Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 6

Intro
The following has been suggested as an intro. It might indeed be approproprate to have some sort of longer intro:


 * This article addresses the question of whether or not there was a pre-historic movement of people into India, particularly the Indus River valley, by a pastoral culture group called the Aryans. Early scholarship on the matter developed from the efforts of European linguists in the 19th century, inspired by nationalistic philosophy, seeking to use the newly emerging field of linguistics to develop knowledge of pre-historic India and determine the origins of various elements of Indian civilizations. This question has more recently become important to conversations surrounding Indian nationalism, the purity of Indian culture, and the relationship of previous scholarship to European colonialism. The following sections discuss various types of evidence that support or deny that an Aryan people migrated into the Indus River Valley and infused the existing Harrapan culture with new elements of culture leading to the creation of Vedic civilization.

There are a number of dubious statements here. The claim that early models were "inspired by nationalist philosophy" is largely false, unless Afghan or Ukranian nationalists are supposed to have had an influence. Comments about the "purity of Indian culture" probably accurately reflect the ideology of some Indian opponents, but are unlikely to be appropriate for an intro. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

MERGING
The theories of aryans in 2 different wikipedia articles are:


 * Indo-Aryan migration, a very common and crude supposition that the Indo-Aryans migrated to India displaced the native Dravidians to South India.


 * Indigenous Aryans, another crude theory that holds that the Indo-Aryans are native to India. This view arises because the Ido-Aryan peoplew don't want to be spoken as foreign elements to the soil.

I want to create a new realistic article to merge these two articles into a single the Indo-Aryan article with a theory which holds that the Indo-Aryans are mix of migratories and native Indians. Considering an analogy for the purpose of justification of the theory : When the Islamic invaders came to India, they captured most of north India. This does not mean that the existing people were pushed to the south - this is quiet obvious today because Hindus are still a majority in North India. Similarly, when the Aryans came long ago, they also captured Northern India and the natives were not pushed south in this case either. The confusion in theory comes because the Aryan invaders adopted Indianism and Mughals did not. (Here I am not mentioning adopted Hinduism because it was a period when there were no boundary lines of "RELIGIONS". Only when Pentium 2 came, a postfix of 1 is added to the first pentium release and before that it was just Pentium. Similarly the people just believed in Gods, there were several local deities, Gods, etc. There was no concept of another religion. So, it was Indianism that was adopted).
 * Realistic article

A realistic thought would lead to a conclusion that the Indo-Aryans are a mix of both natives and migratories, but they belong to different castes as of today. What can well be said is that the so-called Dravidians are pure natives to India. Again I use the word so-called because the word was generated because of external elements entering India. Before that, there were only the natives isolated from all sides of the continent.

The policy of Wikipedia is to provide reliable and correct information to the possible extent. All information posted require citations and references. Here there are 2 articles Indo-Aryan migration and Indigenous Aryans. Both are long articles and have reliable citations and yet contradict each other in the basic idea itself. So it is evident from this that one or both of these articles has to be deleted when speaking about correctness. And if we speak that there is a theoretical contradiction, then, the realistic theory that I have mentioned is another possibility.

So my request is to consider merging Indo-Aryans as a single article or create an article with the realistic theory. Vayalir (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that anyone disputes that "the Indo-Aryans are mix of migratories and native Indians." Even proponents of OIT presumably accept that there have been historical migrations and invasions, so that the current North Indian population is a product of a complex mix of ethnic groups over time. Certainly this article does not contradict that view. There are two articles because there are (at least) two theories. BTW there are also other related articles: Out of India theory, Anatolian hypothesis, Armenian hypothesis. Though though these latter are about the source of Proto-Indo-European rather than Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan, the two issues are often merged. Paul B (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

above suggestion is the rather typical result of (a) not having read the article and (b) confusing language and ancestry. "Indo-Aryan migration" discusses "how did the IA languages get to India". I wish people could sometimes stop to appreciate that it is perfectly undisputed and unremarkable that most of the world's populations (excepting those displaced Early Modern migrations, i.e. non-native Americans) are for the most part (>50%) descended from the paleolithic people living at the exact same spot. This is true (genetic) "paleolithic continuity". Articles on historical migrations and language spread do not even begin to question this, because it is simply the unremarkable default case. These articles look into the minority of people's ancestry that is not derived form the paleolithic populations that staid put in situ.

It is seriously beyond me why people cannot grasp this even if both article and talkpages shouts it at them in boldface and with blink tags. In other words, Vayalir, the article is already stating your "realistic" scenario. Never mind the Indigenous Aryans article in this context, it is just a Hindutva fad intended to confuse people for the purposes of petty populism and chauvinism in RoI politics, it is "not even wrong" in any encyclopedic or academic sense. --dab (𒁳) 13:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange arguments
1, I have problem grasping the methodological apparatus used to produce following inference:

"The absence of haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) in Indo-Aryan and Dravidian populations which is found in all other Indo-European populations, in especially large proportions in western Europe, may suggest significant levels of native genetic base for the Indo-Aryan peoples compared to other Indo-European peoples".

If I understand correctly, it says that from premises

B is a subset of A, P(B) and not P(C)

follows

C and A have empty intersection.

(with A being Indo-Europeans, B being set of Western Europeans, C being Southern Asians and predicate P(Q) being true if haplogroup R1b is significantly found in population Q).

2, "However (Kivisild 2003a; Kivisild 2003b) have revealed that a high frequency of haplogroup 3 (R1a1) occurs in about half of the male population of Northwestern India and is also frequent in Western Bengal. These results, together with the fact that haplogroup 3 is much less frequent in Iran and Anatolia than it is in India, indicates that haplogroup 3 found among high caste Telugus did not necessarily originate from Eastern Europeans."

Well, world's highest frequency of R1a1 is found among Slavs, especially Russians, Poles, Slovaks, isn't it ? Why is Anatolia even mentioned here ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.55.226.122 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Relation of this article to "Indo-Aryan Peoples" article
I was reading the article on the Indo-Aryans and according to that article, the Indo-Aryans have existed in South Asia for thousands of years, and their descendants live on to this day.

