Re: [tied] Archaeological Aspects of the Indo European Problem in M

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, Piotr Gasiorowski <gpiotr@...> wrote:

>
> On 2006-06-13 06:19, mkelkar2003 wrote:
>
> > Archaeological Aspects of the Indo European Problem in Modern
> > Scandinivian Historiography:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/sannikov_sv/thesis.pdf
> >
> > The words "Aryan" and "Indo-Aryans" are used most peculiarly to denote
> > a race even in 2004.
>
> You seem to have misuderstood the text completety. It's about the
> _history_ of the IE question in Scandinavian scholarship. It doesn't
> mention an "Aryan race" at all, and references to "Aryan" in the sense
> "(Proto-)Indo-European" are restricted to the historical context where
> such usage belongs -- the nineteen-teens and 'twenties.
>
> > Toward the end (middle of p. 42) the author seems
> > to be arguing for autochthonous cultural developement instead of an
> > Aryan Invasion of Scandinivia.
>
> Quite the opposite! He argues essentially in favour of the migration
> theory and refutes arguments for the autochthonous theory (see his own
> summary, pp. 42ff.). Of course, not an "Aryan" invasion. The only legal
> use of "Aryan" in modern linguistic terminology is with reference to
> Indo-Iranian speakers.
>
> Piotr
>

Even that use could be falling out of favor.

http://www.answers.com/topic/aryan

" 1. Indo-Iranian. No longer in technical use.
2. A member of the people who spoke the parent language of the
Indo-European languages. No longer in technical use.
3. A member of any people speaking an Indo-European language. No
longer in technical use.
4. In Nazism and neo-Nazism, a non-Jewish Caucasian, especially one
of Nordic type, supposed to be part of a master race."

M. Kelkar