive matriarchal agriculture and switch to more efficient nomadic pastoralism and subsequently master the entire strip of the Eurasian steppes from the Danube to Transbaikalia, breaking up into many tribes.

Distribution area from Iceland (Vikings) to India (Brahmin caste), the modern center of the haplogroup is located in Poland among Ukrainians and 47% among Russians, but only with a frequency of 15.2% among Macedonians, 14.7% among Bulgarians and 12.1% among Herzegovinians.

R1a migration map

The "ancestral home" of the Aryans, Proto-Slavs, "Indo-Europeans", and the picture of migration flows from the ancestral home

The "ancestral home" in relation to the Slavs, Aryans and Indo-Europeans is the territory where stable DNA genealogical ties with modern Slavs began to form, connections that can be identified, identified, and attributed specifically to the Slavs, as descendants of the Aryans, "Indo-Europeans" and "Proto-Indo-Europeans", and originally those who left Africa about 60 thousand years ago, and gave rise to modern humanity - and the "Indo-Europeans", and the Semites, and the Finno-Ugric peoples, and the Turks. And in general, all 18 modern haplogroups, they are the main genera modern humanity in terms of DNA genealogy.

Let's consider the whole path, starting from the exit from Africa, and put the "Proto-Indo-Europeans", "Indo-Europeans", Aryans and Proto-Slavs into a single framework, into a single system.

Route, stage one, the first 20 thousand years. Africa - Western Asia. The beginning - 60 thousand years ago, the pass - 40 thousand years ago.

Our Slavic ancestors are distant descendants of "chromosomal Adam" who lived in northeast Africa. He is called Chromosomal Adam because approximately 80-100 thousand years ago he passed the “bottleneck” of the human population, and only his direct offspring survived and grew. The offspring of the rest of the people of that time, or who lived before, in us, modern people Land not found. For now, anyway.

The route, stage two, the next 15 thousand years. Western Asia - Southern Siberia. The beginning - 40 thousand years ago, the pass - 25 thousand years ago.

From Mesopotamia and the South Caspian, the flow split. Future Jews and Arabs stayed in the Middle East for a long time, and many settled there forever (haplogroup J, the southern part of Mesopotamia), some continued to go north, to the Caucasus (haplogroup G), and some (haplogroups I and J2), passing through Asia Minor , through the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, which were then dry, went to the Balkans, to Greece, to Europe. Among those who went to the Balkans - many future Balkan Slavs of haplogroup I2 - from 30% to 40% of Bulgarians, Bosnians, Slovenes, Serbs have it. They are by origin - not Aryans and not "Indo-Europeans", although by language - "Indo-Europeans".

On this path, which took several millennia, our Eurasian ancestor had another mutation, M45, the transformation of guanine into adenine (Gà A). It happened in Central Asia, 30 thousand years ago. The consolidated haplogroup was reduced to P-R. Behind it - the next mutation, M207, already in the south of Siberia, 25 thousand years ago. This identified our ancestor in the haplogroup R.

Route, stage three, the next 13 thousand years. Southern Siberia - Balkans, Dinaric Alps, Adriatic. The beginning - 25 thousand years ago, the pass - 12 thousand years ago.

This stage is extremely important for future Europeans in general, and the Aryans in particular. In the course of it, the clans were divided into Western and Eastern European, into the Aryan and Celtic clans. There was a selection of the kind of future Slavs.

Route, stage four, the next 6 thousand years. Balkans - Central Europe, Atlantic, Scandinavia, Carpathians, future Ukraine, Belarus, Russia. The beginning - 10 thousand years ago, the pass - 4 thousand years ago.

In Central Asia, the Aryans, moving along the southern part of the route, were delayed for 500-800 years. These places were then described in detail in the Zend-Avesta, the ancient book of the Aryans, written already in Iran, where the Aryans moved in the 2nd millennium BC.

Perhaps this migration was earlier than the Aryans from the southern Urals, from Arkaim and the "country of cities", and took place at the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC, approximately 3900-3800 years ago. Perhaps, and at the same time, like the South Ural Aryans, 3600-3500 years ago. So far, Iranian R1a1 haplotypes are not readily available, but this issue will be resolved in the near future.

Chelyabinsk City of the Sun - Arkaim.

North India

In those days, between 6 and 4 thousand years ago, there was a great migration of peoples. This was not the famous Great Migration of the 4th-7th centuries AD, during which there were large ethnic movements in Europe, and which led to the collapse of the Roman Empire or became its result. It was a much more global Great Migration, associated with the spread of new technologies, Agriculture, horse transport, and eventually led to the creation of a family of Indo-European languages. The genus R1a1, the Aryans, the Proto-Slavs, played a decisive role in this migration and in its results.

Route, stage five, the next thousand years. Southern Urals- India, Iran. The beginning - 4 thousand years ago, the pass - 3 thousand years ago.

So, the early Bronze Age. Arias arrive in the southern Urals. 3800 years ago they built the settlements of Sintashtu, Arkaim (modern names), and a whole "country of cities".

The picture shows a sculptural image of an Aryan peasant from Arkaim.
This sculpture of a local resident, with typical Russian features; his facial expression clearly shows a person sitting and looking at the sky with nothing to do.)))

CONCLUSION

Modern descendants of the genus R1a1 (and we are talking about it now) have their uninterrupted DNA genealogical lines since the ancient Neolithic, and sometimes even Paleolithic sites, and this can be directly seen from the records in our Y chromosomes, haplotypes, and from the pattern of mutations in them calculate the times of these stops and the times of migrations of human flows.

Of course, there is a temptation to note, or even emphasize, that the dates of life common ancestors throughout Europe, found in this study using DNA genealogy, mostly fall on 4200-4800 years ago, that is, in the III millennium BC, and this strikingly coincides with the data of historians.

As they write, it was at this time that "the Indo-Europeanization of Central Europe by the agricultural tribes of the Indo-Europeans ended." True, not "Indo-Europeans", but Aryans, haplogroup R1a1. Those who went to the east became the Proto-Slavs, those who went to the west became ... in general, they do not have their own name. Some call them the collective name of the Celts, some - the Basques. The share of R1a1 in the British Isles is minimal, often between zero and 4%. In the north of Scotland - up to a quarter. In the north, in Scandinavia - about 20%, and with an upward gradient - to the east, up to three quarters in Russia, up to two thirds in some regions of Central Asia.

What made the Aryans move to new lands? What caused the almost constant flow of population to new territories? To be honest, this is not my question either. I would prefer professional historians, anthropologists, linguists to interpret these data professionally. They know the answer better than me. They write that this flow was caused - and in turn caused itself - by new economic and technical achievements, in particular, dairy farming, new land cultivation technology, the domestication of the horse, the creation of wheeled vehicles. Still - climate change, the onset of "a period of a certain decrease in temperature and a variable increase in continentality, the onset of global climate aridity in the III millennium BC." This, in turn, "led to a decrease in the agro-climatic potential and did not give guaranteed yields." But this is again not my question, not my profession. And not DNA genealogy.

Most importantly, in collaboration with the data of linguists, archaeologists, historians, in this study it was possible to establish where the "ancestral home" of both the "Proto-Indo-Europeans" (Anterior Asia) and the Aryans, they are also "Indo-Europeans", they are also Proto-Slavs (Balkans) , thereby reconciling - at least at first glance - the two main schools of linguists. It's just that the time frames for these "ancestral homes" turned out to be different - for the first 40 thousand years ago, for the second - 12 thousand years ago.

The same approach made it possible to follow in some detail, in time and place, how the Aryans migrated between 6000 and 4200 years ago to the northern Carpathians, to the places of the mysterious Trypillia culture, in Central Europe, to the British Isles, to Scandinavia, to the Slavic territories of present-day Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Germany, Ukraine, Russia, and further along the southern steppes of Ukraine and Russia to the Southern Urals and further to India and Iran, and to the Middle East , to Lebanon, and to the Arabian Peninsula, to the Gulf of Oman. He allowed quite reasonably to assume that it was the Aryans who erected the monuments of Stonehenge. That it was the Aryans who erected settlements in the Southern Urals, now called Arkaim, Sintashta, and the country of cities.

This method made it possible to establish that the Russian and Ukrainian Slavs have a common ancestor who lived 4500 years ago, that the same Slavic ancestor is also the ancestor of the Hindus of the same kind of Aryans, who now number at least one hundred million people. The Indian descendants continued the lineage of our Proto-Slav who lived 3850 years ago, and continued this lineage shortly after the Aryans left Arkaim and the Southern Urals. And we probably already know why and when they left it.

This method made it possible to convincingly show that not the "Indo-European languages", but the Aryan, Proto-Slavic languages ​​are primary. “Indo-European languages” - this euphemism arose at one time from a misunderstanding of what connects Sanskrit and its variants, on the one hand, and European languages, on the other. Now it has become quite clear. Aryan languages ​​are the basis of European languages, Sanskrit, and "Indo-European" Iranian languages. Not "Iranian-speaking peoples" lived on the Dnieper, Don and Ural River. The Slavs lived there, the Proto-Slavs, the Aryans, and that was their language. It was they who brought their language to India, Iran, Afghanistan.

I would put a plus on the post, but have not yet grown to the ability to plus / minus :)
In general, I have I1, I don’t regret it at all :) Well, you need to understand that the Y-DNA test gives information about only one ancestor, well, for example, out of a thousand, the rest could carry any haplogroups. In order to understand what is mixed up in a person, you need to do, for example, a test from 23andme.com, it is about twice as expensive as the 67-marker Y-haplotype from FTDNA.

Arkaim and K are still not Aryan.

"R1a is found with a frequency of Tajiks (64%), Kigiz (Kyrgyz?) (63%), Hungarians (56%), 56.4% among Poles, 54% among Ukrainians and 47% among Russians"
That is, Tajiks and Kyrgyz are more “ pure Aryans» than others?