But, this article here clearly states that there is no conclusive evidence for an invasion or migration of Indo-Aryan peoples into the South Asian subcontinent. This article goes through very methodically and discounts previous linguistic, genetic, archaeological, and documentary (Rig Vedas) evidence.

But, how does that make sense with that other article? Is there something that I am missing here? Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? How can they be so central to Indian history (according to that other article) if they also never migrated into India in the first place? Did Indo-Aryan peoples produce the Rig Vedas, or were these texts produced by the native Dravidian peoples?

Or, is the implication that the Indo-Aryans actually originated in South Asia itself and then migrated westwards into Iran and Europe?

Someone who is knowledgeable about this, please help! How can these two articles be reconciled? Or, am I totally missing something obvious? Sorry, but I am not very knowledgeable about this field of history, and I am trying to learn more; but, I seem to be receiving contradictory information from several articles here on Wikipedia.IonNerd (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Indo-Aryans article was simply vandalized. This is Wikipedia. Perhaps check the article history. --dab (𒁳) 07:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I find no fault with the current revision of Indo-Aryan peoples. It says pretty much the same as this article, placing Indo-Iranian unity at about 2000 BC. I m not sure what you are asking here, all of your questions are addressed in the article. --dab (𒁳) 07:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

This article lacks important informations
Hi.

Since this article is about the Indo-aryan migration hypothesis, all the genetical studies elements that support this view should be put forward.

For instance, 2004 and 2009 genetic studies point to a west eurasian origin of R1a1 (or at least many of them).

The specimen of the studies (almost exclusively associated with Y-DNA R1a1 for the 2009 study that tested the Y-DNA hgs) from South Siberia (*) and Kazakhstan (**) had almost exclusively mtDNA haplogroups of west eurasian/european origin especially during bronze age (90% of them in that time period) (as far as 1,800 BC). If we link that with the europoid phenotypes with light-colored eyes and hair and pale skin of Andronovo horizon south siberians described in the recent article of human genetics of 2009 (first http link), it does point to a west-eurasian origin of these populations. Several specimen of Kazakhstan have been tested R1a1 too, separately than the 2004 study.

That's especially meaningful since no south Asian haplogroups seem to be linked to the spread of R1a1, up to Europe.

Also meaningful is the fact that phenotypes matching the ones of the Andronovo culture horizon - generally considered culturally Indo-iranian (and as such indo-european) of south Siberia are found in the indo-european regions of Asia. Some pictures there :

http://pastmist.wordpress.com/

Both south Siberia and Kazakhstan of bronze age (and region south of it too) were of this Andronovo culture, and it was later the territory of the indo-iranian-speaking Sakas (Scythians) and the population is described as being typically Europoid during bronze age (both genetically and phenotypically, and yet basically exclusively R1a1). It fits well in the Kurgan hypothesis pattern. That's a big hint.

(*) http://www.springerlink.com/content/4462755368m322k8/ - the full article gives informations about mtDNA hgs

(**) http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1691686 (Unravelling migrations in the steppe: mitochondrial DNA sequences from ancient central Asians.)

calabasas (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

May I add something about the supposed association of hg R1a1 with early indo-european spreading, and the R1a1 found in quantity in the Andronovo culture horizon of south siberia (as explained above) and its presence, especially in north India pointing to a genetical link in these populations ?

to dab : If you don't reply, I'll add it.

calabasas (talk) 13:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It isn't clear what you want to add that isn't already in the article. The "Physical anthropology" section already explicitly discusses R1a1. Now, the "Physical anthropology" section as it stands is also in a sad mess, and you are very welcome to improve it. If you have a better source than the ones already cited by all means add it. Just make sure that you don't just dump yet more material, but that you edit the section as a whole, resulting in an improved, more readable and above all shorter "Physical anthropology" section  than the one we have now. --dab (𒁳) 13:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.15.143 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

What about the years?
Shouldn't that be in the first paragraph? About when they came? 74.233.14.59 (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is the second paragraph not soon enough? It says 1700-1300 BCE.  Abductive  (reasoning) 23:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

History
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/sci-te..._100287805.html http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/dat...00912120027.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.15.143 (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Neither of these links work, because they were shortened to fit into a web page display somewhere (note the ellipses ... in the middle of each). So why don't you tell us where you copied them from, so that we can see what this is really all about? rudra (talk) 13:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * lol, I used to complain about the incompetence inherent in taking link rot for "references", but here we have incompetence to even copy-paste the linkrot successfully. --dab (𒁳) 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, as I thought, a false alarm. Nothing to do with I-A migration at all. The hoopla is about this report in Science magazine. Our informant was offering us some typical desi chest-beating to go along with a Korean view. rudra (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bafflegab
I've remove this passage from the article.

If someone can recast this into semantically coherent English, we can put the revision back in. rudra (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

my research paper on Ancient india - solution for the indo=aryan problem
Hi,

i have published a 150 page research paper on migrations into Ancient india in a peer reviewed journal. I am attempting to share my research findings. my edit gets deleted .why? This is an importart paper of great use to others in this field of study. this is a very balanced paper. proably the most important paper in the field for many, many years

Part one - Basic model with proof

> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506

>> Part Two detailed model with conclusions (Must read) > > http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1541822 [pl reply to sujay.rao@in.ibm.com,sujayrao2000@yahoo.com tx

Sujay

pl tell me how it can be added to wikipaedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.203.231 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

please find the full paper .. it has been shared with many scientists in the genographic project and elsewhere ..good feedbback pl let me know how you can add it

Here is my complete, comprehensive solution to the so-called Aryan problem Part one is a high level overview. Part two is much more interesting This is one of the longest research papers published in a peer-reviewed journal since independance. Part 2 is particularly important > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two > Mirror: > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25880426/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One > http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25865304/SUJAY-NPAP-Part-Two Links to the journal Part one http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Sujay Rao Mandavilli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.91 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Indian origin
http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=219420

