It's High Time to Embrace Our Aryan Heritage

Only unity, brotherhood, organization, and a genuine sense of our place and role in history can properly cure what currently ails us..

Aryan.

Virtually no other word or term or conception carries quite as much power, mystique, intrigue, significance.. and rightly so.

Only those who best understand it know its true power.

I’d suggest it’s no coincidence that the one term in our language that - if fully and properly understood - could more effectively help us make sense of all of recorded history, could better clarify and orient and shed light on our present, or more fruitfully orient our future, is the one word that has been most aggressively buried, slandered and mischaracterized and lied about.. muddied and muddled almost beyond repair.

Post-WW2, as academia experienced something of a hostile takeover by predominantly Jewish and far leftist thinkers as worldwide pendulum-swing reaction to the defeat of the National Socialists in Germany, there began this push not only to reframe the historical picture, but also to pretend the term ‘Aryan’ wasn’t actually a racial or ethnic descriptor at all, but rather a purely cultural or spiritual or national or even regional label.

This has been argued against impressively and comprehensively by a greater number of capable minds than I could possibly list here¹ - and now, there’s no more doubt in my mind that ‘Arya’ was very much used and conceptualized as a racial term, initially - however, I’d suggest there’s real value to be found in the perspective of those who disagree.

“The bridge of thoughts and sighs that spans the whole history of the Aryan world has its first arch in the Veda, its last in Kant’s Critique... While in the Veda we may study the childhood, we may study in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason the perfect manhood of the Aryan mind.”

~ Max Muller (giving quite a bit of credit to Kant!)

To put it most simply, I think it’s fair to say that all ancient Arya were certainly fair skinned/haired/eyed, on the whole and broadly speaking² - and yet, not all fair skinned/haired/eyed peoples were Arya.

In other words, Arya wasn’t just a racial term, as time marched forward and language and collective usage and understanding evolved, but also came to reference something akin to a nobility of soul… a high-mindedness, a genuineness, a unique virtue and character.

I think carrying this conception/interpretation forward to the present day would be incredibly helpful, all things considered - it’s not just one’s background, or just one’s character and virtue and orientation, but rather both.

Speak to those with ears to hear - let the hopeless stray..

That spiritually sick far leftist seeking to throw open our borders and mass import the third world, worshipping at the new altar of LGBTQ+ or BLM, carelessly tossing our priceless heritage to the dogs in attempts to feel superficially virtuous in the moment, to earn praise from their equally programmed and conditioned peers - or those godless atheistic materialists who believe in nothing higher than themselves, who essentially worship the dollar and perceived social status and possessions, who judge the health of both people and nations entirely according to their ability to earn these dollars - these types of individuals have become incredibly foreign to the spirit of our forefathers, and no longer operate on the same ‘frequency’, or speak the same figurative language they once so artfully spoke.

Across this new ‘culture’ and subset, there’s little to no bold courage, no pioneering adventurousness of that type that forever seeks new horizons, no depth or profundity of spirit and soul, because such things tend to be spurred by a veneration of God and great ancestors and a genuine understanding of our place in the world... it’s been replaced by a small, petty, unthinkingly-conformist energy, an egalitarian and gray blandness all but completely stripped of healthy masculinity and femininity and racial consciousness - treating all human beings as coequal cogs to be used in the globally developing economic machine, in service to its aims. The ‘foremost men’ it produces to sit atop this distorted new hierarchy are shrewd merchants and bankers; its new power brokers are administrative class lackeys and politicians.. all of whom so dutifully serve hidden hands and unspoken agendas, schemers and conspirators, and have completely and utterly lost all heroic and lofty instincts and drives, all connection to their higher selves.

It’s now possible (and even quite common) to be racial kin - in the most technical sense - and yet philosophically and psychologically and spiritually foreign.. utterly lost to a foreign and subversive ideology and worldview.

A person might be born with the requisite DNA, the innate wiring necessary to resonate and reconnect with this ancient spirit, but if they've spent their entire lives being coaxed into running away from it, calling such an individual 'Aryan' purely due to their genetic heritage seems wrongheaded, and unhelpful. And for what it’s worth, I’d suggest that we don’t grant them such an undeserved label.