Hitler would be furious :) And the highest percentage of the R1A1 haplogroup is among the Brahmins from West Bengal, 72.22%. So, here they are - arias :)

Yes, Hitler would be furious (see below :))
..
Saliva samples taken from 39 of the Nazi leader's relatives show he may have had biological links to the "subhuman" races he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.
Jean-Paul Mulde, a Belgian journalist, and Marc Vermeeren, a historian, tracked down the Fuhrer's relatives earlier this year, including an Austrian farmer who was his cousin.
The chromosome, called Halogroup E1b1b1, which was found in their samples, is rare in Western Europe and is commonly found among the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardi Jews.
"Anyone can deduce from this that Hitler was connected with people he despised," Mr. Mulde wrote in the Belgian magazine Knack.
Halogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 - 20 percent of the Ashkenazi and 8.6 - 30 percent of the Sephardic Y chromosomes, appears to be one of the main lineages of the Jewish population.
Knack, who published the results, says the DNA was tested under rigorous laboratory conditions.
"This is an amazing result," said Ronnie Decort, a geneticist at the Catholic University of Leuven.
"The case becomes exciting when you compare it to the concept of the Nazi world, in which race and blood were central."
“Hitler's concern about his origins was not unfounded. He was certainly not "pure" or "Aryan"
This is not the first time historians have suggested that Hitler had Jewish ancestry.
His father, Alois, is thought to have been the illegitimate descendant of a damsel named Maria Schickelgruber and a 19-year-old Jewish youth named Frankenberger.

the dumbest thing that can unite people is their exterior.

Not correct article.
P1A is not yet a synonym for Aryan, there is no archaeological data to establish the gallogroups of the Indo-Aryans, everything is at the level of hypotheses.
The low proportion of p1a1 in Britain and Scotland, in the presence of the same anthrotypes in Germany and Russia, which are richer in this halo group, leads only genetic conclusions to a dead end.
However, p1a1 is just a gene, its presence shows only a genetic relationship, but the phenotype may be different, as in the case of the Kirghiz and Tajiks, who are descendants of Androonians with p1a1 and Mongoloid later newcomers. Yes, they are, as it were, relatives to us, but only by 30-40% ...

incorrect comment.
Since belonging to a haplogroup is determined by very specific mutations in certain nucleotides of the Y chromosome, we can say that each of us carries a certain mark in DNA. And this mark in the male offspring is indestructible, it can be destroyed only together with the offspring itself. Unfortunately, there have been many such cases in the past. But this does not mean at all that this label is an indicator of a certain “breed” of a person. This mark is not associated with genes and has nothing to do with them, namely genes and only genes can be associated with a "breed" if desired. Haplogroups and haplotypes do not in any way determine the shape of the skull or nose, hair color, physical or mental characteristics of a person. But they forever tie the carrier of the haplotype to a certain human race, at the beginning of which was the patriarch of the clan, whose offspring survived and lives today, in contrast to millions of other broken genealogical lines.
This mark in our DNA turns out to be invaluable for historians, linguists, anthropologists, because this mark is not “assimilated”, as carriers of languages, genes, carriers of different cultures are assimilated, which “dissolve” in the population. Haplotypes and haplogroups do not "dissolve", do not assimilate. Whatever religion the descendants change over the course of millennia, whatever language they acquire, whatever cultural and ethnic characteristics they change, exactly the same haplogroup, the same haplotype (except with several mutations) stubbornly appear with appropriate testing of certain fragments of the Y-chromosome . It doesn't matter if it's a Muslim, Christian, Jew, Buddhist, atheist or pagan.

Only shaved, sculpture "Hitler in Argentina or thoughts about the past" (Justo Urquis, marble, Buenos Aires 1947, not previously exhibited)

Illiteracy progresses in fragile minds :)
Do not interfere in a bunch of language and blood affiliation. These are very, very different things. Indo-Europeans are just a linguistic feature. "Arias" - charlatan.
Quote:
The first meaning of the word "Aryans" is Indo-Europeans.
The second meaning is the Iranian branch of the Indo-European world.
To the question whether the Aryans are Slavs, I would answer this way:
- In the first place, yes. They are Indo-Europeans, not Semito-Hamites, not Altaians, not Kartvelians, not Dravidians...
- In the second sense, no. What are Iranians like? They are Slavs.

Aryans is the pre-war name of the Indo-Europeans. They replaced it so that Hitler would not turn in his grave.
As for the Iranian roots, it is absolutely wrong, and M.
According to the number of Iranian borrowings in the Slavic languages, there is reason to speak of a close symbiosis of these groups. This is linguistics.
The anthropological type of the Iranonordid is characteristic of both the early Slavs and the early Iranians. Now neither the Slavs of this type have such a frequency, and even more so among the Iranians, except for the Parsis. This is anthropology.
Genetics also confirms the common halogroup there.

"strengthened minds"))) it was established that the genus R1a1 in the DNA genealogy is the Aryans, they are also Proto-Slavs, they are also "Indo-Europeans". They brought their Aryan language, which is also Proto-Slavic, to India and Iran 3500-3400 years ago, that is, 1400-1500 BC. In India, by the works of the great Panini, it was polished into Sanskrit about 2400 years ago, close to the turn of our era, and in Persia-Iran, the Aryan languages ​​became the basis of a group of Iranian languages, the oldest of which date back to the 2nd millennium BC.
This is what it means when linguists do not have in their hands the dates of the life and migration of the Aryans, in particular, in the territory modern India and Iran. Hence, they, the Aryans, and then everyone else - the inhabitants of the Russian plain, the Dnieper region, the Black Sea region, the Caspian region, the southern Urals - were all awarded the title of "Indo-Europeans", and even more so "Iranian-speaking", exactly the opposite.
That's where these clumsy "Indo-Europeans" came from. In fact, they had Aryan languages ​​without any India or Iran, all over the Russian plain and up to the Balkans. They, the Aryans, brought the language to Europe, they also brought it to Iran and India. From India to Europe - one and the same group of languages ​​- Aryan. And they took it and called it "Indo-European", "Indo-Iranian", "Iranian". And what is generally incomprehensible to a "strengthened mind", our people, our ancestors, the Proto-Slavs turned out to be "Indo-Europeans", and even "Iranians". "Iranian-speaking residents of the Dnieper". :)))
It's time, finally, for philologists-linguists to put things in order.

Can you link to a scientist who equated the foreign European and Slavic, in general, even restored the foreign European !?
I want to look into his false eyes :)
No one has dates for the migration of the Aryans, there are plus or minus five hundred years, from what to proceed from the recording of the Vedas, the Assyrian chronicles? Archeology will not help here!
Rather, representatives of the Baltic and Finno-Ugric languages ​​\u200b\u200b(see hydronyms) lived on the Russian plain, there are Iranianisms in the very south - the rivers Don, Dnieper, Dniester, Danube from the Iranian Don (Dun) big water.
In the Balkans, the languages ​​of the Pelasgians are generally non-European, Greek contains a large layer of non-Indo-European words, names, verbs.

Here's the link, if you're curious.
Anatoly Klyosov. WHERE DID THE SLAVES AND "INDO-EUROPEANS" COME FROM? THE ANSWER GIVES DNA GENEALOGY.
http://ustierechi.ucoz.ru/publ/15-1-0-33

I do not advise you to get involved in Klyosov :) Of course, he builds cool trees with a haplotype and for beginners his reading is interesting, but at the same time his information is not accurate. So, for example, I met critical articles (unfortunately I will not give a link) on the topic that in his research he uses haplotypes and predicts haplogroups from them in a probabilistic way, which does not exclude errors. Also, I do not recommend nailing to any nationalist forums. Nationalism is good in moderation, but not in the case when they try to fit the sciences under the ideology :) I recommend communicating on the molgen.org forum, there are historians, geneticists, and the leadership of Gentis.
-----
In general, according to your discussion, I can say that you will not find out the truth, all this is speculation anyway. As well as the fact that dark Indo-Europeans once came to Scandinavia and colonized the local slender, fair-haired and blue-eyed Nords - And so the Proto-Germans turned out :)

According to historians, people settled Europe/Scandinavia several thousand years ago (maximum 10,000-20,000 years ago), and before that it was very cold there. Who came earlier and who later is a question, and I think no one will answer it for sure. That's why I wrote that all we have is hypotheses and assumptions.
Here is a map of the distribution of blond hair in Europe - http://lh4.ggpht.com/_OXy57y6j2Qc/TE9ZiLJAXeI/AAAAAAAAAAk4/2Qx24d1zFQY/s800/eu_li ght_hair.jpg
Here is a map of the distribution of light eyes in Europe - http://lh4.ggpht.com/_OXy57y6j2Qc/TE9ZmUTjh_I/AAAAAAAAAlE/mAn3w8M71SA/s800/eu_fa ir_eyes.jpg
In general, maybe light eyes and hair could have been brought by the Indo-Europeans (R1a), but the problem is in England and a little less in Finland, there is very little R1a. Therefore, most often in articles I came across the identification of blond hair with I1, and light eyes with I1 or I*.
Here is the distribution map of I1 - http://lh5.ggpht.com/_OXy57y6j2Qc/TE9ZkvFrS-I/AAAAAAAAAlA/TrBszvNXWXw/s800/Haplo group_I1.jpg

Simply put: Ole Klindt-Jensen. Denmark before the Vikings. 2003.
http://mirknig.com/knigi/history/118127402...o-vikingov.html
in addition, archeology in Scandinavia highlights the culture of battle axes, which migrates from the Baltic to Scandinavia and is anthropologically very close to modern Scandinavian types.
The time of settlement is not earlier than 3000 BC. Before this period, the fossil material is extremely small and contains household items, skeletal remains characteristic of modern Laplanders who probably came from the south a little earlier.
The sagas speak of the same, telling about the long war of Odin and his people upon their arrival in Scandinavia.