Try to be contructed and not laugh. If something doesn't work then ask the person to send it again. Some people on this discussion forum are plain out rude. There are two links that I think are importsnt here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.15.180 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the point of this link? If you feel there is significant information there, then you should add it into the article. However, material from forums and blogs is not acceptable for Wikipedia. BashBrannigan (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It's worth noting that plagiarism aside, Archaeology Online, despite its respectable-sounding title, is an unreliable source dedicated to promoting fringe theories. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please substantiate such allegations with proofs. Else, it is nothing but libel. Please note that I am in no way associated with Archeology Online or whatever affiliates it has; I've never even heard of them till now. We should not be encouraging libel and slanderous arguments in the name of credibility. -- 115.113.47.66 (talk) 08:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Mehrgarh was Vedic
From page 21 of A survey of Hinduism by Klaus Klostermaier: "5. The archaeological finds of Mehrgarh dated ca. 7500 BCE (copper, cattle, barley) reveal a culture similar to that of the Vedic Indians. Contrary to former interpretations, the Rgveda reflects not a nomadic but an urban culture."

According to the Wiki article, Klostermaier is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba. We might want to include his views somewhere... Hokie Tech (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Change "Mehgarh was Vedic" to "Klaus Klostermaier thinks that Mehrgarh had a culture 'similar' to that of the Vedic Indians". That's basically even true, I suppose, as far as "copper, cattle, barley" is concerned. The similarities end there. The Rigveda is full of wheels, chariots, swords and horses. All of which were unavailable not just in Mehrgarh but in all Neolithic cultures. Klostermaier is an academic, I suppose, but for an academic he is remarkably unafraid to keep publishing random nonsense on topics he did not bother to research. So for every claim by Klostermaier, you can probably cite a couple of dozen counter-claims by the actual experts. --dab (𒁳) 13:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * His ideas may seem like random nonsense, but he's certainly a more reliable source than Subhash Kak or David Frawley. Therefore, he might deserve to be mentioned in the article. Hokie Tech (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Rebuttals of Aryan Invasion Theory
There needs to be a separate section on rebuttals about Aryan invasion theory, by historians like David Frawley, for example. There is only one subsection that seems to talk about misgivings about this theory and dismisses it off as Hindu nationalist rhetoric. Surely, consensus cannot be that strong about something that happened more than 5000 years ago. Please discuss this in a civil fashion without any name calling.. ;-) -- Fgpilot (talk) 20:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * New comments go at bottom. David Frawley is not a historian. We mustn't confuse separate issues: debate about the the origin of indo-European languages; the question of whether there was a military 'invasion' event; the advent of Indo-Aryan. Attacks li Frawley's tend to confuse these quite separate questions. Paul B (talk) 00:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes someone a historian? I'd rather go by the arguments provided by a theory rather than the credentials of who provided it. For instance, there is this debate over whether it was Aryan "invasion" or "migration" and this article seems to have adopted the term "migration." However, there are doubts whether if there was indeed such a benign migration, as it would mean that such benign assimilation would have left significant pockets of the original Dravidian population intact. Which does not seem to be the case as much of Dravidian culture is relegated to the southern parts of India. This basically casts doubt on the migration theory. The theory of invasion also is debatable since it is quite impossible for a new culture to so effectively drive away an existing culture all the way to the south -- so effectively that there are traces left of them in the northern parts. And that too by the use of technologies like horses. Note that the effectiveness of an encyclopedic article is best when it can introduce all alternative theories in as objective fashion as possible. It may be true that rebuttals of the Aryan invasion theory have been exploited by nationalist groups for political purposes. However, this in itself does not make the contents of the alternate theories less credible. -- Fgpilot (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't go by arguments rather than credentials. See WP:RS. That's partly because we, as editors, are not qualified to assess arguments, and also we may be biassed ourselves. So we have to describe the academic consensus. See WP:NPOV. Frawley has no credentials as a historian, and an obvious bias. How would you like it if we quoted a Muslim or Christian fundamentalist saying that the Vedas are the work of the devil? However, new cultures have effectively driven away or assimmilated old ones in many cases - don't forget we are talking about something that occurred nearly 4000 years ago. Look at the Turks in Anatolia; English in Britain; Romans in Gaul. Arabs in the Middle East; Spanish in South America. All are more recent. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me articulate my concern a little more clearly. I am not aware of the credentials (or the lack of it) concerning David Frawley or whether he has another agenda altogether. There are several Indian historians who also question the Aryan invasion theory, who do have credentials as historians and are in no way connected with any political movements. I am not an expert in this specific topic myself, so cannot comment on it more. However, what is starkly disconcerting is that here we are talking about an event that happened somewhere like 4000 to 5000 years ago. Even the best of historical and archaeological evidence cannot be so accurate that there is just one theory that everybody agrees upon and there is no section on alternative theories or rebuttals at all. It is hard enough to find consensus on some historical event of a century ago; but this article claims consensus with so much confidence, and dismisses all other alternative theorists as being driven by nationalist or fundamentalist agendas, that its own credibility gets into question. Even as editors, I am sure it is possible to take specific arguments of alternative theories and present it in a NPOV and objective manner for scholastic completeness. -- Fgpilot (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, new cultures can drive away existing cultures -- but this always happens over long periods like several centuries; and