Question

How do most historians explain who the Aryans were?

Answer 1

Explanation:

Aryan (/ˈɛəriən/;[1] Indo-Iranian *arya) is a term which was originally used as a self-designation by Indo-Iranian peoples in ancient times, in contrast to "non-Indo-Aryan" or "non-Iranian" peoples.[2][3][4] The idea of being an Aryan was religious, cultural and linguistic, not racial.[5][6][7] Although the root *h₂er(y)ós ('a member of one’s own group', in contrast to an outsider) is most likely of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) origin,[8] the use of Arya as an ethno-cultural self-designation is only attested to among Indo-Iranian peoples, and it is not known if PIE speakers had a term to designate themselves as a group.[8][4]

Answer 2

Answer:

The concept of the Aryans has been a contentious historical subject as it has been used in various ways to suit a variety of ideologies. What is sometimes called “the Aryan Question” is probably the most complex question in early Indian history and it requires considerable expertise in the interpretation of the evidence which ranges from ecology to philology to genetics.

Explanation:

In the search for the Aryan-language speakers much has overtaken the initial attempts to provide a viable history. The history of this period has become central to a political ideology that insists on the Aryan culture of the Vedas being the foundational culture of India, and of the Aryans therefore being entirely indigenous to the subcontinent and its earliest inhabitants. This is being projected as the popular explanation of how it all began, especially in northern India.

However, it tends to be set aside by most historians. Origins and identities are investigated, but these are not questions avidly chased by scholars. What is being discussed much more now is that insofar as it is a language label how did this language come to be dominant in the first millennium CE, and what were the social changes that took place in this millennium. This involves investigating the structures of societies in different areas and enquiring into how and why they changed.

The basic expertise requires some familiarity with many fields of enquiry: historiography, archaeology, linguistics, comparative mythology, social anthropology and more recently, genetics. The evidence from these when interrelated provides some historical hypotheses. Historians today map cultures, observe their varied interconnections at different levels of society and try to understand the societies that emerge. That there is continual fresh evidence from archaeology, linguistics and other sources further complicates the analyses.

Do mark me as the Brainliest..