Is there any truth to the theory that aryans/proto indo Europeans laid the framework for the first instances of...

holy shit im talking about the damn PIE peoples that came and mixed with old europe. The ones that became nordic. I know what other fucking people called themselves.

>im talking about aryans in the nazi sense. Before it became a politicized term.
Aryans in the Nazi sense is the politicized term. The Nazis had no idea what Aryan actually meant; if refers exclusively to Indo-Iranians and no other Indo-Europeans.

>Why were PIE significant? Did they lead to a rise in civilization?
No. They were significant for domesticating the horse and spreading it, along with wheels and chariots, around Eurasia. They were also significant because their migrations changed the linguistic and ethnic makeup of Europe, Central Asia, Iran and India, and brought with them aspects of their culture such as their mythology.

The Nazis were retarded

If you're talking about Germanic peoples they had a negligible impact on world history until the decline of Rome

The stop calling them Aryans. If you know that what you're saying is wrong, stop saying it. Don't yell at people who call you out for it.

>If you're talking about Germanic peoples they had a negligible impact on world history until the decline of Rome
This. Nordcucks should be kissing our ass for giving them Christianity and Greco-Roman culture.

The Scandinavian tribes were a part of the Germanic peoples

They were irrelevant until the Viking age

The peoples who 'became Nordic' were not Aryans; they were the Proto-Germanic peoples.

the reason i say aryans is because its signifigant to the question, namley stormcucks think they are gods

You have to remember that in the 1930s and 40s, the research/archeology on the PIE migrations was severely lacking; the term 'Aryan' was misinterpreted by Houston Chamberlain, Hitler, and others into something meaning 'Germanic' or 'Nordic'.

Any semi-literate national socialist now should recognise that the whole idea of 'Aryans' was flawed.

That's like asking about Polish history but calling them Franks because everyone east of Greece called Europeans "Frankish"

Russian Aryan Liberators

Childhood is idolizing Indo-European

Adulthood is when you realize Afro-Asiatic makes more sense

"Aryan" was supposed to be an ancient pan-European demonym because Sanskrit was assumed to be a very ancient and thus linguistically conservative language. They were half right, Sanskrit IS ancient but it is not especially conservative and in fact is quite divergent from PIE.

>The idea that Aryans are Nordic/Germanic Europeans is nonsense, made up by the Nazis.

>Sumerians and Egyptians
That's like saying the Roman Empire and America in the same sentence. GTFO of here with that faggotry

Your point?

The Aryans are not synonymous with Proto-Indo-Europeans

They're a daughter culture

The Nazis didn't know of R1A, they called it Aryan, as a macro title.

Because they were retarded

Aryans has been for a while synonymous with Indo-European, and frankly, i like it. it's simple and easy to say.

>has been
sorry, i meant "was"

no
they invaded many civilizations and spread their culture
similar to turks

>invaded
Dravidian India is about the civilization I imagined IEs invaded. Elsewhere the civilization they built they created.

No. Advanced city building civilization has 3 (or 4, depending who you ask) sources in Eurasia:

- Mesopotamia and the fertile Crescent (including Egypt although they could be a separate source)
- Indus valley
- Yellow river valley

Plus I guess there is Catal Hüyük but we don't really know if they had any impact, might have just been an anomaly, a failed early attempt at city dwelling civilization.

Anyways, Proto-Indo Europeans were still nomadic long after these civilizations started.

Here is the real map

Arrah we wuz takavors and shit

>tfw R1b :(

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucuteni-Trypillian_culture

>Talianki (with a population of 15,000 and covering an area of 335[39] hectares)
Sure famalisimus.

Aryan """"Invasion"""" theory has been debunked looong back.

More like there were some migrations of nomadic PIE people into urban civilizations already existing in India, two groups being mutually influenced buy each others and intermixing to get the modern genetic stock of India

Trypillian civilization dating to 6000 B.C.
Oxus civilization circa 2500 BC
Hittite civilization circa 1800 BC

discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/ancient-towns-excavated-turkmenistan
timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/4000-year-old-Aryan-city-discovered-in-Russia/articleshow/6683681.cms

R1b is linked with PIE better than R1a is.

Cucuteni-Trypillia hasn't got anything to do with Indo-Europeans, or about as much as Aztecs have to do with the Spanish.

What happened to Mesopotamia?

All I know bout them is that they created the first legal codes.

Did they evolve into Persia and the Parthians?

>Cucuteni-Trypillia
b-but they do user

Trypillian were good friends with PIE and intermingled early on. Trypillian then merged with PIE ...

Trypilliam were neolithic farmers so Not indieuropeans

In his book The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia, Philip L. Kohl claims that the Yamna-era steppe culture originated in the Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, and more specifically when the huge towns of the Late Trypillian culture (3500-3000 BCE) in Central Ukraine were abandoned and their inhabitants to[spoiler][/spoiler]ok up a semi-nomadic lifestyle, herding cattle and moving in wheeled wagons.

>good friends
>and intermingled early on

First one is a joke at best, second one is dubious.
IE people descend from a mix of PIE(Russian hunter gatherer) and Caucasus people. This mixing happened east of Kiev in all likelyhood. Neolithic farmers played a lesser and later role in the admixture.