there would be alternative evidence that throw light on the kinds of activities that happened in this process. A copious lack of any such evidence of the gradual erosion of Dravidian culture from the Indus plains is another argument against the invasion/migration theory. -- Fgpilot (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is mainly driven by linguistic evidence. That's what created the theory in the first place. If you can cite relevant and accredited experts, do so. As for the notion that there somehow 'must' be evidence of pre-IE cultures, the fact is that such evidence does not exist in most of Europe, so why should it exist in India? Pre-literate cultures do not leave evidence of their language. Paul B (talk) 22:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Linguistic evidence argument is not that cogent as it sounds. There is of course a large similarity in linguistic constructs between Sanskrit and European languages; and significant dissimilarities between Sanskrit and Dravidian languages. However, if the argument is that this provides credence to the Aryan invasion theory; by the same argument, one must have seen some kind of linguistic interplay between the original Dravidian language the the incumbent Aryan languages in the Indus belt. Furthermore, the similarity between Sanskrit and European languages is not all that high. For instance, Sanskrit and most Indian languages *including the Dravidian languages* are phonetic in nature, while European languages are lexical in nature. In lexical languages, sounds are formed by concatenating a basic set of lexemes, while in phonetic languages sounds are constructed by modifying the basic structure of letters. Most Indian languages do not have the concept of spelling, for instance; and every letter in the word of a language like Sanskrit, represents a phoneme. Ironically, perhaps the only language that is more lexical than phonetic is Tamil, which is purported to be from "non-Aryan" roots. So, linguistic evidence is not as credible as it sounds. -- Fgpilot (talk) 05:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well now you seem to be entering ultra-fringe territory. It's one thing to claim that IE languages orginated in India, which, though unlikely, is an intelligible and arguable position. It's another to claim that the whole concept of IE languages is nonsense and that Tamil and Sanskrit are somehow related in ways that English and Sanskrit are not. I've no idea what you mean by a "lexical language" here. How languages get written down tells us nothing about the origin of the language as such. As for spelling, there was no such thing as 'correct' spelling in English until the 18th century. Try reading Shakespeare in the original published versions. The fact that speech changes but spelling tends to remain static explains some of the oddities of English spelling (and also why some poems don't rhyme any more). But anyway, we are now waaay off topic. Paul B (talk) 13:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Lexical languages are those where letters are concatenated together to make sounds, giving rise to a lot of "spelling rules" (which change over time, of course as all languages evolve). Phonetic languages are based on constructing sounds as basic units of language. Most Indian languages share this paradigm, and has no concept of spelling at all. In any case, this discussion is off topic, and my main point was that in an encyclopedic article like this (that theorizes about something that may have happened 5000 years ago), we *should* have a section on Alternative theories. That some alternative theories may have been used for political purposes is totally immaterial to the merit of the theory itself. In fact, Aryan invasion/migration theory can just as well be seen as pushing a Western supremacist agenda. So let us stop stooping down to calling names (as @dab does below) and get back to good debate. -- Fgpilot (talk) 09:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware all languages "are based on constructing sounds as basic units of language". I've no idea what it means to say that some languages originate from "letters" concatenated together to make sounds. Mind you, I can imagine something like that lurking in the pages of one of the more wide-eyed followers of Derrida. However, if you have a reliable source for your linguistic model present it. Yes, alternative models should be presented where they have academic backing. I've never understood why a theory that people from Central Asia migrated into Europe and India somehow supports "western hegemony". However, even if it did, that would not be a legitimate argument against it, except perhaps among the more wide-eyed followers of Derrida. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I will try to get sources where linguistic theories have been questioned. However, my knowledge of this is primarily from mainstream media and magazines since I'm not a historian myself. The argument is just to show that alternative theories do exist and are pretty sound. Also, if "Aryan invasion theory" does not imply "western hegemony" why then does "Indigenous Aryans theory" (or any other alternative theory for that matter) imply "Hindu nationalism"? -- Fgpilot (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't necessarily imply "Hindu nationalism" if it were promoted by anyone other than Hindu nationalists, but all the people who bang on about it are obsessed by defending the 'honour' of India. I apologise, of course, if you are Japanese. I don't see any promoters of the standard theory who are obsessed by defending the rights and honour of the Steppes and are insulted by the claim that their language did not originate in some exciting ex-Soviet republic. Paul B (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Who promotes it does not change the intrinsic merit of what is promoted. Hindus are most likely to promote this, because it is their history and they would like to hear all alternatives, not just the one that had been imposed by their colonial masters. Would you say that if Incas or Aztecs disagreed with the "standard" theories of their history, they are fundamentalists? "I apologise if you are Japanese," simply reeks of bad scholarship -- as though what is being said is coloured by who is saying it. So let me not go into who I am, suffice it to say that I don't have any political agenda of any kind -- my interests are just pure scholarship and credibility of an article like this. -- Fgpilot (talk) 05:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, as anyone who edits Wikipedia for a while knows, nationalistic agendas abound. You have yet to produce any source other than David Frawley (!), so don't lecture me on scholarship. Paul B (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To reiterate, my main concern is the following: An encyclopedic page hteorizing about an event that may have happened 5000 years ago, containing no section on alternative theories, lacks credibility. In any case, here are a few references on alternative theories:


 * http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/keaitlin1.html (On misgivings against linguistic evidence)
 * ABBI, Anvita, 1994: Semantic Universals in Indian Languages, Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla. (on what is common across all Indian languages including the Dravidan ones)
 * BASHAM, A.L., 1979: "Foreword" in Deshpande and Hook: Aryan and Non-Aryan in India
 * http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/vedicharrapans.html (an introduction to different hypotheses)
 * http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Aryan_invasion_theory (An encyclopedic article containing a somewhat balanced view, devoting a section on alternative explanations)
 * Edwin Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate. Oxford University Press, 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgpilot (talk • contribs) 20:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I read Edwin Bryant's book from cover to cover when it was first published, so it is hardly news to me or to other editors. Neither are the views of Elst, who is not an expert on Vedic or ancient history, but on modern politics, being an anti-Islamist and sympathiser with the Hindutva right. In other words, Elst is a political source, and Bryant is essentially summarising arguments. The wordiq.com article is actually a copy of an old Wikipedia article, much of which was written by me! Paul B (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * So the point is? What I find terribly unsettling is your tendency to attack people than arguments. I don't care what political sympathies that Elst has; I'm sure the proponents of this theory also have similar political leanings. Can we talk about the contents please? Here is another fairly extensive introduction to this theory, the politics involved and all the arguments for and against it -- including linguistic evidence and the syllabic (phonetic) similarity across all Indian languages: http://ddkosambi.blogspot.com/2008/04/kosambi-on-aryan-invasion.html So if the worldiq.com article was written by you, how come it has a section on Alternative theories and not the Wikipedia article? -- Fgpilot (talk) 10:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I dson't care whether you find it "terribly unsettling is your tendency to attack people than arguments". That is Wikipedia policy, not my tendency. We have to assess authors and publishers as reliable sources according to WP:RS. What someone says on a blog, or aome random website is irrelevant. The utter nonsense you are spouting about "phonetic" and "lexical" languages is an example of that. We use professionals in the relevant areas, ancient history, archaeology and languages. The situation here is certainly complex, since different disciplines combine to create the model, but the central point is that we summarise the views of experts. We don't argue things through ourselves - at least not in the article itself. There is a case for looking in detail at historical and ideological uses of racial concepts in 19th and 20th century models of Indo-European history. Currently that's dealt with in the Aryan race article. Paul B (talk) 23:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, this "utter nonsense" is based on a paper published by the Indian Institute of Advanced Studies based in Shimla (http://www.iias.org/) which is known for its research in the historical and social sciences. Do read the papers cited above. Also, regarding the Aryan race dimension, please note that I have never stated nor implied in my comments that the Aryan invasion theory is racist (I've only stated it as a counter-argument given by the alternate camp against them being called names). My main concern was and is the following: an encyclopedic article that talks about a hypothesis needs to have a section on alternate hypotheses. If required, add a statement (citing reliable sources) that specific such alternate hypotheses were known to be popular among Hindu nationalists or whatever (However, be ready to also be labeled in as unflattering terms by the other camp as well. Mud slung is ground lost, as the saying goes) -- Fgpilot (talk) 06:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything on that website about differences between "phonetic" and "lexical" languages that pertain to language genesis. Elst makes some convoluted arguments using those words, but not with the meaning you attributed to them. It is pointless wasting talk space on this article since you just keep repeating yourself. I am happy to discuss this on my talk page if you wish to do so. Paul B (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the paper on semantic universals in Indian languages. The blog about D.D. Kosambi's work does mention phonetic and lexical languages. "The phonetic organization of consonants and vowels, phonetic spelling, and the many other commonalities that bind all of India's syllabic scripts weakens the entire linguistic premise of the Aryan invasion theory. In fact, when it comes to scripts, consonant and vowel sounds, all Indian languages are closely related, and their closest relatives are to be found in South East Asia, Ethiopia (and even Korea and Mongolia to some degree) but not in Europe." In any case, fine with me that we stop this debate here. I do not want to discuss it further either and don't see it going anywhere. The way I see it is that the dismissals of all alternate theories by attributing political motives to them is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Anyway, I do not wish to edit this article as I don't have the time and resources to maintain it. And as parting words, while I leave unconvinced and stick to my original view; I'd like to leave on a pleasant note. So please accept my apologies if any of my words have caused heartburn. As is evident from the discussion here, my objective is encyclopedic completeness, not political agenda of any kind whatsoever. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

David Frawley has zero credentials as a historian. Why do you even bring him up? He is a practicioner of traditional medicine and astrology who dabbles in popular books on racial theories and Hinduism. The "rebuttals" connected with the Indigenous Aryans meme is political noise for the benefit of the Hindu religious right in India. If it is an "argument", it is one on a level completely distinct from an encyclopedic discussion of historical evidence. It's propaganda. It's notable propaganda, which is why we discuss it on Wikipedia, but it's still just propaganda.

Your "linguistic" comments are complete gibberish and show that you do not have the first clue on the topic. Apparently, you do not even have a clear idea of the difference between speaking and writing. Your concept of "phonetical vs. lexical language" is pure nonsense. This is an excellent example of why we require scholarly references. If we did not, just anyone could come along and dump random nonsense like this in Wikipedia articles. With the result that our articles would be of no more value than a random excerpt of a random usenet thread. --dab (𒁳) 12:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * @Paul B. I am not saying that IE languages don't have merit. I am only saying that IE languages does not imply Aryan invasion / migration. And let me just ignore the gibberish by @dab pretending to be a scholar, and attacking a person and assigning motives, rather than indulge in a scholarly debate. Just shows who here has an agenda to push. -- Fgpilot (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Let me state one more my primary concern. To write an encyclopedic article about something that happened 5000 years ago without a section on Alternative theories and to dismiss any other alternative hypotheses as propaganda, just lacks credibility. Period. -- Fgpilot (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether it's 5000 years ago, or 5 days ago, the rules of Wikipedia apply. BashBrannigan (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly what I am saying, assuming that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedic article on a hypothesis like this *should* include a section on alternative theories. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Tamil are from radically different language families. Modern Tamil likely has a connection with ancient Elamite. Indo European speakers likely came from outside India, though possibly only as far as Uzbekistan, where they may have been stuck for several thousand years during the last glacial maximum However, all that is besides the point. The "linguistic evidence" cited for the dates of the 2nd millennium BCE for the earliest Sanskrit is hogwash. To be able to weigh such evidence, one needs a working knowledge of Sanskrit, Classical Greek, Homeric Greek and at least one other ancient IE language, as also a working knowledge of phonology, linguistics and comparative philology. I have this knowledge. Authors such as Mallory or Diamond do not, to the best of published knowledge. The archaicness and completeness of Sanskrit and its distance from, say Mycenaean (the oldest) or Homeric Greek, or Maagadhi (the language of Buddha) cannot be reconciled with an interval of a thousand years. The distance from Mycenaean Greek to Sanskrit is at least a thousand years. This is the hard lingusitic evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashwinushas (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Request consideration of text below under "Local Political Debate and Implications" section
I would like a consideration of the text below in this section. It is very well researched, with 18 references. The references cited are solid, i.e. recent archaeological digs, satellite imagery etc. I feel it is important to present the viewpoint below as an alternative viewpoint for consideration regarding the dating of the Indo-Aryan migration (and nothing more). Max Mueller does indeed have everything to do with the original 2nd millenium BCE date, since his date stuck. The "evidence" cited by reviewer Barlow is largely conjectural and not based on archaeological, linguistic and other finds, e.g. the statement of Mallory that migration from India to Anatolia, over such long distances would be difficult- it may not be migration, but simple contact with a well established neighboring country.