Those who don't feel any connection to this term or this world or this spirit, let them identify as whatever they please.. the truth will wait patiently, should they ever look inward or backward and rediscover these ties and this strength and this unique heritage - but until then, let them be otherwise.. let them find their way back home, if they were destined to, and let us avoid polluting the conception in the meanwhile.

So again, although it seems clear to me that Arya began as a racial and ethnic descriptor and only eventually came to mean noble and lofty and magnanimous and high-minded because the ethnic family called Arya so obviously were these things, naturally and effortlessly - and though this is important to fully grasp and understand in a world in which modern scholarship seemingly seeks to bury or discard this racial framework and understanding at any cost - it IS true that the term seems to have slowly evolved over time into a set of important adjectives and descriptors.. and, at this terrible point in time and considering our difficult and uphill battle, as subversive forces have so totally hijacked popular culture and the epicenters of information distribution and as so many of our kin have fallen victim to this, I’d suggest we’d be well served to be more restrictive and discerning, and accept the term to mean far more than just genetic heritage.

We should all be forced to strive to earn this label, and be worthy of it.. and it needs to be the hallmark of something unique, exceptional, and beautiful. In an increasingly sick world full of completely sullied and poisoned things, it needs to be the conception capable of rising above this muck.. a north star pointing the way for our aspirations, an ideal, guiding our path.

Finally, I’d suggest it also represents walking with God.

That phrase emblazoned on so many weapons and shields and buckles across such long stretches of time, ‘Gott Mit Uns’, is a beautiful and all-important one.. but it’s crucial to understand it fully and properly:

God is with us insofar as we are with him..

we find him walking with us insofar as we’re making every conscious effort to know and understand and walk with him. The Creator, the ‘All Father’³, is the ‘unmoved mover’, who doesn’t budge or stray, who can’t be moved this way or that according to shifting whims.. thus, it’s our responsibility to find his path, if we care to channel and become the highest and best versions of ourselves, to attain fullest potential, to realize our destiny..

it’s not enough to simply be born into this unique and exceptional family - we also need to prove ourselves worthy.

Before we continue further down this path…

to ground this ideal historically, let’s first unpack how ‘Aryan’ was distorted post-WW2 - and modern scholarship’s attempt to reduce and minimize and narrow our understanding of ‘Aryan’, and its definition and applicability..

A Descriptor of the Entire Proto-Indo-European People Family - or just a Single Branch?

Competing theories as to just where, and when, this homeland existed

The name comes to us through the Sanskrit, the oldest of the written tongues of the Aryan peoples. In the Vedas the Brahmins speak of their ancestors as the Arya, and of the older homeland as Arya Avarta, that is, the homeland of the Arya. In the Zend, the Iranic branch of that older Aryan speech, the word is Airya. Yet the word in both the Sanskrit and the Zend is only a derivative - the root form goes back to an older speech even than that of the Brahminic Vedas or the Iranic Avestas, and in root form is found in other Aryan speech than the two just instanced.⁴

In recent years, modern academia has further and further minimized the term and our understanding of it, even occasionally going so far as to back the notion that Aryan in actuality only represents exclusively those who once lived in northwest India, or exclusively those who lived in parts of Persia, or exclusively those in the modern region of Pakistan or Afghanistan.. ironically, and tellingly, there are quite a few such arguments by different subsets, which only further helps prove the point as to just how widespread and dominant these people were, and what immense swathes of land they roamed and ruled.. as well as just how highly positive and universally complimentary the term was, and is - causing countless subsets to seek to monopolize it as their own.

Those pockets of nationalists in each of these regions fighting to ‘own’ the term, once laughed at as absurdly dishonest, are now backed by several modern scholars who seem more than happy to help - openly stating their true motives, in their more honest and unguarded moments.. namely, their fears of what might occur if we returned to our pre-WW2 consensus and understanding of its meaning and definition.

No matter what it takes, according to this new philosophy and worldview prevailing throughout academia, they must prevent a clear and concise and apolitical recognition of the conception.. as it may eventually spur pride and unity and confidence - and then jackboots that will surely kill us all⁵.

In effect, as result, the term and conception has become highly political and politicized.. I think it’s fair to say that those scholars most willing to play these games no longer aim at truth, but rather seek some creative framework of history that suits their modern liberal egalitarian personal tastes.

This isn’t true scholarship, it isn’t genuinely academic, and it isn’t actually history.. it’s some new abominable thing that should be everywhere opposed and called out for what it is.