http://www.celtica.ru/content/view/34/164/
The Mesolithic in Northern Europe differed significantly from the Mesolithic of the Mediterranean and Atlantic parts of the European continent.
The Mesolithic in Northern Europe differed significantly from the Mesolithic of the Mediterranean and Atlantic parts of the European continent. Human exploration of territory Northern Europe occurred as the glacier melted. Following the receding glacier, herds of reindeer adapted to life in the Arctic conditions advanced, and after the deer hunters moved - people of the end of the Paleolithic and the beginning of the Mesolithic. The development of fishing and seafaring created the conditions for the resettlement of people along the sea coast, which was freed from under the ice. Early monuments of human advancement to the North belong to the Hamburg, Federmesser and Ahrensburg cultures. We have already considered them in the Paleolithic section.
It is likely that adaptation to the conditions of constant forest advance led to the formation of macrolithic cultures in the northern European regions, which used coarse ax-shaped tools for felling trees. In the early post-glacial period (preboreal - 8100/7800 - 7000/6500 BC), forests spread far to the north and are represented by cold-loving trees (mainly birch and less pine). At this time, in the north of Germany and in Scandinavia, few locations of deer and elk hunters, as well as roe deer, wild boar, etc., are known.
By the end of the preboreal period are the sites of the Lingby culture (named for the location of Lingby, or Lyngby - Lyngby, on the western coast of the island of Zeeland, Denmark). The most characteristic are picks or axes made from the horn of a reindeer or (rarely) a red deer1 and rough triangular stalked arrowheads. Rarely there are coarse large tools close to later macroliths. Lingby-type sites are seasonal and temporary; the population was apparently very mobile and consisted of wandering bands of hunters and gatherers. In addition to Denmark, the lingby culture is known in Germany and southern Sweden.
The Mesolithic in northern Germany is represented by monuments of the so-called northern culture axes, which is divided into three stages, named after the excavated settlements of Pinnenberg, Duwensee and Oldesloe. At the settlement of Pinnenberg, located in the Ahrensburg peat bog, several dwellings were found, a large number of hearths and burials 2.
In the stone inventory, along with wide scrapers, coarse chisels, micro-chisels, and tips with a handle, there are flat axes, processed only on one side. The settlement of Duwensee near Hamburg served as a seasonal hunting and fishing site belonging to the Maglemose culture (see below). Primitive hoe-axes (Kernbeil) and flat axes made of horn3 have been found. At the Oldesloe stage, the processing of axes improved markedly, trapezoidal arrowheads and microtools of various shapes4 appeared.
Mesolithic hunting cultures are also represented by dune settlements on the Middle Elbe and settlements on the coastal terraces and mountain uplands of Thuringia and Saxony.
The beginning of the Mesolithic in Northern Scandinavia includes the cultures of Fosna (Fosna), Komsa (Komsa) and Askola (Askola). The Komsa culture is widespread in the north of Norway (Finmarken), in the north of Finland and on the Kola Peninsula (to Murmansk) and represents the oldest monuments of human exploration of the Arctic strip. About 100 localities are known, where flakes and hard stone tools were found: dolomite, flint and quartzite. Basic forms: arrowheads with retouched handles, thick chisels, scrapers on blades, knives made of blades with retouched backs, disc-shaped axes. Less common are microliths (in particular, lanceolate). Occasionally there are also tools similar to the axes and points of the Paleolithic era.
It is possible that the physical properties of the hard rocks of stone, from which the tools were made, did not allow the development of such clear and stable forms as those made from flint. Therefore, the stone tools of the northern Mesolithic have a rough and primitive character. Initially, this group of monuments was assigned to the Paleolithic period and called the "Arctic Paleolithic"5. However, further studies have shown that the sites of the "Arctic Paleolithic" are synchronous with the Mesolithic cultures of the more southern regions. Apparently, tools made of horn and bone were widely used, but the special conditions of the occurrence of cultural remains led to the complete decomposition of objects made of organic materials here.
In Finland, at the same time as the Komsa culture, the Askola culture existed (settlements were found in the valley of the city of Porvon-Joki, Askola region). Some scholars view it as an offshoot of the komsa culture. The tools are made entirely of quartz. Basic shapes: scrapers, cutters, drills, arrowheads. There are finely retouched items6. Both of these cultures date back to the 8th millennium BC. e. and, according to researchers, have their original forms in the settlements of the Hamburg and Ahrensburg cultures7. It is possible that their appearance is associated with the northward movement (after the end of the Ice Age) of deer hunters. Fosna is a culture similar to Askola and Komsa, common on the western coast of Norway, north of Bergen and on Helgoland. Other finds are known from Ostfold in Norway and from the west coast of Sweden. Fosna culture got its name from a small island in the city of Kristiansund, where typical things were first found. The inventory is similar to that of the Komsa culture, but there are also large, coarse arrows of the lingby type8. Culture known only from finds stone tools. guns from organic matter(bone, wood), apparently, did not reach us, the places of settlements were not found.
Regarding the economic forms of these northern Mesolithic cultures, we essentially know nothing. Probably, these forms are close to the economy of the population of the circumpolar regions9.
It is debatable whether some of the Norwegian rock carvings belong to the Mesolithic era - drawings of animals, scenes of hunting sea mammals and catching fish in an ice hole. Most of these images were made in the Neolithic era, and only a few can be presumably attributed to an earlier time.
So, probably, the realistic group of images in Finnmarken can be attributed to the Mesolithic and associated with the Komsa culture. These images are located exclusively near water - along the sea coast, rich in fiords, near rapids and waterfalls. In contrast to later stylized images drawn with paints or made in dot technique, these naturalistic drawings are carved on the rocks. The object of the image is the game that was hunted on land and on the water: elk, deer, bears, whales, seals, waterfowl. The fact that most of the drawings are located in places where the most favorable conditions for hunting still exist, suggests that they are associated with the magical actions of Mesolithic hunters.
The late Mesolithic culture of Finland (VII-IV millennium BC) - Suomusjärvi - is named after the district in the south of the country, where its monuments were first discovered. In addition to the southern regions of Finland, the Suomusjärvi culture is widespread in the upper reaches of the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Bothnia and in Karelia. Despite the fact that the later monuments of this culture belong chronologically already to the Neolithic era, the carriers of the Suomusjärvi culture did not know ceramics. The leading forms of stone tools were primitive axes, oval in cross section, with sharp corners, spearheads made of slate, chisels with a rounded back, scrapers, drills, arrowheads made of quartz. In the settlements, hearths were found and the foundations of oval huts with square vestibules were traced. There are different points of view on the origin of the Suomusjärvi culture. According to one of them, it was brought by people who migrated from the southern coast of the Gulf of Finland, according to another, more provable, it represents the latest stage in the development of the Askola culture.
One of the most significant Mesolithic cultures in Europe - maglemose - is named after a peat bog located near the city of Mulerup (Zeeland), where in 1900 the remains of an ancient settlement were discovered. This culture is spread from East Anglia to the Baltics and from Southern Norway to Picardy. The most famous settlements of this culture on the island of Zealand - Holmgard (Holmegaard) and Sverdborg (Svaerdborg); in England - Broxbourne, Killing-Heath, Newbury; in Germany - Kalbe, Dobbertin, Duwensee; in Sweden - Istaby (Istaby), Omossen (Amossen), Sandarna and others.
The settlements of the Maglemose culture are located among swamps and swamps, on capes and separate islands of land along the banks of rivers and lakes. But, apparently, some of them are only seasonal settlements of hunters and fishermen, used in the dry season. At the Maglemose site, which gave the name to the culture, the preserved items were found in a peat bog, but in the Mesolithic there was a lake. The form of the settlement could not be established. It is unlikely that these were piled buildings, most likely, people lived on floating rafts, on which huts stood.
We hardly know what the huts of the Maglemose culture looked like. According to some traces that were found in the swamps of Denmark, these were square-shaped buildings, but with rounded corners and a floor made of pieces of birch and pine bark. The walls consisted of thin poles stuck into the ground, tied together in the form of a roof12.
The economy was based on hunting wild bull, red deer, elk, wild boar, bear, beaver, squirrel and various birds - ducks, swans, etc., as well as gathering, in particular hazelnuts, and fishing.
The tools of the Maglemose culture are a combination of microliths of Soviet technology with various weapons and tools made of bone and deer antlers and with large stone tools (macroliths). The latter are often found fixed in horn muffs. There are also large tools in the form of clubs with protrusions - trunnions on the sides and through holes. They are made by the so-called point retouching, i.e. e. successive chipping of stone particles, and then drilling. Single polished axes are known. Bone tools are represented by harpoons of various shapes, axes with obliquely cut blades, handles with deep grooves into which sharp blades made of flint plates were inserted, arrowheads, and horn clutches for axes. Bows were made of elm (elm), and the tops of wooden arrows were burned.
NOTES:
1. The main trunk of a deer antler served as the handle of an ax (or pick), and a part of the lateral process served as the blade. Back to text
2. A. Rust. Die Funde vom Pinnenberg. Neumunster, 1958. Return to text.
3. G. Schwantes Deutschlands Urgeschichte. Stuttgart, 1952 (7th ed.); K. Kersten. Vorgeschichte des Kreises Herzogtum Lauenburg. Munster, 1952. Return to text.
4. G. Schwantes. Die Urgeschichte von Schleswig-Holstein. - In the book: Geschichte Schleswig-Holstein, Bd. 1. Neumunster, 1956; L. Ya. Krizhevskaya. New data on the chronology of Late Paleolithic and Mesolithic sites in the north of the GDR and the FRG. - In the book: At the origins of ancient cultures..., pp. 52-62. Back to text
5. Within Russia, monuments were discovered by B. F. Zemlyakov in 1936. The name "Arctic Paleolithic" was given by archaeologists Nummedal and others. See: J. Boe et A. Nummedal. La Finnmarkien. Oslo, 1936; B. Zemlyakov. Arctic Paleolithic in the north of the USSR. - Soviet archeology, V, 1940, pp. 107-143; Gurin. Ancient history of the north-west of the European part of the USSR. M. - L., 1961, pp. 26-44. Back to text
6. M. Kivikoski. Suomen esihistoria. Helsinki, 1961; She is. Finland. London, 1967, pp. 20-29. Back to text
7. Luho. Die Komsa culture. - Suomen Muinasmuistoyhdislyksen Aikakauskirja, 57, 1956; He is. Die Askola Culture. - Right there. Back to text
8. Hagen. Problemkompleks Fosna. - Fynd, 1963. Return to text.
9 Freundt. Komsa - Fosna - Sandarna. Problems of the Scandinavian Mesolithicum. - Acta Archaeologica, v. XIX, 1948, pp. 1-68. Back to text
10. e Steinzeit. Vierzigtausend Jahre Felsbilder. - In the book: Die Kunst der Welt. H. G. Bandi (Ed.). Basel, 1960. Return to text.
11. Brondsted. Nordische Vorzeit. I. Steinzeit in Danemark. Neumunster, 1960. Return to text.
12. G. D. Clark. The Stone Age Hunters. London, 1967, p. 96. Return to text.
Fishing techniques have reached such perfection that over the following millennia, right up to our time, few new improvements worthy of mention can be listed. Fishing tools were harpoons and arrows, a three-pronged spear had already been invented, and tops and nets were used. But the most remarkable invention was the curved fishhook (straight pointed hooks appeared as early as Upper Paleolithic). Fishing and swamp hunting created a need for boats. Dugout boats and oars have been found in the peat bogs of the Maglemose culture. In the processing of wood, in particular in the manufacture of boats, in addition to axes and chisels, fire was used, which burned the tree from the inside. Maglemose people had hoes - massive points made of horn or tubular bones, which served to dig up the roots of edible plants. The gathering of edible plants was of great importance in the economy of northern hunters and fishermen. In the eastern regions of the Maglemose culture, a domestic dog was known.
Bone products of the Maglemose culture are most often decorated with simple geometric ornaments in the form of rhythmic combinations of straight and oblique lines, hatched triangles, etc. The ornament is cut or scratched, sometimes filled with resin. Pendants and figurines of animals carved from amber are very rare. Two images are unique: five male figures engraved on a bone found in Rimarkgarden near Sorø in Denmark, and two deer on a bone ax from Schonen in southern Sweden.
Although, in general, the beginning of the Maglemose culture dates back to the 7th millennium BC. e., some of the earliest monuments (protomaglemosis) date back to the VIII millennium BC. e. The sites of Klostermund in Jutland and Vig in Zeeland13 and the site of Star Kapp off the coast of North East England (Yorkshire) are dated in this way.
The radiocarbon date of Star Kappa is 7535±350 BC. e.14 This was the time when England was still connected to the continent. The settlement was located on a platform of birch branches, stones and clay on the edge of the lake. No remains of residential buildings have been found. But still there is reason to believe that within 12-15 years small group out of four or five families left the settlement and reoccupied it in winter and spring (from October to April)15. The economy was based on the gathering and hunting of deer and other animals and waterfowl. The remains of the oldest dog in Europe (and in the world) have been found. Stone tools are mainly represented by coarse flakes. Of the 17 thousand stone tools, only 7% are tools of completed forms, and only 248 microliths. There are many tools made of bones and horns, including harpoons and hoes. An oar was found - the oldest evidence of the existence of navigation.
On the whole, the monuments of the Maglemose culture testify that people who, after the retreat of the glacier, settled in the north of Europe, are moving here to settled life on the basis of fishing and hunting.
Towards the end of the Mesolithic in the north of Europe, the cultures of coockenmeddings (kitchen leftovers), or shell mounds (close to the Asturian deposits) belong. The most typical of these cultures is Ertebolle, named after the area near Aalborg (Denmark). Kokkenmedding Ertebolle (discovered in 1840, the main excavations were carried out in 1893-1897) is a layer of debris (with a predominance of shells) 330 m from the modern coastline. Its length is 140 m, width 30-40 m and height up to 1.5 m. In this layer, between the shells and bones of animals and fish, several thousand flint tools were found, among which the macrolithic ax-cutter (tranchet) characteristic of the Neolithic is especially interesting. and an ax-hoe (pic). If there were several such tools in Maglemoz, then here there are 789 of them for 8600 finds. Instead of long-blade arrowheads, trapezoidal arrowheads appeared. In some swampy deposits of southern Sweden and northern Jutland, such arrowheads have been found along with surviving arrow shafts. The oldest samples of ceramics were also found here - thick-walled, pointed-bottomed vessels molded from clay mixed with sand or crushed shells, which protected them from cracking during firing at the stake. The walls of the vessels are smooth, without ornamentation, sometimes striated, usually scars or pits run along the upper edge of the rim.
There are also oval saucers with a rounded bottom, which probably served as lamps in which fish oil burned. Some archaeologists have suggested that pottery was not invented by the tribes of the Ertebolle culture, but brought by some newcomers from the southwest. However, no earlier settlers have yet been found who could teach this art to the Ertebolle tribes. The remains of hearths were found in the Ertebolle cultural layer.
The very fact of the mass accumulation of garbage testifies to the sedentary nature of man. However, the buildings are unknown to us. Probably, the dwellings were huts or tents, from which only platforms that served as floors, and stone hearths have come down to us.
At the sites of the Ertebolle culture, a significant number of human bones were found scattered throughout the territory of the settlement. (A typical example is the Dyrholmen site in East Jutland.)
Cut marks on many of the bones leave no doubt that the meat was cut off with a flint knife. Tubular bones are split to extract bone marrow. Undoubtedly, this is evidence of cannibalism. But the question of the causes of anthropophagy remains open: whether it is simply associated with a lack of food or had a ritual significance16.
In addition to coastal kokkenmeddings, settlements close to the Ertebolle culture, but without accumulation of shells, are known in northern Europe. Such are settlements on lakes within Denmark (Vester-Ulslev and others) with the remains of a hearth and ceramics of the ertebolle type, near Limhamn in Sweden.
AT Scandinavian countries there are axes made not of flint, but of diorite, hornfels, slate, slate17.
Ertebolle culture arises on the verge of the Mesolithic and Neolithic (in the 5th millennium BC) and continues to exist when the Neolithic was already developed in Central Europe and lived ancient farmers. Various researchers place the ertebolle either in the Mesolithic or in the Neolithic. The fact is that if we recognize the presence of ceramics and polished stone wedge-shaped axes as characteristic of the Neolithic, then both of these features are present in the Ertebolle culture.
However, this is a typical forest culture of hunters and gatherers, and there is no sign that is the most important for the Neolithic era - the transition to a productive economy.