I would also like to request review by someone other than Barlow, witness his rather unprofessional rejection of my initial edit with one word, "baloney".

Thank you.

_________ TEXT FOLLOWS ___________

There is no substantive archaeological or other evidence for a migration of Indo-European speakers into India either way, i.e. neither supporting nor discrediting it, while the conjectured dates for such a migration are based almost entirely on an original, "back-of-the-envelope" calculation by Friedrich Max Mueller. This calculation [2-4], which was subsequently accepted without argument by all scholars of Indology due to the stature of Mueller, started with 483 BCE for the date of enlightenment of the Buddha, then arbitrarily assigned 200 years each to each of the five elements of the Vedanta such as the Braahmanas and Aaranyakas, thus arriving at 483 + (200 X 5) = 1483 BCE. There is much, strong evidence, some of it recent, that points to such a date being much too late. To cite just a few of many examples of this: (1) Recent geological, satellite-imagery and other evidence    has shown conclusively that the Saraswati (Sarasvati) river, originally flowing  from the region of modern-day Rajasthan to a confluence with the Yamuna and Ganga (Ganges) river at modern-day Allahabad, dried up around 1900 BCE. Now this river is mentioned as being wide and full in all of the Vedic and Vedantic writings, except the latest ones (the Aaranyakas), where it is mentioned as starting to dry up. This would thus place the last of the Vedaantic writings at around 1900 BCE, far removed from Max Mueller's ca. 683 BCE. (2) Excavations at Boghaz-Koy in Anatolia     reveal an Indian (Indic) language  in two documents, both dated at ca. 1400 BCE (one a treaty between the Mitanni king Matiwaza and the Hittite king Suppiluliuma  and the second a treatise on horse-care composed by a Mitanni named Kikkuli(s)); this language has the telltale linguistic signatures of a Prakrit, i.e. a descendant of Sanskrit, such as the elision of the p in the Sanskrit sapta ("seven") to satta. (3) Mueller's assignment of 683 BCE for the last of the Vedic Sanskrit also does not make any linguistic sense in relation to the language of the Buddha, Maagadhi or Pali. Assigning a 200 year gap between Maagadhi (483 BCE) and Vedic Sanskrit is even more extreme than assigning a 200 year gap between modern French and Old Latin. On the other hand, the archaicness and completeness of Sanskrit leads linguists to assign a gap of at least 1500 years between Sanskrit and, e.g. Mycenaean Greek or Hittite   (4) The citation of numerous precisely dateable astronomical events in the RgVeda point to dates in the middle of the 4th millennium BCE.

______END OF TEXT___

Ashwinushas (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the source(s) of this? The references provided appear to serve the purpose of supporting the argument, but are not the source of the argument. Is this original research? BashBrannigan (talk) 05:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"the archaicness and completeness of Sanskrit leads linguists to assign a gap of at least 1500 years between Sanskrit and, e.g. Mycenaean Greek or Hittite" - LMAO, someone should count the ways in which this sentence is absolute nonsense 87.202.38.39 (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Indra Stands Accused
From page 159 of Edwin Bryant's book The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture:

Scholars soon began to react against Wheeler’s version of events. In time, most scholars judged that “Indra stands completely exonerated” (Dales 1964, 42; See also Srivastava 1984, 441). George Dales (1964) pointed out the obvious: “Where are the burned fortresses, the arrowheads, weapons, pieces of armor, the smashed bodies of the invaders and defenders? Despite the extensive excavations at the largest Harappan sites, there is not a single bit of evidence that can be brought forth as unconditional proof of an armed conquest and destruction on the scale of the Aryan invasion” (38). Not a single one of the thirty-seven skeletons was found in the area of the so-called citadel, which pre- page 160: sumably would have been the locus of the heaviest fighting in the siege of a city. Besides this, the celebrated group of skeletons were found to belong to a period posterior to the abandonment of the latest stage of the city (38). Moreover, Kenneth Kennedy (1994, 248), who inspected thirty-four of the skeletons, found only one revealed a cranial lesion that might have been inflicted by a weapon; the marks on the remaining skulls, apart from one that had a healed wound mark unconnected with the cause of death, were cracks and warps caused by erosion, not violent aggression. Kenoyer (1991b) sums up the situation: “Any military conquest that would have been effective over such a large area should have left some clear evidence in the archaeological record…evidence for periods of sustained conflict and coercive militaristic hegemony are not found” (57). Few archaeologists today refer to Aryan aggression in connection with the demise of the Indus Valley, although occasionally the old paradigm stirs again Hokie Tech (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * And your point is what? Are we supposed to change something? Paul B (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Under the "History" section, the article mentions Mortimer Wheeler's theory. We might want to add a sentence or two stating that his ideas have been disproved. Hokie Tech (talk) 21:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many Vandal arrow-heads these people would expect to excavate in the Roman forum. Did the Vandals sack Rome? Yes. Did the Vandals destroy the Roman Empire, or did they manage to sack Rome because the Roman Empire was collapsing? Hard to say, probably the latter.