It’s absolutely crucial to define it clearly and concretely, and leave no room for error here:

Arya was used and understood as a racial and ethnic and kinship term, throughout the vast majority of its usage.. even if a handful of these familial branches, over time, gradually lost sight of this broader heritage, its first and foremost meaning and definition was clear, and readily understood by all.

Moreover, prior to the Second World War, it’d become routinely used by scholars as a descriptor for the ancestors and progenitors of the broader European people family, and their strongest genetic cousins still existing in large pockets to the east (and around much of the world). For the first time, we had a clean and straightforward descriptor of the unique heritage that connected us all.. and this was an incredibly useful and important thing.

Even if we pretended that it wasn’t technically accurate in the most narrow sense (nor is ‘White’, if we’re going to be pedantic about it, as a great many people of ‘White’ genetic heritage happen to have tanned skin) it became a genuinely helpful and valuable term, one whose definition was readily graspable by all.

and yet, atop it all, I’d argue that it was technically accurate…

To quote an AI synopsis:

The designation “Aryan” (from Proto-Indo-Iranian *arya-, ultimately from Proto-Indo-European *h₂eryós, denoting “member of one’s own group” or “noble kin”) functioned historically as an overarching ethnic-racial identifier for the Indo-European peoples, encompassing not merely the Indo-Iranian branches but the entire linguistic and migratory continuum from the Baltic to the Mediterranean and beyond.

This interpretation, rooted in 19th-century philological reconstructions and corroborated by textual, archaeological, and anthropological evidence, underscores a conscious Indo-European awareness of shared descent, particularly intensified during periods of expansion and cultural contact where lineage purity was actively maintained through endogamous practices and social hierarchies. Far from a localized term confined to Vedic India or Achaemenid Persia, “Aryan” served as a pan-Indo-European emblem of tribal solidarity and racial distinction, reflecting a worldview where blood ties superseded geographic dispersion.

Rough/Loose outline of the tree of descent of Aryan peoples

In the Indo-Iranian core, Sanskrit *Ārya* in the Rigveda (c. 1500–1200 BC) denotes the invading pastoralists as a superior kin-group⁶, explicitly contrasted with their non-Aryan *dāsa* or *dasyu*⁷ foes, implying a racial-ethnic boundary maintained through ritual and marriage. Similarly, Avestan *Airya* in the Achaemenid inscriptions (c. 500 BC) identifies the Iranian nobility as a unified “Aryan” stock, with Darius I going out of his way to claim an *Airya* of *Airya* descent, linking Persian royalty to a broader migratory heritage. This motif extends to other branches, where cognates preserve the sense of noble kinship. In Greek, *Aristos* (from *ari-*) signifies the “best” or “most noble” in Homeric epics (c. 8th century BC), applied to the Achaean warriors as an elite stratum distinct from pre-Hellenic Pelasgians, evoking shared Indo-European warrior ethos. Latin *Ariolus* and Old Irish *Aire* (noble freeman) further attest to Italic and Celtic usages, where the term demarcates hereditary classes in early legal codes like the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BC) and Brehon Laws (c. 700 AD), respectively, prohibiting intermarriage with outsiders to safeguard bloodlines. Germanic reflexes, such as Old High German *ehre* (honor), appear in tribal oaths like those of the Visigoths (c. 5th century AD), reinforcing endogamy as a racial imperative. These parallels, reconstructed via the comparative method pioneered by Franz Bopp and August Schleicher in the 1830s–1860s, indicate *Arya-* as a Proto-Indo-European social-linguistic marker for endogamous elites, disseminated through the family’s Bronze Age expansions (c. 3000–1500 BC). The uniformity suggests not coincidental convergence but a deliberate ethnic consciousness, where language encoded racial solidarity amid diaspora.

The usage of cognates of the word by virtually all of the major branches of this people family speaks volumes.