In the area of ​​territorial mixing of the Slavic population with the Scythian-Sarmatian (forest-steppe lands between the Dniester and the Dnieper, most suitable for agriculture), a Slavic-Iranian symbiosis is taking shape. As a result of the process of gradual Slavicization of the natives, a new formation is formed, known in historical sources as Antes, it is an Iranian ethnonym inherited by the Slavic formation, which survived symbiosis with the Scythian-Sarmatians. Their monuments make up the Podolsk-Dnieper region of the Chernyakhiv culture, in which such elements of house-building, funeral rituals and molded pottery are manifested, which became very characteristic of the early medieval Slavic culture of the Dnieper-Dniester region.
The period of Slavic-Iranian symbiosis includes a number of linguistic and cultural elements that were adopted or inherited by the southeastern part of the early Slavs from the Iranian world. As a result, a whole group of new words penetrated into the Slavic language from Iranian, such as steppe, hut, boot, pants . In list pagan gods who were worshiped East Slavs, chronicles call Khorsa and Simargl, whose Iranian (Scytho-Sarmatian) origin is indisputable. Among the Russian leaders who signed in the tenth century. agreement with Byzantium, there were people with Iranian names - Sfandr, Prasten, Istres, Frasten, Fursten. The Slavic names of the Croats and the North (northerners) known from the annals are also of Iranian origin, as, according to many researchers, and the very name of the Ants. "Anty" in translation from some modern languages means "outlying", "border dwellers". Apparently, the population of the Northern Black Sea region "christened" so a group of tribes located on the southeastern outskirts Slavic world who came into close contact with the Scythians and Sarmatians. Linguistic influence is manifested in the materials of vocabulary, elements of phonetics and grammar. This gave rise to V.I. Abaev to assert that the Scythian-Sarmatian ethnic substratum participated in the ethnogenesis of the considered group of Slavs. An analysis of linguistic Iranianisms allows us to say that in Roman times the Ant dialect region was formed. The Iranian heritage in the southeastern part of the settlement of the Slavs is also revealed in spiritual culture and anthroponymy.
To date, science has collected a lot of facts that quite reliably testify that at a certain stage the Slavs lived in the neighborhood of the Roman world and mastered a number of elements of its culture. Researchers have repeatedly paid attention to the impact of Roman civilization on some aspects of Slavic folk life. So, there is no doubt that the name of the calendar cycles (kolyada, rusalia, etc.) was adopted by the Slavs from the Romans back in the all-Slavic period. Analysis of the early medieval ceramic material, carried out by Czech researchers D. Byalekova and A. Tirpakova, showed that the vessels were made in accordance with Roman measures even at the time when the Slavs lived north of the Carpathians.

Indeed, very similar languages ​​\u200b\u200bare Hindi and Russian (and everything is clear without translation :)
The Slavs lived there, the Proto-Slavs, the Aryans, and that was their language. It was they who brought their language to India, Iran, Afghanistan.
Slavs vahām̐ rahatē thē, praslavyane, arias, aura yaha unakī bhāṣā thī. Ki vē apanē dēśa mēṁ apanī bhāṣā, īrāna, aphagānistāna lāyā.

The material of the article is presented in a greatly simplified form ... Absolutely global catastrophes are not taken into account. In the described period of time, there were 2.1 - 70 (+ -2) years ago a supervolcano eruption occurred - as a result of which the "other people" probably died, except for "Chromosomal Adam". Not the fact that he lived in Africa. The map of the world was then quite different. Another global catastrophe happened 11.5 thousand years ago - dozens of large animals died out and, obviously, most of the people died. And, only after the climate calmed down, people began to multiply again and settle in free territories - "In those days, between 6 and 4 thousand years ago, there was a great migration of peoples." It is necessary to replace the term "resettlement" with "resettlement"!!! And it is not necessary to remember the Roman Empire in vain. I am now rereading a thick smart book with a name like that - you're laughing!!! Zadornov is simply resting compared to historians !!!

Many European and Oriental languages ​​are close to each other. All of them belong to a single "Aryan" or Indo-European language family. However, historians are still arguing whether the "Aryans" actually existed.

Aryan etymology

The Aryans are the ancient peoples of India and Iran who spoke the Aryan languages ​​that are part of the Indo-European language family. The etymology of their self-name is very mysterious. In the 19th century, a hypothesis was put forward that the ethnonym "Aryan" came from the words "nomad" or "farmer". Already in the 20th century, scientists believed that the Indo-European ar-i̯-o- means “one who is hospitable to ari”, and “ari” can be translated from ancient Indian as “friend” or, conversely, “enemy” (the opposite meaning of the same the same word or related words is characteristic of ancient languages).

The unifying meaning can also be "a tribesman from a foreign clan", since he could be both a friend and an enemy. Thus, the concept of "Aryan" denoted a person who is part of the ethnic totality of the various tribes of the Aryans. The hypothesis is confirmed by the presence in the Vedic pantheon of the god Aryaman, who is responsible for friendship and hospitality.

Another vector of etymological research leads us to a different meaning of the word "Aryan" - "freeborn" and "noble", which came from the Semitic languages. It is possible that the rudiments of this word were preserved in the Old Irish language, in which "aire" is translated as "noble" or "free", as well as in some others.

Where did the arias come from

Recent studies show that the ancient pra-Aryans were originally a single people, and only in the second millennium BC they were divided into two branches - Iranian and Indo-Aryan. The very word "Iran" has a connection with the word "Aryan", and means "land of the Aryans". At the same time, it is important to take into account that modern Iran is only a small area on the map of those vast territories that were occupied by ancient Iranian peoples: Iranian plateau, middle Asia, Kazakhstan, steppes north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea and others. In addition, the commonality of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches proves the similarity of the sacred texts - the Iranian Avesta and Indian Vedas. To date, there are several versions of where the arias came from.