Wheeler's theory has not "been disprove[n]". "Indra stands accused" is not a "theory", it is a concise way of summarizing the situation of discovering an unexpected civilization that seems to have collapsed right at the moment the Vedic Aryans appear on the scene. We might say "Wotan stands accused" if we had forgotten Rome ever existed and now excavated the ruins of the Capitol. Was Wotan actually "responsible" for the fall of the Roman Empire? Probably not. But it's a nice way of saying, first the Roman Empire was strong, then it collapsed and the Germanic tribes moved in. --dab (𒁳) 14:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the parallel the above user drew regarding the Vandals sacking of Rome with Indo-Aryans and the IVC culture, neither is their evidence to support the above users proposition that early Indo-Aryans appeared precisely at the time of the decline of the IVC and made contact with the IVC culture at that time and place. WP:SYNTH by non-experts that in an ideal encyclopedia would not show its influence in this topic other than under a historical views heading.121.210.116.50 (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So you agree with Wheeler's version of events, then? OK, that's perfectly fine.  However, most mainstream archaeologists do not.  And we might want to add a sentence or two to the article indicating that. Hokie Tech (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit and Tamil are from radically different language families. Modern Tamil likely has a connection with ancient Elamite. Indo European speakers likely came from outside India, though possibly only as far as Uzbekistan, where they may have been stuck for several thousand years during the last glacial maximum However, all that is besides the point. The "linguistic evidence" cited for the dates of the 2nd millennium BCE for the earliest Sanskrit is hogwash. To be able to weigh such evidence, one needs a working knowledge of Sanskrit, Classical Greek, Homeric Greek and at least one other ancient IE language, as also a working knowledge of phonology, linguistics and comparative philology. I have this knowledge. Authors such as Mallory or Diamond do not, to the best of published knowledge. The archaicness and completeness of Sanskrit and its distance from, say Mycenaean (the oldest) or Homeric Greek, or Maagadhi (the language of Buddha) cannot be reconciled with an interval of a thousand years. The distance from Mycenaean Greek to Sanskrit is at least a thousand years. This is the hard lingusitic evidence. Ashwinushas (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Might help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.10.56 (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Puranic Timelines Do NOT Go Back Millions of Years
The following quote comes from Book 8 of the Indica by Arrian: "From Dionysus to Sandracottus the Indians counted a hundred and fifty-three kings, over six thousand and forty-two years, and during this time thrice [Movements were made] for liberty . . . this for three hundred years; the other for a hundred and twenty years; the Indians say that Dionysus was fifteen generations earlier than Heracles; but no one else ever invaded India, not even Cyrus son of Cambyses, though he made an expedition against the Scythians, and in all other ways was the most energetic of the kings in Asia; but Alexander came and conquered by force of arms all the countries he entered; and would have conquered the whole world had his army been willing. But no Indian ever went outside his own country on a warlike expedition, so righteous were they." Since Megasthenes got his information from native Indian sources, we can safely assume that the dynastic lists came from Puranic literature (as it existed during Greek times). Hokie Tech (talk) 01:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Found
I found this piece of text on another wikipedia article: 'aryan race' Genetic studies

A genetic study in the year 2000 in Andhra Pradesh state of India found that the upper caste Hindus were closer relatives to Eastern-Europeans than to Hindus from lower castes.[25] However, a study conducted by the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in 2009 (in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health and the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT) analyzed half a million genetic markers across the genomes of 132 individuals from 25 ethnic groups from 13 states in India across multiple caste groups.[26] The study asserts, based on the impossibility of identifying any genetic indicators across caste lines, that castes in South Asia grew out of traditional tribal organizations during the formation of Indian society, and was not the product of any Aryan invasion and "subjugation" of Dravidian people.[27]

Thought it might be of some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.246.215 (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Vishal Agarwal's Critique
Vishal Agarwal posted a critique of Wendy Doniger's book The Hindus: An Alternative History on his website. His critique of Chapter 4 deals with the Aryan Invasion theory. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Euro-centric fantasy or reality, China's chariot technology developed from Indo-Aryan migration/transfer?
In support of the Euro-centric "out of Indo-Aryan" idea, Wikipedia user "Dbachmann" had created and uploaded an image to support the idea that chariot technology in China was "introduced from Sintashta-Petrovka/Andronovo/Kassite-Mesopotamian" cultures. Among all the other dubious and twisted "claim-as-facts" regarding ancient Asian history, especially the "Han versus Hun" Euro-centric edits, this article is in need of credible scientific support and verifiable citations. 99.130.8.150 (talk) 05:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This "eurocentric" map has it spreading from central Asia, and arriving in western Europe after it arrives in North Africa, India and China. That's a strange form of "Eurocentrism". Has it occurred to you that your objection might be interpreted as "Sinocentrism"? Paul B (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:SYN removed
Recent genetic study of the demographies of India indeed support the theory and found a strong link with similar gene pattern among Middle Eastern, Central Asian, and European with Indo-European language speaking group of north India. (citing http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090922/full/news.2009.935.html)

There's no explicit support in that source for the 1700-1300 BC migration theory. Funny enough an Indian news site was being cited at Indigenous Aryans to claim the opposite, i.e. that the study disproves the migration theory (and both news sources cite the same Nature paper ) Tijfo098 (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A question, about Indo-European migration.
Indo-Aryan and Indo-European is the same thing? It should be more precise.

It is almost impossible to find traces of pre-Indo-European population in Western Europe is not that they were born here directly from post-glacial inhabitants? There is anywhere, after all, archaeological continuity. There are only reports of new migrations of nomade Indo-European against older Indo-European. Example Dorians vs Acheans but both were Indo-Europeans. Older ex-nomade as Celts, Scythians, Italic tribes, Veneti, Raeti, ecc, ecc agaist Newer nomade Germanic, Slavic and Sarmatians. The Mongolian languages ​​like Turkish, Finnish, Hungarian, we know that there are only from the High Middle-Age (very recent).

With the exception of Sardinia, the Basques and Etruscans everything else is Indo-European. We know that the Etruscans (only historical population no Indo-european speaker in ancient Italic peninsula) came from orient probably Siria or south Anatolia via sea. So the only non-Indo-European speakers were recent immigrants.