Kinship and Racial Vigilance in Indo-European Literatures

Ancient texts across the Indo-European spectrum clearly show a heightened awareness of Aryan lineage - particularly in city/urban contexts where intermingling with defeated peoples threatened purity. The Rigveda’s ‘purusha-sukta’ speaks of a varna system rooted in primordial kinship, with Brahmins and Kshatriyas as Arya descendants of the cosmic man, explicitly barring shudra admixture to preserve ritual and martial potency - a framework echoed in Avestan texts like the Yashts, where Airya heroes (like ‘Yima’) establish racial hierarchies against Turanian⁸ foes. This endogamous ethos permeates Greek sources: Herodotus (Histories, 1.56, c. 430 BC) describes Medes and Persians as “Aryan” kin to Bactrians, while Plato’s Republic (c. 380 BC) advocates guardian-class purity akin to Aryan varna, warning against any democratic mixing that dilutes noble stock. In Italic and Celtic realms, Roman historians like Tacitus⁹ (Germania, 98 AD) portray Germanic tribes as preserving “Aryan” (i.e., Indo-European) blood through strict prohibitions against miscegenation, scorning Roman cosmopolitanism as degenerative. Caesar’s Gallic Wars (c. 50 BC) notes Druidic enforcement of Celtic clan endogamy, linking it to shared descent from a northern progenitor, paralleling Vedic and Avestan genealogies. These texts, spanning c. 1500 BC to 100 AD, demonstrate a pan-Indo-European racial consciousness: as migrations fostered urban melting pots (e.g., Persepolis under Darius or Alexandria under the Ptolemies), kinship ties became codified bulwarks, with myths like the Irish Lebor Gabála Érenn (c. 11th century AD) tracing Gaels to Scythian-Aryan exiles, affirming trans-regional solidarity.

Even the magnanimous Goths, though frequently kind to their defeated foes, very strictly prevented intermarriage and intermixture. The Visigothic Code (Lex Visigothorum) Book 3, Title 7 (on successions), speaking to Gothic-Roman separations, states “Gothi et Romani in suis legibus vivant” (”Let Goths and Romans live by their own laws”), and a related passage states: “Nuptias inter Gothos et Romanos vetitas esse” (”Marriages between Goths and Romans are forbidden”), with penalties including forfeiture of dowry and exile.

Enforcement required oaths from betrothed parties: “Iuro per sanguinem meum Gothicum et honorem patrum” (”I swear by my Gothic blood and the honor of my fathers”), affirming no Roman taint - a formula echoed in later Lombard edicts (Rothari’s Code, 643 AD, Ro. 185)

In Isidore of Seville’s Historia Gothorum (c. 624 AD): Isidore recounts Euric’s code as instituting “leges separatas” for marital unions, where assemblies exacted oaths of purity: “Sub poena capitis, Gothus Romanam non ducat” (”Under penalty of death, a Goth shall not wed a Roman woman”), sworn collectively in the mallus to bind the tribe.

To quote an AI overview:

“This racial imperative is framed as ehre-driven¹⁰: breach invited divine wrath on the gens, diluting the “noble Aryan descent” from Trojan-Gothic forebears (per Jordanes).

And again from the Visigothic Code, in the Liber Iudiciorum (654 AD) Book 3, Title 2 prohibits “nefandas nuptias cum extraneis” (”nefarious marriages with foreigners”), with oaths mandated: “Per Deum et honorem gentis iuro non miscere sanguinem” (”By God and the honor of the gens, I swear not to mix blood”), punishable by 200 lashes and property confiscation.

Though post-5th century, this codifies earlier customs (in my opinion, MUCH earlier customs, likely practiced for millennia) reinforcing endogamy as a racial bulwark: participants invoked ehre to vow fidelity to Gothic kin, seemingly viewing foreign admixture as a desecration of that uniquely capable migratory blood that conquered from the Danube to the Guadalquivir. Gothic fibulae burials found segregated from Roman sites in 5th-century Gaul further prove this separation.

Gothic fibulae - I’ve always been struck by just how much they resemble the Anglo-Saxon artifacts of similar type!

If the Germanic tribes were this careful not to mix even with their Roman cousins, how much more careful and forceful might their kin and forefathers have been in regions like India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia or the Levant?

I strongly believe (and suggest that the sum total of historical sources clearly corroborates this) this attitude was the norm.. not springing from any hatred toward the ‘other’, but out of a love for kin and family, and a desire to retain what they considered an invaluable culture and heritage.

Ancient peoples absolutely prized heritage and lineage and ancestry.. so many of our most ancient texts contain (often even begin with) a long ancestral lineage, and this isn’t mere coincidence. I’d suggest they’d have been baffled by our modern tendency to instead contrast and separate out populations by pottery type, clothing styles or specific burial customs:

These were a people, with the strongest cultural and linguistic and genetic ties.. albeit a people who gradually lost their sense of this direct connection to one another, across the immense stretch of time and space - but still a people.