If you believe linguistic hypothesis, the Aryans migrated to India and settled there around 1700-1300. BC. The version is based on the study of ancient languages ​​and customs reflected in historical sources. Linguistics shows that India was not the birthplace of the Aryans - as a rule, in the region of origin of any language family there are many various languages and dialects of the same family, and in India there is only one Indo-Aryan branch of languages. In Central and Eastern Europe, by contrast, there are hundreds of varieties of Indo-European languages. It is logical to assume that it was here that the Indo-European family of languages ​​\u200b\u200band peoples originated. In addition, having come to India, the Aryans encountered its indigenous population, speaking the languages ​​​​of another family, for example, Munda (Austroasiatic family) or Dravidian - languages ​​​​from which archaic borrowings in Sanskrit were taken.

Most recognized in this moment- the barrow hypothesis. According to her, the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans was the Volga and Black Sea lands, where archaeologists recorded the Yamnaya culture. Its representatives were the first to build war chariots, which allowed them to capture more and more territories and spread their influence over the entire Eurasian continent.

Pseudo-scientific speculation

In addition to academic versions, there are dozens of fantastic ones: that the Aryans, in fact, are inhabitants of the mythical Hyperborea, who came from the Arctic; that they are the immediate ancestors of the Germans, Russians or someone else. As a rule, such theories are in demand among nationalist-minded communities to build a pseudo-history of a certain people. The main goal is to "prolong" the history of their country.

Aryan culture

The Aryans or Indo-Iranians left a rich cultural legacy. In addition to the most important written heritage, such as the Vedas and Avesta, the later Mahabharata and Ramayana, the Aryans also left monuments of material culture. Originally a semi-nomadic people, they focused primarily on raising cows and horses. The main weapon of the Aryans were arrows. These peoples were familiar with irrigation systems, forging copper and gold products.

The Aryan family was patriarchal, in each family there were other members, slaves and cattle in addition to the head of the family. Families united into clans, communities and tribes, sometimes at war with each other. That three-class social system, which became widespread in ancient Iranian and Indian societies, was not as strongly developed among the Aryans, however, its main features were present. At the top of the hierarchy were priests, future Brahmins, and kshatriya aristocrats who commanded common people. The Aryans were a warlike people, extracting land in search of new lands and pastures.

Origin

The origin of races before the 19th century was a historical mystery. However, at the beginning of the century, scientists discovered the commonality of many European languages ​​​​with the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof India and Iran. All these languages ​​​​were called the Aryan language family - later it will be called Indo-European. The self-name of the peoples of ancient India and Iran - the Aryans, was mistakenly understood as the common name of all Indo-European tribes, and archaeologists soon found the so-called Yamnaya culture, which, thanks to the construction of war chariots, quickly expanded its linguistic, cultural and political influence from a small area within the borders of some lands modern Poland, Ukraine and southern Russia to the scale of an entire empire - from Portugal to Sri Lanka.
Despite the fact that no separate race of Aryans existed, and the mixing of physiological characteristics with linguistic ones was pseudoscientific (the peoples of Tajikistan, Persia, the gypsies, and even the Veddas, who are Australoids), were among the speakers of Indo-European languages), scientists began to believe that the community of languages ​​is equal to the community of race. A well-known mistake by the German researcher Max Muller, who accidentally referred to a non-existent " Aryan race”, led to the spread in the scientific world of the opinion about the existence of the Aryan race, and later the emergence of Nazi racial theories.

Who are the "Aryan peoples" and who are the "Aryans"? This question does not have an unambiguous answer, but it must be given, albeit with variations, otherwise the discussion of this concept within the framework of DNA genealogy does not make much sense. Why is the question ambiguous? Yes, for the same reason that the seven textbook sages came to different conclusions, feeling the equally textbook elephant. Aryan different sciences viewed and felt from different angles. But if the seven wise men did not see what their colleagues were feeling, and each drew a conclusion blindly, without agreeing with others, then in the scientific world everyone - it would seem - should know what is happening with their colleagues and strive to create a common picture.

Nothing like this. This mentality was expressed in a few words by the famous Russian linguist, academician, when he was asked why linguists do not take into account the data of archeology in their research? To which the academician replied - yes, because they do it differently. Translating this phrase into more available language, we get: we do not want to take into account the data of other sciences, because too much will have to be revised. And why do we need it? Why should we refuse from already received grants, change plans for scientific work, withdraw dozens and hundreds of already published articles? To show the whole world that we have been wrong for decades? No, sorry, let everything go as it goes.

Approximately in the same vein, another linguist expressed himself, who, like a host of other linguists, is looking for the "ancestral home of the Indo-European language." Here you can put the plural - "Indo-European languages", it does not matter. When the author of this article brought to that linguist modern DNA genealogy data, which irrefutably prove that people, and with them languages, constantly moved, migrated across Eurasia for the last 60 thousand years, and some more or less definite "ancestral home" of IE there can be no language in principle, because languages ​​do not have ancestral homelands at all (except perhaps for Esperanto), there are continuous processes of divergence and convergence of languages, languages ​​are constantly changing in their dynamics, and what kind of “ancestral homeland” can we even talk about?

Moreover, under the "ancestral home" linguists also mean a certain archaeological culture, which should be unambiguously connected with the "ancestral home" of the language. This does not happen at all. No wonder that linguists have been looking for this ancestral home for two hundred years, and they cannot find it. Archaeologist V.A. Safronov in his book "Indo-European Ancestral Homes" counted 25 "Ancestral Homes", which at different times were proposed and defended as "Ancestral Homes". Now their number has been reduced to four or five, but not because other linguists have abandoned their theories. They just left for another world. But even these four or five continue to tirelessly fight each other with varying success. These are Anatolia, the Balkans, the Danube, the Black Sea steppes, and Jutland has already appeared as a candidate for the “ancestral homeland”. And no one can soberly understand that since they haven’t been found in two hundred years, then maybe “something needs to be changed at the conservatory”?

So, that linguist told me in response to the fact that there is no ancestral home in this vein and cannot be - “do you want me to admit that I have been dealing with erroneous ideas all my life? It won't happen." That's the whole story.

We return to the Aryans. This term had a difficult fate. In the 19th century, the concept of "Aryans" as a people was generally recognized, as was the concept of "Aryan language". And in our time, General Albert Pike's lectures, under the title "Lectures of the Arya", continue to be reprinted, extremely popular at the end of the 19th century. Then, through the efforts of German nationalists, the term “Indo-Germanic languages” began to be persistently introduced instead of “Aryan languages”. Let's give the floor to Brockhaus and Efron (Encyclopedic Dictionary of F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. S.-Pb., 1890-1907), an article entitled "Indo-European or Indo-Germanic languages":

... Both terms are currently purely conditional and rather inaccurate, since they do not correspond to the actual state of affairs. The first means the extreme geographic regions in the east and west, between which the "Indo-Europeans" live - that is, India and Europe, but at the same time completely loses sight of America, where at present the overwhelming majority of the population is already "Indo-Europeans". The second term, most commonly used by the Germans, perhaps not without the participation of a certain amount of national chauvinism, has an ethnographic character, meaning the extreme eastern and western representatives of all this big family peoples: Indians in the east and Germans in the west (the most western Europeans - the British, Icelanders, and then the Yankees-Americans belong to the German offspring of the I. family). But this term is also inaccurate, because for a long time already it was not the Indians - the most eastern people of the Indo-Europeans, but the Russians, that is, the Slavs, in the East. Siberia. . With us, the French and the British, the term in the title is more common. By whom it was introduced and since when it has been in use is not exactly known. The second term, long attributed to Fr. Schlegel, in fact, it was first used only in 1831 by Gesenius, before whom someone Schmitthenner came up with a close term indisch-teutsch (Indo-Teutonic). The similarity of languages ​​among themselves is explained by their common origin from one common I. proto-language, which was spoken by the distant ancestors of the current Indo-Europeans, who in that era constituted one whole people. Where the ancestors of the current Indo-Europeans lived, who constituted the I. pra-people, who spoke I. the proto-language, or, in other words, where the I. ancestral home was located, has not yet been determined with accuracy. There are two hypotheses on this score: the Asian one, which places I.'s ancestral home in Asia (within the Iranian plateau), and the European one, looking for it in Europe. The second hypothesis currently has more evidence in its favor and more supporters than the first. According to Schrader ("Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte", 2nd ed., Jena 1890), I. ancestral home was located in the southeast. Russia, on the middle and lower reaches of the Volga. J. Schmidt was looking for an ancestral home in Asia, in the vicinity of Babylon, but his main idea is based on weak arguments (his work "Die Urheimath der Indogermanen und das europaische Zahlsystem", published in "Abhandlungen" Berl. Academician of Sciences for 1890 , is a good critical summary of all previous opinions). In 1891, H. Hirt, following A. Sayce'm, placed I.'s ancestral home to the south of the Baltic Sea, citing witty considerations in favor of his hypothesis and putting forward rather weighty arguments against Schrader (see the journal Indogermanische Forschungen, vol. I, 1892: "Die Urheimath der Indogermanen").

As you can see, at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, both terms - Indo-European and Indo-Germanic languages ​​- were practically equivalent. The term “Aryan languages” also remained in use, but German linguists made a lot of efforts to disavow it, since, in their opinion, only Indians and Iranians called themselves Aryans, and therefore only languages ​​of the Indo-Iranian branch can be considered Aryan.

This argument is, of course, touching. Since when did the names of languages ​​contain exclusively the self-names of ancient people? One might think that the ancient speakers of these languages ​​called themselves "Indo-Germans" or "Indo-Europeans". Or the speakers of the Amerindian languages ​​called themselves that in ancient times - “ American Indians". And native Chinese speakers allegedly called themselves "Chinese". Or "hina". Or "Chinese".

Be that as it may, but the First World War entailed anti-German sentiments, and the "Indo-Germanic" languages ​​were recoiled. In defiance of the Germans, “Indo-European languages” were established in linguistics, despite the artificiality of this term. Worse, they soon began to call their carriers - in the scientific literature - "Indo-Europeans". By the reverse analogy, it's like calling the languages ​​spoken by the Swiss "Swiss languages", and there will also be "Canadian languages", "Australian", "New Zealand". And what is quite logical - the Swiss speak the Swiss languages, the Indo-Europeans speak the Indo-European languages.

Well, okay, this jargon is accepted in linguistics - so be it, this is their professional business, after all. “Marriage” is also a funny term, but they are used to it. Although a good deed, as you know, will not be called marriage. But a new science appeared, and entered into conflict with the "Indo-Europeans", as well as with other slang terms of linguists - with "Iranians" and "Indo-Aryans". The name of this science is DNA genealogy.

