ARAN ISLANDS - ANOTHER "LAND OF ARYANS"?

Could there be a linguistic and cultural connection between the Aran Islands, ancient Aran (Caucaus region), and Iran/Aryānām ("place/land of the Aryans") which reflects Indo-European continuity between the divergent Western and Eastern migrations of the Indo-European and Indo-Aryan peoples?

The Aran Islands, in Galway Bay off the west coast of Ireland, are a unique geological and cultural landscape, and for centuries their stark beauty and their inhabitants’ traditional way of life have attracted pilgrims from abroad.

I have not been able to find any direct explanation of the meaning of of the word "Aran" online, but its potential linguistic implications are curious. I'm not an expert on Indo-European languages, but I'm reminded of another place called Aran. The word "Aran" was also an ancient Iranian name of the Caucasus region. It is a contraction of 1) Ar – the Indo-European root of the words "Arya" and "Arta" – and 2) an, which is a place name designator, as in Gorgan (place of the wolves), or Abadan (well-built place). Ar-an. I think it basically implies "place/land of Aryans" (similar to the meaning of Iran or Aryānām). Correct me if I'm wrong. But the ancient Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans seemed to have embedded this "arya/airya/aryos concept (or a similar variation) wherever they went. For example, the Greeks upheld major principles such as Arete (virtue; excellence) and Aristos (noble; the best) and Aristocracy (rule of the best) – all of which are linguistically connected to the Indo-European "Arya" or ar-yo concept which connotes various meanings related to Truth/Nobility/Excellence/Virtue/Best/Skillfulness, and it was used as a designator for free or noble people. An "aryan" in the East was typically an upper-caste noble person in ancient India and Iran (which usually included a priestly ethnic class at the very top, and aryan classes traditionally would not breed with non-aryans). An "aristocrat" was a title given to a high nobleman in the West. The ancient Persians called their own ethnic noble stock "Aryans." Iran (Aryānām) connotes "land of Aryans." Ancient Afghanistan (way before the Arab invasions after the rise of Islam) used to be known by the name "Ariana," essentially meaning the same thing as Iran ("land of Aryans"). Before WWII, people used to speculate whether places in Europe with names such as Ireland might indeed have a similar meaning as Iran. Now after WWII, that discussion has been severely suppressed and abandoned, as scholars have settled on simpler linguistic explanations of the term relating to an old goddess called Eire (eerily similar to aire). But there is practically no doubt that the Old Irish term aire, from Proto-Celtic aryos'' was used to describe a nobleman, chief, or freeman among the ancient Celts. There clearly appears to be a connection here.

So this is why I tend to wonder about the Aran Islands off the coast of Ireland.

Maybe it's just a spelling coincidence of transliteration, but I still wonder if there could be a linguistic connection between the Aran Islands, ancient Aran (Caucasus region), and Iran/Aryānām ("place/land of the Aryans") since the Irish word for this place is Indo-European after all, so it's not an entirely different linguistic universe.

I am currently reading a book on the Aran Islands called Stones of Aran: Pilgrimage which opens up with an interesting description of their ritual life:

The circuit that blesses is clockwise, or, since the belief is thousands of years older than the clock, sunwise. It is the way the fire-worshipper's swastika turns, and its Christianized descendant St. Bridget's cross.

We see here yet another symbolic vestige of an ancient Indo-European heritage.

What are your thoughts? What do you think is the significance of the Aran Islands? Are there any Irish people who can explain the exact meaning of "Aran"?

Here are some related links:

Iran - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Etymology
Name of Iran - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Iran
Afghanistan/Ariana: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariana
Old Irish aire / Proto-Celtic aryos - en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aire
ar-yo/aristos/aristocracy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#cite_note-37

Other urls found in this thread:

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311057/)
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Fuck, an italics error screwed up the largest paragraph. Hope it's still mostly legible.

I should have added this as well.

Holla Forums "science"

It's not just a matter of sound. There's a potential linguistic link. The only reason it's controversial is because it's no longer allowed to be discussed.

hush you might trigger the bongs by mentioning the paddies

(((of disputed origin)))

/thread


You're delusional. Even a linguistic link means jack shit, since what matters in terms of race is biological and cultural heritage.

I've actually visited the Aran islands and there's nothing special about them other than that they're Irish Gaelic-speaking.

This.
Stop spamming these pseudoscientific threads along with that ayy one.

FUCK OFF

Firstly, this isn't exactly a racialist thread. But nonetheless, it's known fact that there are major ethnic similarities between ancient Indo-European and Indo-Aryan speakers (although language alone is never a direct determinant). For example, the upper Aryan castes in India are genetically closer in relation to Europeans than the lower castes:

Genome Research: Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations

(Source: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311057/)

"In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians. Moreover, the affinity to Europeans is proportionate to caste rank, the upper castes being most similar to Europeans, particularly East Europeans. These findings are consistent with greater West Eurasian male admixture with castes of higher rank. Nevertheless, the mitochondrial genome and the Y chromosome each represents only a single haploid locus and is more susceptible to large stochastic variation, bottlenecks, and selective sweeps. Thus, to increase the power of our analysis, we assayed 40 independent, biparentally inherited autosomal loci (1 LINE-1 and 39 Alu elements) in all of the caste and continental populations (∼600 individuals). Analysis of these data demonstrated that the upper castes have a higher affinity to Europeans than to Asians, and the upper castes are significantly more similar to Europeans than are the lower castes. Collectively, all five datasets show a trend toward upper castes being more similar to Europeans, whereas lower castes are more similar to Asians."