Arbitrary Drawing of Lines vs. Biological Realities

You might notice I don't use the modern conventional scholarly/academic people groupings as often as most others who discuss history tend to.. this is due, in large part, to my viewing them as unhelpful, and in many cases borderline inaccurate - a flawed framing, a misleading picture, and at their worst an almost completely arbitrary drawing of lines where the ancient peoples themselves never drew them.

Numerous labels - a singular people family

In a sense, ALL of our groupings are a bit inaccurate, of course, as people didn’t walk around speaking or thinking of themselves as 'Corded Ware' or 'Yamnaya' or 'Sintashta'. This fragments the holistic self-perception of Indo-Europeans as a singular gens - a people bound by genos (birth, lineage) - into isolated material episodes¹¹, blinding us to how they experienced migrations not as cultural swaps, but as the heroic pioneering expansion of their shared stock.

This certainly doesn’t mean that such labels are worthless - it is valuable and helpful to know and understand these more minor differences, to contrast peoples who lived in different regions or had slightly different customs.. but when certain frameworks catch on and become so widely used, it’s easy to make the mistake of thinking that these were indeed the labels or categories or means and methods under which these ancient peoples might roughly and broadly classify themselves, or view themselves.

This is certainly not the case.. and in fact, a great many of these labels - like Corded Ware and Yamnaya, for example - serve to cleft and fracture a relatively singular people family in two. Ancient peoples didn’t pore over cord-impressed pots or kurgan mounds to define “us” versus “them”, to draw contrasts - they invoked descent from divine ancestors, recited genealogies around the fire, and forged identities through blood oaths and heroic sagas that echoed across generations.. theirs was a kinship framework.

Ultimately, these labels aren’t neutral tools - they’re prisms that refract the past into something colder, less human. By sidelining the ancient heartbeat of lineage and myth for the cold gleam of flint and clay, we don’t just misunderstand history, we essentially orphan ourselves from it.. losing a truer understanding of forebears who knew exactly who they were: one people, one blood, one sprawling interconnected family.

However, there is one all-important grouping label that WAS used by our forefathers of ancient populations, one they did consider valid and fitting and valuable enough to mention time and time again, one that is cognate with countless city names and proper names, one that seems much more real and fundamental than so many others used today - and this is, of course, Arya/Aryan.

Through this racial lens or framework, all of history and the movements and migrations of peoples can begin to make some logical and coherent sense.. whereas attempting to piece together our past without this framework, things inevitably appear as something of a chaotic jumbled mess¹².

Further, this racial/ethnic framework and this umbrella term ‘Aryan’ holds the power to clarify and cohere and revitalize not just history, but also the present, and the future. It may still be controversial to say, and I’m aware that by stating it I’m immediately at war with the entirety of the post-war consensus (and propaganda) that we’re supposed to embrace and regurgitate - but I think this is simply all the more reason to say it:

The one tie that binds most Europeans to one another, most Americans to one another, and so cleanly ties America to her European brothers and forefathers, IS precisely this exceptional racial and ethnic and cultural heritage we all share.. extending back to those earliest ‘Corded Ware’ settlements throughout Europe and Scandinavia, to the Steppe ‘Yamnaya’ and the womb of the Black Sea, to Anatolia and Mesopotamia and Persia and India - all of western mankind is tied together via these ancient bonds.. all are, to varying degrees, direct or indirect branches of this singular root.

It’s difficult to exaggerate how important this is to understand. A worldwide recognition of this, if sincere and comprehensive and thorough, would have the power to change everything, at this late hour.. these pockets of cousin and brother peoples with their respective backs up against the wall, desperately watching their homelands and their cultures slip away due to similarly bought/traitorous leadership mass-importing foreign populations, sacrificing their children’s futures to foreign peoples and cultures in exchange for power or personal gain - we’re all in a very similar boat, despite carrying on our respective fights on different patches of ground.

Establishing some fundamental unity, some sense of brotherhood and common cause, similar to that which the Jews have so artfully fostered around the world, has the power to alter the entire geopolitical dynamic practically overnight.