The fact is that DNA genealogy operates with clans, tribes, their origin, heredity. The DNA genealogy paradigm cannot accept this sloppy jargon, for example, in this form: “by the end of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC. Iranians were distributed over a vast area from the Don (later from the Dnieper) to the Yenisei "( Klein L.S. Ancient migrations and origins Indo-European peoples, 2007, p. 27.). What "Iranians"? From Iran? On the Don? On the Yenisei? No, not from Iran, linguists say, but it's accepted. And "Indo" is not necessarily from India, but it is also accepted. We, linguists, understand each other what is at stake.

Well, all right, says DNA genealogy through the mouths of its specialists, you linguists call each other whatever you want. But our paradigm does not accept this. Therefore, we cannot call those who lived on the Dnieper between 4500 and 3500 years ago “Iranians”. And since our data show that these were people whose brothers and descendants came to India, Iran, Mitanni about 3500 years ago, then these are Aryans, which is what history tells us. According to its Y-chromosome, according to its easily detectable DNA genealogical line, this is the Aryan genus, haplogroup R1a. So you call them whatever you want, but themselves we will call people, their genus, their population as we see fit within the framework of the paradigm of our science. We do not interfere with your terminology, you do not interfere with ours. This is normal in science. For example, cancer may be an arthropod in one science, and an acute pathology in another. Lincoln can be both a president and a car. And somehow no one is confused.

So we - we will call it as we see fit, we have every right, and when we discuss together how biochemists their common affairs with microbiologists, where they have "enzyme" means quite different concepts, then we will know perfectly well what we are talking about. Experimental facts and other observations are compatible.

There was a cry of children on the lawn. Archaeologist, a bit of a historian and a bit of a linguist L.S. Klein writes to the author of this article: I clarify: the Aryans are speakers of certain languages ​​that have separated from the Indo-European linguistic community, and the Indo-Aryans are speakers of a narrower group of languages ​​that have separated from the Aryans. No other meaning for the term "Aryans" (as scientific term) does not. The term Indo-Aryans - respectively. Native speakers of such and such a language - period» ( ).

And further: " Aryans in science ... it is customary to call those who speak the Indo-Iranian languages. These languages ​​emerged from the Indo-European languages ​​several millennia BC. (it has not yet been determined exactly). The physical ancestors of the Aryan (that is, Indo-Iranian) population - both main and secondary - were not Aryans, but were Indo-Europeans and other peoples. To designate them, in order to avoid confusion, the term "Aryans" in any aspects ... cannot be used».

As we can see, the first definition of Aryans is categorically linguistic (“carriers of certain languages”, which is later specified - Indo-Iranian languages), and has no other meaning than linguistic. The second definition contradicts the first, and already speaks of the physical ancestors of the "Aryan population", and that they were "Indo-Europeans and other peoples." That is, we see a jump from a categorically linguistic concept to the concept of “peoples”.

Mu has already seen this jump above - " already by the end of the first half of the II millennium BC. Iranians were distributed over a vast area ...". That is, “native speakers of certain languages” are already being transferred to the population of certain “Iranians” who lived on the Dnieper. Although from the point of view of DNA genealogy, it would be more correct to write like this: on the Dnieper in the second half of the 3rd millennium BC. and until the end of the II millennium BC. Aryans lived who spoke languages ​​that would later be called the Iranian branch of the Indo-European languages. Although this would also be false, because the same Aryans on the Dnieper at that time spoke with the same success the languages ​​of the Indo-Aryan branch of the Indo-European languages. Because the division of the Aryans into three migration flows - the southern one (which in the future will come in Mitanni), southeastern (which will come to Central Asia, and then to the Iranian plateau), and eastern (which will come to the South Urals, and further south to India) occurred around the middle of the 3rd millennium BC, and already in the process of these migrations, with an understandable delay in time, there was a division of the Aryan language, first into dialects, then into language branches.

And what about modern historians and linguists? Here is what L.S. Klein: " When the division of the Aryan language into two or three groups occurred is a moot point. Some argue that shortly before the invasion of India and Iran (purely linguistic grounds), others - that long before it, Indo-Aryans and Iranians existed separately - at least a thousand years (archaeological grounds). It has nothing to do with their name.» ( Collision of two paradigms? Correspondence with L.S. Klein. Bulletin of the Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy, vol. 4, no. 2, 246-402 (2011)).

Already good. Here the language is already called "Aryan", which does not contradict the paradigm of DNA genealogy, and the question is raised about when the separation of this language occurred. In fact, DNA genealogy has given the answer (see above). But here's what Indo-Aryans and Iranians existed separately for a long time” before arriving in India and Iran is rejected in the paradigm of DNA genealogy. The British and Americans could not exist separately long before they arrived in America on the Mayflower ship in 1620. In the DNA genealogy, the Iranians are those who live on the Iranian plateau, and not those who will come there in another thousand years. And the Indo-Aryans are those who live in India after their arrival there, and not a millennium before. And this is understandable why - in the DNA genealogy, a line of continuity of the genus is built, which is reflected in the trees of haplotypes and subclades. “Iranians” cannot live there on the Dnieper one and a half thousand years before they became Iranians. In linguistics, the reverse course of time is accepted, in which the name of the language is derived from the geography of the arrival of descendants, and extends to ancestors, including distant ones. This applies, for example, to the Finnish languages, where speakers Finnish languages(with prefixes) refer to the Urals millennia before the arrival of their descendants in the Baltic, when the Finns were not even in the project at all. We see the same with the “Iranians” and the “Indo-Aryans”. Quote from L.S. Klein: " Indo-Aryans before India are Proto-Indo-Aryans, but linguistically they can probably be called not Proto-Indo-Aryans, but simply Indo-Aryans". Wonderful. It's like " Americans before America - Proto-Americans in medieval England, but they can be called not Proto-Americans, but simply Americans».

Another example. L.S. Klein writes: “ ... were the ancestors of the Iranians who invaded Iran also Iranians and Aryans in language. Most likely, this question has a positive answer ...". Again we see the "time machine" of linguists-historians in reverse mode. How Iran could be invaded Iranians? They haven't invaded yet. Or were they Iranians before the invasion of Iran? They, of course, not only could be Aryans, but they were, as DNA genealogy shows, because they had the haplogroup R1a1 both before and after intrusions. And until now, there are approximately 20% of R1a in Iran, although the Islamization of Iran has eliminated a lot of R1a carriers. Like the Islamization of the Yaghnobis, for example. There were R1a Aryans, and Sunni Muslims became J2.

Well, how can DNA genealogy accept such a “time machine”, as L.S. Klein in the face of linguists-historians? And he insists, and threatens with punishment - " There are no Aryans outside of their separation from the Indo-Europeans, period. There is a population in which the Aryans later formed. You can call anyone you want Aryans outside of this circle, but the scientific community will not follow you.". That is, he already represents the “scientific society” alone. But here again there is a discrepancy - what kind of "population in which the Aryans later formed"? Can this population be described - a question for historians and linguists? Here, “arias” is also a strictly linguistic concept? Then how could it be formed in the "population"?

We see that historians represented by L.S. Klein either completely confused, or they created for themselves an extremely artificial picture, which they themselves constantly violate. The whole book of L.S. Klein is full of descriptions of the excavations of the burial places of the Aryans and Indo-Aryans (the latter, as a rule, before coming to India), descriptions of the dice with which they amused themselves, descriptions of funeral rites, etc. So this is who they dug up there - languages ​​\u200b\u200band language branches, or the bone remains of real people, whom L.S. Klein constantly calls arias? Examples -

— “As the Rig Veda describes, to Hindustan arias appeared as conquerors, alien to the local population”;
- "The Yamnaya culture - the culture of the Aryans?";
- "Arias in Maikop and Tripoli?";
- "Hittites and Aryans";
- "Mitannian noble warriors, that is, Aryans";
- "the Aryans considered the funeral as a sacrifice";
- "the designation of the four on dice (Aryan Crete- winning four), found in the catacomb burials of the Black Sea region, has exactly the same form as the Vedic lead»);
- “the Aryans came to the country of Mitanni, not to mention India, with war chariots”;
- "Aryans were mobile cattle breeders";
- “in the language of the Saami (Lapps) “ariel” (literally “Aryan”, “from the side of the Aryans”) means “southern”, “southwestern””;
- "Aryans knew the names of the Volga River ... and Ural mountains»;
- “These are, perhaps, arias, but which ones, who settled here, who went further, is difficult to say. Stone boxes and bookmarks speak of the Andronovo tradition, but judging by the large proportion of paired burials ... these burials are closer to the Catacomb tradition than to the Srubno-Andronovo tradition”;
- “Aryans are the common ancestors of both [Iranian-speaking peoples and Indo-Aryan peoples] (and, possibly, thirds). To distinguish in the latter meaning, a prefix is ​​usually added: pra-Aryans or proto-Aryans ”;
- "the disintegration of the Aryan proto-people into Indo-Aryans and Iranians";
“Aryans differ from other Indo-Europeans in their abbreviated vowel system. Proto-Indo-European phonology was built on five vowels, and in Aryan it was reduced to three vowels - this is manifested both in Sanskrit and in the Avesta.

And so on. The last three quotations clearly show that (according to L.S. Klein) the Aryans are the common ancestors of those who went to India and the Iranian plateau, and who became "Indo-Aryans" and "Iranians" in language. The Aryan language of the Balkans and the Russian Plain (as will be described later in the book) was phonologically built on five vowels, and in the changed dialects language branches Sanskrit and Avesta - already on three vowels. DNA genealogy has no objections, in fact, it does not consider this. This is the area of ​​expertise of linguists.

Studies on the history, archeology, linguistics of the Aryans have led to a lot of ambiguities (which, however, is observed in any science), but many of them in this case are associated with a fuzzy base, which is based on the division of the Aryans into "Iranians" and "Indo-Aryans" long before their arrival in the respective territories. Naturally, the ambiguities are also due to the methodologically limited apparatus of linguistics and archeology. There can be no more claims here, this is a given of science at the present stage.

Let us cite as examples a number of these ambiguities, which will become clearer in the course of further presentation. We will quote from the books of L.S. Klein and E.E. Kuzmina, leading Russian researchers on Aryan topics (unfortunately, Elena Efimovna died in October 2013; the author of this article talked to her on the phone shortly before her death, Elena Efimovna was very interested in the possibilities of DNA genealogy and asked to come for a more detailed discussion. Alas , Did not work out).

So, ambiguities (of course, not all are listed here; here are just some examples):

- In the monuments of Andronovo cultures, "they often see a trace of the common ancestors of the Aryans" (here L.S. Klein quotes the works of E.E. Kuzmina, and then proceeds to think whether they were Iranians or Indo-Aryans, inserting an awkward phrase - "Just Iranian features of Sintashta, taken for Indo-Aryan, are still somewhat closer to Indo-Aryan than later ones, "and further generally concludes that" the cultural-defining significance of these monuments is questioned "( Klein L.S. Ancient migrations and the origin of the Indo-European peoples, 2007, pp. 27-28).