Celtic languages are Indo-European in origin. Which is why it is sensible to suppose a linguistic link between recurring terms.

Frankly, I don't think you understood the thread because you didn't read it.

I'm discussing possible linguistic links, not racialism. The whole reason we're not even allowed to publicly discuss some of the possible ethnic continuities of Indo-Europeans from East to West is because making these linguistic connections after WWII has become taboo and politically incorrect.

Only as a matter of convenience. You can look them up in academic linguistic books, the Avestas, Persian history, and Herodotus if you want – and you will find the same things. Those particular wiki links I gave don't provide any highly controversial information. I just left those there for quick reading in case some people needed to get some basic background.

Thank you for (((correcting the record)))

What is the comparative method?

Do you realize that all we know of historical linguistics comes from these types of comparisons and ethnic history can be pieced together in the absence of written record by using linguistic evidence.

What a jew you must be.

German/Latin/Scandinavian languages are derived from Sanskrit. There was also a huge civilization in Western China. I think Aryans went out from Tibet and such towards Europe rather than the other way around.

Any research involving the use of the word "Aryan" will be hobbled because MUH HITLER. So sadly we will never really know the true nature of the connections between Iran, the northern Indian Aryan invasions, Aryan Europe, and possibly Tocharia and other silk road civilizations.

The truth has been buried and obscured forever. "Don't you know we're all from Africa originally, goy?"

No I won't. It's your duty as the OP to do that.
Wiki sources are lazyness.
So sage.


What does this have to do with the burger elections?

Reported.

...

This. Exactly the case. It's one of the few words they are sensitive about.

The more I look into comparative linguistics, the more I'm actually surprised that scholars haven't changed their mind on a lot of things and have not been afraid to point out the obvious and innumerable connections between Indo-European and Indo-Aryan languages and cultures.

….Except when it comes to the "Aryan" controversy. I've discovered so many linguistic connections having to do with arya or ar-yo in Indo-European languages which indicate identical or similar meanings to the Indo-Aryan concepts – BUT there is often some disclaimer next to the term which tries to say that this word is mysterious and of disputed origin. I haven't seen this pattern with other words; it's usually always some word or root having to do with the "Aryan" controversy which seems to be almost deliberately neglected or previous agreed-upon interpretations are removed and not mentioned. Not always the case, but I see it frequently. Not every linguist tip-toes around the subject, but most modern linguists are very reluctant to admit that there is a subtle "Aryan" link between Eastern and Western cultures of Proto-Indo-European origin. Or if they do admit it, they will try to emphasize that there is no hard evidence that it has anything to do with any particular race or ethnic group; they typically say that it was only an honorific title of religious or political significance. But if you look closely at how the Aryans of India and Iran understood their status in society, it becomes clear that they are marking themselves as either an explicitly or implicitly separate ethnic group that should abstain from mixing with non-Aryans. The Indians had a caste system which was in part based on varna (translates to "form" or "color") with the darker indigenous peoples at the bottom of the hierarchy and Aryans at the top. And as you might know, castes weren't traditionally allowed to mix. Iranians had an early caste system as well, although it wasn't quite as divided and meticulous, and the ancient Persians explicitly used "Aryan" as an ethnic epithet to differentiate themselves. Similarly, the Greeks used terms like arete and aristos to differentiate the best, the noblest, and most excellent from all the rest. Europeans are more complicated, though. Although you do find claims of noble blood among Westerners, especially among upper-class aristocrats, there appears to be less ethnic differentiation among white people in Europe in terms of explicit racial hierarchy or racial caste systems. Probably because there was less differentiation to start with – at least, much less differentiation when compared with the civilizations of Iran and India which both included or incorporated non-Aryan minorities. So that might explain why white Europeans never seemed to feel as much of a need to draw a clear line between themselves and non-whites with a term like "Aryan" or some similar designation. They barely had to associate or live with non-whites. Nonetheless, the traditional class systems did make use of a variation of the concept with the idea of aristocracy. Traditional aristocrats came from honored families of noble blood.

Obviously, the ancient Aryans of India eventually engaged in outbreeding with the darker populations there, and ancient Persia/Iran was swamped with Arab Muslim, Turkish, and Mongol invasions which included a lot of forced miscegenation. So most of them are thoroughly mixed brown people now – excepting perhaps the rarer fair-skinned Persians and Indians who typically come from an upper caste or class.

I suspect that it is the desired goal of politically correct academics to keep awareness of the ethnic ties between the Indo-European West and the ancient Indo-Aryan East mostly suppressed, as to sever and adequately disassociate them from each other. Plus, the Jews want to be fully included in the idea of (((Western Judeo-Christian civilization))) without being singled out as non-Indo-European Semitic peoples. One way they do this is by emphasizing the fact that today's Indo-Aryan cultures are almost entirely brown cultures, and they will only barely bring up the fact that there were invasions and miscegenation by brown and yellow peoples in those regions which led to this result. They won't even mention the invasions or miscegenation unless they absolutely have to admit it. Otherwise, they will consider it irrelevant because they try to peddle the narrative that languages and cultures have nothing to do with historical racial identities.

Overall, they want to give the impression that there are no direct ethnic ties between Indo-Europeans and Indo-Aryans, and they especially don't want people getting the idea that these ancient cultures had anything to do with white racial types.

Here, have a bump.

we will know

Have an anti-shill bump.