Yes, it’s a tall order, and yes it’s not the sort of thing that might be accomplished in the blink of an eye.. but in a world in which we’re so widely manipulated and coaxed and prodded into devoting much of our time and energy to identifying with and fighting for a mere political banner/tribe, or to various ideas and ideologies one can pick up one day and just as easily discard the next - or even to mere sports teams or pop culture nonsense - envision the power of aligning with something real.. of drawing our foremost battle lines according to an unchangeable biological reality, written into our very blood and DNA, representing the sum total of all those who came before us, and all those who’ll come after.

This is who we are.

No amount of mental gymnastics, no amount of running away from this fact, will serve to change it in any way.. moreover, why would we want to? It gains us nothing, costs us everything, and blocks and obscures our path to paradise.

The moment we remember and rediscover this, and act accordingly, is the pivotal moment in which an ascent can begin in earnest.. the moment this illusory ‘matrix’ collapses in on itself, the parasitism ceases to exercise its terrible and all-pervasive power, and we again become authors of our own collective destiny.

On some level, we all intuitively know this to be true:

A vastly better and greater world awaits.. we need only to collectively wake, stand, plant our feet, and work together as an extended family, to manifest it into reality.

It begins with a shift in collective consciousness.. and this begins with us.

1. Aside from the other names mentioned in this article, and those better known, an intriguing work on the subject is Swiss linguist Adolphe Pictet’s ‘The Origins of the Indo-Europeans’. Pictet championed “Aryen” as the definitive label for Indo-Europeans by reconstructing a unified primitive Aryan society through comparative mythology and institutions, arguing it revealed a coherent ethnic and cultural archetype binding all branches—from the “chosen race” of Vedic warriors to Celtic bards and Teutonic heroes—as direct European ancestors. Other examples of those who saw ‘Aryan’ as not just a racial term, but the appropriate label term for the entire broader people family: Friedrich Schlegel, August Schleicher, Adalbert Kuhn, Theodor Benfey, Ernest Renan.

2. The reference to flame blond or red hair and light eyes in ancient Indian texts are frequent. Anthropologists Theodor Poesche and Thomas Huxley believed the Rigveda proved that the Aryans were blond and tall, with blue eyes and dolichocephalic skulls - famed Russian archaeologist Elena Kuzmina agreed, stating that there is ample evidence from the Avesta and the Rig Veda that the Aryans did indeed have light eyes, light skin, and light hair.

3. Proto-Indo-European ‘Dyēus Ph₂tḗr’

4. In Latin it is found in arare ; in Greek, aroun ; in Slavonic, orati ; Gothic, arjan; Welsh, arad; Old English, erien

5. Those who make these claims tend to care little to nothing about us, of course.. so by ‘all’, they’re exclusively thinking of themselves. And yet, even this is a manipulative misread.

6. and please note that the entire group was referred to as ‘Arya’, not just a single caste or any smaller subset within this group.

7. Described as “hatred-instilling aliens”, frequently called “black skinned”.. though many modern scholars attempt to argue this is symbolic of a merely dark spiritual nature, as opposed to physical description. I’d humbly suggest it may be both.

8. A popular descriptor of the Turkic/Asiatic peoples who possessed some cultural overlap with the Scythian/Steppe Aryan element (likely because subjects to them for generations), but were very distinctively a racially and linguistically ‘other’

9. Tacitus’s Germania (98 AD), describing 1st-century Suebi and other tribes (ancestors to the Goths), illustrates this archetype: “No one takes a wife from outside his kin (ex姻 cognatione), lest he dilute the sacred blood (sacrum sangurt terminem)

10. The German word Ehre, closely related to the Dutch eer (which means honor), is also a derivative of Aryan, and generally conveys the notion of honorable conduct - which is regarded as atypical of the Arya.

11. Jean Haudry, for instance, lambasts materialist archaeology for overlooking the “deep structure” of Indo-European ideology, where spiritual castes and heroic lineages formed the true ethnic glue, not grave goods.

12. Picture using an entirely non-racial framework with regard to the British Empire, and exclusively looking at material markers to discern history here.. those British in India or Africa wouldn’t be seen as a foreign ruling caste of a different race, but just part of a larger heterogeneous nation of peoples who used the same pottery and dishes. Would this be a clearer and more accurate, or more convoluted and confused, historical picture?