- Deeper than this time (the end of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC) [i.e. deeper than about 3500 years ago - AAC] it is not possible to reliably or even presumably trace the Iranians. One can, of course, trace the roots of the Srubno-Andronovo archaeological community, but there are many of them, they again diverge in different sides. Accordingly, there are different hypotheses about the origin of the Srubnaya and Andronovo cultures, and a non-archaeological landmark is needed in order to give preference to one of them ( There. S. 28).

- But even in this time (deeper than the end of the first half of the 2nd millennium BC) there is one significant circumstance that seems very discouraging ... for this time we find not one Iranian-speaking culture, but several claiming to be Iranian-speaking - Srubnaya, Alakul, Fedorovskaya (both are called Andronovskaya), there were some more (at the same time there was a similar Abashevskaya), each of them had several subcultures. Meanwhile, the Iranian languages ​​of the early historical time are close enough to each other to suggest that somewhere in the near past a single Iranian proto-language (or language-base), according to canonical glottochronology, it should have existed from strength in the second millennium BC, and it must correspond to some one culture. This is not the case in the Late and Middle Bronze Age ( There. S. 28).

- [in continuation of the previous doubt - AAK] either by historical time the languages ​​\u200b\u200bdispersed further than estimated; either they developed more slowly than expected; either the language of one of these Iranian-speaking cultures is ancestral for all Iranians, and the rest did not give direct linguistic descendants; or one language can correspond to several archaeological cultures(that is, on the basis of one language, the formation of several cultures took place, since they are formed faster than the language divides). debatable question ( Ibid).

- If we accept that the Scythians (despite the cultural continuity from Western cultures- log and catacomb) really took the language from their eastern ancestors who arrived from afar ... [that is, it is assumed here that the ancestors of the Scythians were somewhere in the east - AAK. On this basis, L.S. Klein further enrolls the Scythians in the "Eastern Iranians" - "the belonging of all of them to the Eastern group of Iranians is clear"] ( There. pp. 28-29).

- Most archaeologists are convinced that the Catacomb cultures are not local ... Where the Catacomb population (or its alien component) came from remains a matter of dispute ( There. S. 57).

- if we accept ... the attribution of linguistic groups, then a pan-Iranian community can be assumed in the nearest previous time - in the early Bronze Age, although all there assumed a pan-Aryan unity ( There. S. 31).

— I believed in the Iranian language of the Srubniks and the origin of the Scythians from them, but… those that from the forest-steppe Scythians (if they are Scythians) are very close in anthropology to the Srubny, there is continuity, but the steppe materials are not similar. The steppes are extremely close to the bones from the Okunev culture of Tuva (precisely from Tuva, and not from the Minusinsk steppes). It turns out that the steppe Scythians came from there ( Speech by A.G. Kozintsev when discussing the book by L.S. Klein, p. 34 on the links above).

- Undoubtedly, the advance of the Indo-European pastoralists to the east took place mainly along the steppe belt, and this process continued, according to archaeological data, throughout the entire 3rd millennium BC. But where was the starting point? In the Pontic steppes? On the territory of foreign Europe? ( ).

- Arguments in favor of the Iranian-speaking Srubno-Andronovo community in our science have been collected, presented, but not completely convincing. Well, there is no Srubnaya or Andronovo culture in Iran! ( Speech by I.N. Medvedskaya when discussing the book by L.S. Klein, p. 34 on the links above) [In general, the degree of elaboration of even the fundamental issues of the history of the ancient world (I millennium BC) can be judged from the article by I.N. Medvedskaya "Conclusion on the discussion", link]

- the origin of the Caucasoid population of Xinjiang ... the Bronze Age remains a complete mystery ( Kozintsev A.G. On the early migrations of Caucasoids to Siberia and Central Asia(in connection with the Indo-European problem). Archeology, Ethnography and Anthropology of Eurasia, 4 (40), pp. 125-136 (2009)) [in general, about the degree of elaboration of even fundamental issues on ancient history Southern Siberia (IV-II millennium BC) can be judged from the article by A.G. Kozintseva].

— The Afanasyev culture, according to the opinion shared by most specialists, both archaeologists and anthropologists, is closely related to the Yamnaya and its appearance in the Altai Mountains and the middle Yenisei was the result of migration from the Eastern European steppes… (mid-4th millennium BC) point to the possibility of the participation of the Yama tribes, in particular the Khvalyn and Sredny Stog, as well as the proto-Yam (Repin) tribes, in the formation of the Afanasiev community ... [as was shown in the articles on the Reformat, migrations went in both directions oncoming courses with a difference of millennia, the Erbins (carriers of the haplogroup R1b) to the west, the Aryans (carriers of the haplogroup R1a) to the east - AAC].

- The results obtained cast doubt on the traditional idea that the only and immediate ancestors of the Afanasievites were the bearers of the Yamnaya culture. At least, the anthropological material does not provide evidence for this (Kozintsev). [In the light of DNA genealogy data, almost the entire work of A.G. Kozintsev should be rewritten, but not because the original data in it are incorrect - just since 2009, a new methodological and much clearer and more definite basis for the analysis and interpretation of data, including anthropological ones - ed. AAK].

— Wed. the following two provisions: (1) It is impossible to call any gracile Caucasoid groups of the regions considered Mediterranean due to their lack of any clearly defined anthropological ties with the Near East, Central Asia and Transcaucasia ( Kozintsev), and (2) anthropological definitions show that the bearers of the Chemurchek culture (Scythians from the north of Xinjiang) are Caucasoids of the Mediterranean type ( Kovalev A.A. Scythians-Iranians from Dzungaria and Chemurchek culture, section in L.S. Klein "Ancient migrations and the origin of the Indo-European peoples", 2007, p. 35) [point 1 is correct, point 2 is not - approx. AAK].

— In his 1996 and 1998 articles ( Kovalev, 1996, 1998, Kovalev, 1999) I substantiated the hypothesis about the origin of the most ancient "Scythians of Herodotus" from the territory of Dzungaria - the north of the modern Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region of the PRC [this position is fundamentally wrong, approx. AAK].

- A number of aspects of the Chemurchek culture (2500-1800 BC) ... allows us to discuss the hypothesis of the Chemurcheks as the ancestors of the Iranians (part of the Iranians) [here again, a mixture of two concepts - specific fossil people with their archeology, and linguistics with an unclear and fuzzy meaning, typical of modern historians - approx. AAK].

- The isolation of the Chemurchek culture and its removal from the territory of France seems to me an extremely large discovery ( Klein L.S. Ancient migrations and the origin of the Indo-European peoples, 2007, p. 36) [the first is at the discretion of archaeologists; second, about withdrawing from the territory of France is nonsense, as was discussed more than once at the Reformat - AAC].

- On the question of the origin of (Aryan) kinship, linguists do not agree. Some ... (Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, 1984) believe that there was a single Aryan proto-language, common to the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, and only shortly before being fixed in ancient monuments disintegrated. Others ... believe that there was no such language, but from the very beginning there was some difference between the neighboring Indo-European dialects, from which the Indo-Aryan languages ​​\u200b\u200bof developed on one side and Iranian on the other ... ( There. S. 59).

I don't insist on any one solution. I state the state of the problem. But before choosing a place on the archaeological scale, where to place the division into Iranians and Indo-Aryans, where is the separation of the Aryans from a larger branch, ... I ask you to first consider the entire ladder of eras ( There. S. 69). [It did not help. The problem remained unresolved, because the very methodology of Klein is vicious - ed. AAK].

- the arrival of the Aryans in Mitanni occurred, apparently, somewhat earlier than the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. (most likely in the middle of the 16th century BC). The question of which branch of the Indo-Iranians the Near Asian Aryans belonged to was debatable for a long time. Now the point of view prevails ... according to which the newcomers were already separated Indo-Aryans or carriers of a special Aryan dialect, although their movement probably also captured related proto-Iranians ( Kuzmina E.E. Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? Material culture of the tribes of the Andronovo community and the origin of the Indo-Iranians, 1994, pp. 5-6).

– Over the past two centuries, since the establishment of the relationship of the ancient Indians, Greeks and Romans by William Jones and the allocation of the Indo-European linguistic community by F. Schlegel, the ancestral home of the Indo-Iranians was localized either in India, or in Central Asia, or in the Pamirs, or in the Arctic zone, or on the Danube, then in the Northern Black Sea region, then in Iran and Western Asia ... Currently, both in linguistics and in archeology, there are two alternative definitions of the center of settlement of the Indo-Iranians ( There. S. 6). [It's about about the Anatolian concept, when in the 4th millennium BC, according to the descriptions of E.E. Kuzmina, the Indo-Aryans moved to the northern part of the Iranian plateau, from there later they proceeded alone - to the west to Mitanni, others - to the east to India; and the European concept, developed at the beginning of the 20th century, according to which the separation of the Indo-Iranians was supposed at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. and the subsequent departure of some of them from the European ancestral home through the Eurasian steppes to Central Asia and from here further south to India and Iran; terminology of "Indo-Aryans" and "Indo-Iranians" - from the description of E.E. Kuzmina; DNA genealogy data combines both concepts in a somewhat modified form, and without including the linguistic terms "Indo-Aryans" and "Indo-Iranians" - approx. AAK]. HER. Kuzmina adds - "Specialists in the archeology of Iran put forward a fundamentally different hypothesis, according to which the ancestral home of the Indo-Iranians was on the territory of Iran", and that a number of researchers consider the Andronovites to be Finno-Ugric peoples ( There. S. 8). HER. Kuzmina concludes: "Thus, none of the mutually exclusive linguistic and archaeological hypotheses about the localization of the ancestral home of the Indo-Iranians has been proven at present."

— The hypothesis of the Iranian (or Indo-Iranian) attribution of the Andronovo culture (community), put forward by I.M. Dyakonov and M.M. Dyakonov and immediately accepted by archaeologists, has never been comprehensively substantiated or verified. The hypothesis of the Ugric attribution of the Fedorov tribes, put forward by V.N. Chernetsov in 1947, was not further argued by anyone ( There. S. 34).

- ... the whole range of considered ... problems is debatable: there are disputes about the allocation, typology and periodization of the Andronovo cultural community, and about the ethnogenesis of the Indo-Iranians ( There. S. 52).

- evidence of the Indo-Aryan attribution of the catacombs ... enough ... But this is how it looks for the author of the hypothesis ... The author of the competing (Andronov) hypothesis E.E. Kuzmina has not raised any objections for a quarter of a century - she answers with complete silence ( Klein L.S. Ancient migrations and the origin of the Indo-European peoples, 2007, p. 45).

