Hyperboreas

[Nehustan]

There is without doubt much that has be written about the 'Aryan' peoples of Europe. It is commonly thought that the inhabitants of Northern Europe migrated from the Asia, and thus they are termed as part of the Indo-European family, with lingusitics tracing Germanic languages as derivitive of sanskrit. There is however a school which traces the Celtic languages and thus Proto-Celtic specifically 'Insular Celtic' as not being linked to Indo-European, and it has been mooted as closer to the languages of North Africa and the Levant, with rather than Celtic culture descending south through Iberia (i.e. Galicia), migrating North through Iberia. If one ignores the Adam story for a moment and considers the palaeoanthropological evidence for an african origin for H. sapiens and the subsequent migration, it is more likely that the original inhabitants of Northern Europe came from North Africa than via Southern Asia. C19th popular literature, tho' not strictly academic anthropology, speaks of root races e.g. Madame Blavatsky's book The Secret Doctrine, in which the root race from which Aryans descend is known as the Hyperborean. Hyperboreas is in itself an intereresting term, it is a Greek word meaning 'beyond the north', Hyperborei. Greek literature speaks of lands 'beyond the north' often also referring to 'the happy isles'. When one looks at Tacitus' work 'Germania et Agricolae' it is oft accompanied by Ptolemy's map of the British Isles, the Ocean referred to in the modern era as 'The Atlantic' being described as 'Oceanus Hyperboreas'. It may then be argued that the Celtic people did not migrate from India, and that in fact the migration or at least cultural diffusion may have been predominately in the reverse direction.

 

[Nehustan]

I'm by no means expert in this, the post was just to start a discussion. But feel free to ask about any of the content I touched upon and I will flesh it out as much as possible considering it a research project. I am actually about to buy a book on this exact topic, that being celtic social structure, so I will certainly have some more to write in regards to the Celts specifically. I posted mostly as I consider myself a Brigant, which is the pre-Roman Celtic tribe from my area of Britain, and I noticed the Celtic section of the forum had no threads so thought I'd start one.

 

[NoName]

That's really interesting. However, everything I know about this subject I just learned from reading your post. I don't really have any comments I could make... Maybe I'll have to do some research on this...

 

[ChrisP]

I wanted to click None of the above. . . Even though I'm from NZ there's a lot of Celt in me. Freaky. . . GRRRRrrrrrrr

 

[Nehustan]

Snalespace...let me assure you the use of the word 'freaky' isn't meant to suggest a negative connatation. It means if people were to really know the history of these Islands, they'd be 'freaked out'. Am I forgiven???
:sarcastic

 

[Nehustan]

As a little addition to this thread there has been some finds in the UK recently, which may shed some light on my question...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/4399194.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3613882.stm

The article dates the finds to date from between 4000-3000 B.C. Harappan society in the Indus Valley is dated around 2000 B.C. and is considered to have declined as a result of 'Aryan Invasion' around 1500 B.C. (Wenke, R. J., 1999, Patterns in Prehistory, Oxford Univeristy Press, UK). This of course proves nothing, but does add an interesting chronological dimension to this debate.

 

[ChrisP]

As a little addition to this thread there has been some finds in the UK recently, which may shed some light on my question...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tyne/4399194.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/3613882.stm

The article dates the finds to date from between 4000-3000 B.C. Harappan society in the Indus Valley is dated around 2000 B.C. and is considered to have declined as a result of 'Aryan Invasion' around 1500 B.C. (Wenke, R. J., 1999, Patterns in Prehistory, Oxford Univeristy Press, UK). This of course proves nothing, but does add an interesting chronological dimension to this debate.

I find "aryan invasion" a little strange, as the people of the Indus were originally Aryans before a religious rift which left Vedic and Avestans on either sides of the same Chasm.

 

[Nehustan]

Well its based on Archaelogical data/artefacts from what I can gather. Interestingly I did a quick google and found many pages that speak of the 'Aryan Invasion myth'. Interestingly all of the primary hits on google came from non academic sites, which on the whole deal with 'myth' over science. I will type some of the text from the academic book I referenced...

'A more romantic suggestion is that the Harappan civilisation was destroyed by repeated invasions of semi-nomadic peoples coming out of Central Asia and Iran. The Rig Veda, the oldest surviving Vedic Sanskrit text, describes the conquest of the dark skinned natives of the Indus Plain by lighter skinned Aryan invaders, and the Harappans have traditionally been associated with the former. The translation of Sanskrit literature, first accomplished in the sixteenth century, revealed major similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and European and Central Asian families. These similarities were eventually traced to origins in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia and adjacent areas and associated with tall, long headed, fierce peoples collectively referred to as Aryans or Indo-Europeans. Shortly after 1900 B.C. these peoples apparently invaded and influenced the cultures of India, Central Asia, Western Asia, and Europe. How they were able to do this is one of the great unresolved questions of history' (Wenke, 1999, pp.502-503)

I think we can say that 'Indo-European' is a misnomer as they invaded the Indus, and where not originally from there. As this happened around 1900 B.C, this leaves around a 2000 year discrepency between the Aryans and the early inhabitants of what I have called Hyperboreas, if the recent finds in Eire and Britain are correct.

