The Aryans (again); 19th century discourse.

[Samar Abbas]

On Fri, 18 Dec 1998, Ashish Chandra wrote:
> What I had meant was that to consider the
> word Arya which means noble and equate it with a race of people is wrong.

  Recently, anaylses of the genes of Indo-Aryans and other Caucasoids
using the most advanced techniques avaliable showed that the Indo-Aryans
belong to the "White Race". This invalidates the concept of Arya meaning
only `noble', but shows that Aryans were a race (and still are).  You can
claim that this race originated in India, but to claim that it does not
exist is rather completely false (and denies the identity of millions). It
also confirms the linguistic evidence of the common Indo-European
heritage, viz. that Indo-Aryans and European Aryans form two branches of
the same race.

> Do we know that the RgVedic Aryans were of one race ?

  The earliest Aryans in India were of predominantly brachycephalic Lunar
stock. Solar Aryans (predominantly dolicocephalic) came later. The term
race is often loosely applied to macro-races (such as the Indo-European
Caucasoids) as well as sub-races (like the Anglo-Saxon, Slav, etc.). So,
if you want to be correct, the RigVedic Aryans were of different sub-races
belonging to one race. Miscegenation with other races in India was
curtailed by strict laws restricting marriage between Aryans and
non-Aryans. So there was probably very little genetic contribution from
non-Aryan races, and it is correct to say that the "RigVedic Aryans were
of Aryan race".

> RgVedic people <> Aryans because Arya means Noble and apparently conquered
> and destroyed the Dravidians !!!

  Further genetic analyses have shown the Sudroids (Dravidoids and
Kolarians) to be of Negroid stock, closely related to Africans. Racial
conflict has always been more acute where white races have encountered
black races. Cf. US South, South Africa, etc.

Samar