This can be stopped for now, since historians and linguists can continue to quote inconsistencies, gaps and incorrect positions regarding the Aryans and their descendants indefinitely. But they did not solve the important, fundamental questions - where did the Aryans come from, where did they go, who are the Aryans, Cimmerians, Scythians in terms of their family affiliation and genealogical continuity, what is the genesis of archaeological cultures, why do they diverge in roots in different directions ... They revealed many private "moments" - about dice, figurines, funeral rites, found a lot of artifacts, but in the transition to fundamental, general provisions, they inevitably stall. And this cannot, of course, be reproached with them - this is simply the chosen methodology. What can and should be reproached is the often aggressive imposition of ideas about their impeccability in interpreting data, about the inviolability of the terminology they have chosen, which is so often viscous, fuzzy, confusing themselves and others. This hinders and hinders the development of science on their front. In words, it is declared that “a non-archaeological landmark is needed”, in fact, a non-archaeological landmark is rejected from the threshold, even without consideration. corporate principle? Jealous that someone else is showing them how to interpret their data? Inertia? Primitiveness, straightforwardness of thinking? Reluctance to learn new approaches and principles of data analysis?

DNA genealogy in a number of questions on the Aryans went much further than historians and linguists in clarifying not private questions, such as who owned the dice found in burials, or where exactly the Aryan words in the Finno-Ugric languages ​​came from, but fundamental questions, including those where the Aryans came from appeared and what is their further fate. DNA genealogy can directly attribute archaeological sites and cultures, and this is done at two levels - the general study of DNA marks in the modern population of those places, and the analysis of DNA directly in fossil bones. The first approach creates a general outline of the possible ancestral affiliation of the ancient population, obtaining dates of the lifetimes of the common ancestors of the modern population according to their ancestral (haplogroup) and tribal (subclade) affiliation, the second specifies the data obtained. Moreover, comparison of the haplotypes of modern and fossil DNA, namely the patterns of mutations in them, allows us to confirm and refine the dates. We have, in fact, an analogy with radiocarbon dating ( although, as E.E. Kuzmin, the use of the dates of the Andronovo sites obtained by the C14 method is incorrect, due to their extreme scatter), but based on completely different principles. This is described, in particular, in the books "Aryan peoples in the expanses of Eurasia" and "Slavs, Caucasians, Jews from the point of view of DNA genealogy."

At the same time, it must be emphasized that DNA genealogy is unthinkable without the data of history, archeology, and linguistics. The conclusions and interpretations of works on DNA genealogy are built into the framework of these sciences, and either generally agree with them, supplementing and deepening them, or they contradict, which is no less interesting, since they lead to a revision and refinement of either the DNA genealogy methodology or data interpretation. history, archeology, linguistics. Science wins anyway. At the same time, DNA genealogy does not at all focus on the interpretations of historians, archaeologists, linguists, it focuses on primary experimental data, measurements, observations, since interpretations are often erroneous, often do not consider alternative explanations for observations and experimental facts (artifacts). It is characteristic, or rather amusing, that in the Russian-language scientific literature for archaeological and other finds the term “artifact” is often used, which means an object or phenomenon that is taken for real, but in fact is the product of unaccounted for errors. Real finds that usually carry information about human cultural activities (as in archeology) are called artifacts. In any case, in the English literature in these cases the term "artifact" is used. I must say that it is not at all necessary to copy English terms in Russian, but it is not worth distorting the tracing paper, since it is tracing paper.

Reading "academic" articles and books on Aryan topics, one has only to regret that modern authors have no idea about the knowledge that DNA genealogy has accumulated to date - both about the Aryans and about the migrations of peoples in the expanses of Eurasia, which shows the analysis of DNA fossils bones, and how this knowledge sometimes overturns existing ideas about our ancestors and the ancestors of the peoples of Eurasia. The author of this article hopes that historians and linguists will enthusiastically accept new, interesting approaches that consider the materials of history, archeology, linguistics from a completely new angle, sometimes turning modern ideas around - but not with opinions, but with objective data, the results of direct observations, measurements, analysis of paintings. mutations in DNA tied to specific peoples, territories, times. Let's hope that after the initial period of swaying on the part of historians, archaeologists, linguists, a new, productive stage of commonwealth will open between them and specialists in DNA genealogy, and this will introduce a new science as part of the methodology in the listed (and other) specialties. As for the question posed in the title of this article, the answer has been repeatedly given in the articles on Reformat.

Anatoly A. Klyosov,
doctor of chemical sciences, professor

Liked the article? Share the link with your friends!

102 comments: Who are the Aryans? Back to the origins of the confusion...

Reader says:

• Igor says:

  Serges says:

  • • Sergeyich says:

      • Leonid says:

        • Boris says:

          Victoria V.S. He speaks:

          • Victoria V.S. He speaks:

          • Anatoly Kuznetsov says:

            • • Kondrat says:

                Reader says:

                Maxim Zhikh says:

                • Victoria V.S. He speaks:

                  • Andrey Klimovsky says:

                    • Anatoly Kuznetsov says:

                      • Sklovinod says:

                        Victoria V.S. He speaks:

                        • I. Rozhansky says:

                          • Victoria V.S. He speaks:

Many European and Oriental languages ​​are close to each other. All of them belong to a single "Aryan" or Indo-European language family. However, historians are still arguing whether the "Aryans" actually existed.

Aryan etymology

The Aryans are the ancient peoples of India and Iran who spoke the Aryan languages ​​that are part of the Indo-European language family. The etymology of their self-name is very mysterious. In the 19th century, a hypothesis was put forward that the ethnonym "Aryan" came from the words "nomad" or "farmer". Already in the 20th century, scientists believed that the Indo-European ar-i̯-o- means “one who is hospitable to ari”, and “ari” can be translated from ancient Indian as “friend” or, conversely, “enemy” (the opposite meaning of the same the same word or related words is characteristic of ancient languages).

The unifying meaning can also be "a tribesman from a foreign clan", since he could be both a friend and an enemy. Thus, the concept of "Aryan" denoted a person who is part of the ethnic totality of the various tribes of the Aryans. The hypothesis is confirmed by the presence in the Vedic pantheon of the god Aryaman, who is responsible for friendship and hospitality.

Another vector of etymological research leads us to a different meaning of the word "Aryan" - "freeborn" and "noble", which came from the Semitic languages. It is possible that the rudiments of this word were preserved in the Old Irish language, in which "aire" is translated as "noble" or "free", as well as in some others.

Where did the arias come from

Recent studies show that the ancient pra-Aryans were originally a single people, and only in the second millennium BC they were divided into two branches - Iranian and Indo-Aryan. The very word "Iran" has a connection with the word "Aryan", and means "land of the Aryans". At the same time, it is important to take into account that modern Iran is only a small area on the map of those vast territories that the ancient Iranian peoples occupied: the Iranian plateau, Central Asia, Kazakhstan, the steppes north of the Caucasus and the Black Sea, and others. In addition, the commonality of the Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches proves the similarity of the sacred texts - the Iranian Avesta and the Indian Vedas. To date, there are several versions of where the arias came from.

According to the linguistic hypothesis, the Aryans migrated to India and settled there around 1700-1300. BC. The version is based on the study of ancient languages ​​and customs reflected in historical sources. Linguistics shows that India was not the homeland of the Aryans - as a rule, in the region of origin of any language family there are many different languages ​​\u200b\u200band dialects of the same family, and in India there is only one Indo-Aryan branch of languages. In Central and Eastern Europe, by contrast, there are hundreds of varieties of Indo-European languages. It is logical to assume that it was here that the Indo-European family of languages ​​\u200b\u200band peoples originated. In addition, having come to India, the Aryans encountered its indigenous population, speaking the languages ​​​​of another family, for example, Munda (Austroasiatic family) or Dravidian - languages ​​​​from which archaic borrowings in Sanskrit were taken.

The most recognized at the moment is the kurgan hypothesis. According to her, the ancestral home of the Indo-Europeans was the Volga and Black Sea lands, where archaeologists recorded the Yamnaya culture. Its representatives were the first to build war chariots, which allowed them to capture more and more territories and spread their influence over the entire Eurasian continent.

Pseudo-scientific speculation

In addition to academic versions, there are dozens of fantastic ones: that the Aryans, in fact, are inhabitants of the mythical Hyperborea, who came from the Arctic; that they are the immediate ancestors of the Germans, Russians or someone else. As a rule, such theories are in demand among nationalist-minded communities to build a pseudo-history of a certain people. The main goal is to "prolong" the history of their country.

Aryan culture

The Aryans or Indo-Iranians left a rich cultural legacy. In addition to the most important written heritage, such as the Vedas and Avesta, the later Mahabharata and Ramayana, the Aryans also left monuments of material culture. Originally a semi-nomadic people, they focused primarily on raising cows and horses. The main weapon of the Aryans were arrows. These peoples were familiar with irrigation systems, forging copper and gold products.

The Aryan family was patriarchal, in each family there were other members, slaves and cattle in addition to the head of the family. Families united into clans, communities and tribes, sometimes at war with each other. That three-class social system that became widespread in ancient Iranian and Indian societies was not as strongly developed among the Aryans, however, its main features were present. The top of the hierarchy were priests, future brahmins, and kshatriya aristocrats who commanded the common people. The Aryans were a warlike people, extracting land in search of new lands and pastures.

Origin

The origin of races before the 19th century was a historical mystery. However, at the beginning of the century, scientists discovered the commonality of many European languages ​​​​with the languages ​​\u200b\u200bof India and Iran. All these languages ​​​​were called the Aryan language family - later it will be called Indo-European. The self-name of the peoples of ancient India and Iran - the Aryans, was mistakenly understood as the common name of all Indo-European tribes, and archaeologists soon found the so-called Yamnaya culture, which, thanks to the construction of war chariots, quickly expanded its linguistic, cultural and political influence from a small area within the borders of some the lands of modern Poland, Ukraine and southern Russia to the scale of an entire empire - from Portugal to Sri Lanka.
Despite the fact that no separate race of Aryans existed, and the mixing of physiological characteristics with linguistic ones was pseudoscientific (the peoples of Tajikistan, Persia, the gypsies, and even the Veddas, who are Australoids), were among the speakers of Indo-European languages), scientists began to believe that the community of languages ​​is equal to the community of race. The well-known mistake of the German researcher Max Muller, who accidentally referred to the non-existent "Aryan race", led to the spread in the scientific world of the opinion about the existence of the Aryan race, and later the emergence of Nazi racial theories.