 

[ChrisP]

Well its based on Archaelogical data/artefacts from what I can gather. Interestingly I did a quick google and found many pages that speak of the 'Aryan Invasion myth'. Interestingly all of the primary hits on google came from non academic sites, which on the whole deal with 'myth' over science. I will type some of the text from the academic book I referenced...

'A more romantic suggestion is that the Harappan civilisation was destroyed by repeated invasions of semi-nomadic peoples coming out of Central Asia and Iran. The Rig Veda, the oldest surviving Vedic Sanskrit text, describes the conquest of the dark skinned natives of the Indus Plain by lighter skinned Aryan invaders, and the Harappans have traditionally been associated with the former. The translation of Sanskrit literature, first accomplished in the sixteenth century, revealed major similarities between Sanskrit, Greek and European and Central Asian families. These similarities were eventually traced to origins in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia and adjacent areas and associated with tall, long headed, fierce peoples collectively referred to as Aryans or Indo-Europeans. Shortly after 1900 B.C. these peoples apparently invaded and influenced the cultures of India, Central Asia, Western Asia, and Europe. How they were able to do this is one of the great unresolved questions of history' (Wenke, 199, pp.502-503)

I think we can say that 'Indo-European' is a misnomer as they invaded the Indus, and where not originally from there. As this happened around 1900 B.C, this leaves around a 2000 year discrepency between the Aryans and the early inhabitants of what I have called Hyperboreas, if the recent finds in Eire and Britain are correct.

Hehehe, one thing I should probably let you know Nehustan: I take myth over "science" (don't get me started) anyday.

I agree that Indo European is a misnomer anyway because the Aryan race was from an area either in or around Iran, which IS Asia? isn't it?

Interestingly enough I was watching a documentary on the History Channel about Pre-history Britain just yesterday, and although I put no stock in any of the dating ("science" again); it did show, through the differences in ancient British farming and through Mitochondrial DNA that there were still people living in the same areas of Britain as their ancestors from AT LEAST 5000 BC (possibly 9000).

I trust DNA evidence because, at the end of the day it's a Dewey Decimal system (simplified I know) of the human race.

 

[Nehustan]

I'm feeling more happy with my 'something much more freaky' option

 

[MountainGuardian]

I find a number of things very interesting here...

The ancient writings of the Hindu talk of a white haired white skinned group of beings called "The sons of God".. They tell of these beings taking human mates and bearing what they called heroes and much much more. If you have never read the Mahabharata or the Epic Ramayana you should.

The ancient Germanics had a belief in what is now termed "Elf" was back then termed "Albinja" from which is derived the Latin term albino. These Albinja were known to them as "The sons of God" they were described as tall and gracile they had white skin, white hair and blue eyes, they are decribed as being exceedingly beutiful, and to have crossbred with humans, the resultant offspring were great heroes. These Gods were described as being benificial to men sometimes other times harmfull.

It is interesting to note as well that both Germanic and Celtic are both indo european languages having a great deal in common with ancient India.

Social law appears to be very similar between the Celts and the ancient Vedas of India.

If it were not for the difference in skin color, hair and eye color one might be tempted to assume that we may have originated from India.

The Aryan theory is interesting, a white skinned, blue eyed fair haired race of very knowleadgeable and technologicaly advanced beings that led to formation of the Celts and Germanic peoples.

To me it seems that "Aryan" and "sons of God" may be in fact be the same thing.

For anyone having a heart attack right now thinking, that would make me Nephilim.... remember, Jesus states that you know what you are by your nature, ie ...not by your genetics... The Nephilim nature is described by John as, "Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die". Viking raiders come to mind when I read that statement, of which I am directly descended.

I was concerned when I read the bible when I was 10 because I thought it likely I might represent Nephilim, not by nature but by body, I even developed two rows of adult teeth after my baby teeth fell out. By 15 I had decided that whatever the case, it made no difference, because I serve my Father, my creator period, and I do it out of loyalty and not for reward. If mine is to recieve no reward, then so be it, I will still serve my father no matter what.

Don't mean to **** anyone off or anything, just my view of this, and I am most definately not an authority on any of this. I have been very fascinated with this subject since ten years of age and have done 31 years of study on it since.

 

[MountainGuardian]

I did not take the poll as I would have had to choose both, from indo europe and the freaky option... Picking one over the over seemed inaccurate to me.