It seems that in Europe, there are no ""Dravidians"" as in India. Why? Where are the ancient native ? Is it possible that the megalithic civilization (pre-historical populations) are left alone the Basques ? ;-) However we know that many who used the megaliths were Indo-Europeans as the more recent Mycenaeans and the Celts (historical populations)

I recall that there was continuity between the megalithic culture (5000 BCE and after) and the Celtics about the places of worship. In fact, Stonehenge and others, has been restored many times in the Roman period. Hecataeus of Abdera (late Roman empire, he lived en Egypt) explains us the use of the Hyperborean temple of Callanish 1 where "the Moon every 19 years dances along the horizon". The temple is bulding probably in 3000 BCE but in Roman period around 400CE the originary use was still known. Perhaps the builders of Callanish were non Indo-Europeans and Celts have learned the worship. It seems a bit forced. I think that there is religious continuity as in Egypt for example and in Greece. In many parts of Europe, the Mother Goddess has never existed (only rare Mesolitic findings). In the South Europe it must go well into the ancient Neolithic.... except for the Etruscans but they are non Indo-European and probably matriarcals. We find this Goddess in Crete but not between the Mycenaean, Celts, Italics, except as a residual. In Northern Europe there is not even the residue.

--Andriolo (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the article a set of someones or others beliefs
The article contains lots of assumptions and is biased. See some of the statements made in the article below to find out: How did someone came to this conclusion is not appearent and is supposed to be presumptious and nothing else. This is totally false statement and there is no basis for such a find. Also this contains a overtone of some marxist historians in India who are still trying to inculcate wrong ideas among different communities. This statement is highly biased. Here the writer thinks that he can brand some views as nationalistic. What about the views of others, are they internationalistic? or what!. This again is classical assumption specifically invented for such theories. Why should Rig-veda be interpreted as written by some nomadic people. Unlike someones wild imagination, Rig-veda can be written by fully civilized people living in cities. Cant we in the present era write about nomadic life of some distance past or otherwise sitting in air-conditioned houses.
 * "There are however some high caste hindus such as the Brahmins and Kshatriya in North India who are originally from central Asia and have settled in the North. This has been the basis of Caste division"
 * "The other Hindu castes spread around various parts of India (North or South), like the Vaishyas, Shudras and the Dalits are ethnic Dravidians though in the North, they may now speak Indo-Aryan languages"
 * "Hindutva (Hindu nationalist) organizations, especially, mostly remain opposed to the concept."
 * "According to the linguistic center of gravity principle, the most likely point of origin of a language family is in the area of its greatest diversity."
 * "Such remnants of IVC culture are not prominent in the Rigveda, with its focus on chariot warfare and nomadic pastoralism in stark contrast with an urban civilization."

There are many other absurd statements which are only intended to give a false impression of Indian history and life. Can anybody know which historian is giving correct weight to facts and not twisting things according to his whim, bias? This article needs to be reworked to give correct information. 27.61.217.105 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added "Citation Needed" tags to the comments you mentioned which weren't referenced. You seem to know something about the topic. As long as you have valid references to published sources, you needn't be a "historian" to make changes to Wikipedia. You can add the work of people who are "historians". BashBrannigan (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Rig-veda is used to show migration/invasion
In India Rig-veda is not regarded as a source of history(itihasa). Others like Ramayana and Mahabharatha come under that category. So how someone will try to use it to show migration? There Indra and other names are not regarded as humans but demi-gods, and therefore it cannot be used to show a connection to migration. It is also a part of mythology and therefore should not be used as a historical source. If they regard it as a historical record then they have to prove the existance of God and demi-god which is mentioned in that text which is not possible. Such theory only show the bad intensions of others to defame Hinduism. Will anyone do the same to Quran and Bible and try to give a bad impression to it?. The answer is NO. Please remove such content and try to add more scientific reasons rather than mythology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.99.87.69 (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * There are some references to historical events in the RV, but the content of the text is not these days used much as evidence of migration, though it certainly describes battles against enemies of Vedic culture - so it implies some sort of struggle for territory. I fail to see how this implies "bad intensions of others to defame Hinduism". What exactly is being defamed? Paul B (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all it may not be historical events and it is only assumed that way. Here trying to defame means using religious hymns which is used for recitation to intrepret as historical events and deriving terms like aryan, dravidian, etc from it to show apathy that does not exist. This is also twisted in many ways and used to arrive at different and sometimes bizzare conclusions that castes and communities are the bottleneck for all problems in India. These days it is also getting politicised so it is bad for the country. Scientific enquiry is needed for problems not blaming religion and caste for it. Historians are unable to come up with proper explaination for recent events like the anigere skull issue but can promptly assume and comment on some thing that happened around 3500(as they say) years ago, which may not be correct in any way. One more thing is that in India many historians think that they can use Hindu religious texts as they want, because Hindus are very tolerant and they wont say anything. They wont dare to do the same to others like Islam and Christianity. This will create problems because there will be a limit to everything. Hope everyone understands this. 27.57.107.65 (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

BMAC and Aryan connection is totally baseless!!
Eminent archaeologists like B.B. Lal have seriously questioned the BMAC and Indo-iranian "connections", and thoroughly disputed all the proclaimed relations. http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/19th-century-paradigms.html While others maintain there is insufficient evidence for any ethnic or linguistic identification of the BMAC solely based on material remains, in the absence of written records. So I urge the guru editors to be truthful and to not 'blindly support' the academic eurocentric fringes!.Nirjhara (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Blogs do not count as reliable sources when it comes to attacking peer reviewed work. One of the other sources for the statements you added does not appear in the bibliography, and so cannot be weighed regarding WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The other source, Bryant 2001, is the argument you are attempted to rebut, and so I doubt that it rebuts itself. I have removed the statements.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The best joke i ever heard pal! blog... Its a archaeology website and its a peer speech by a peer archaeologist! And about the book go get read to get some sense in your bheja!Nirjhara (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It calls itself "archaeology online" but it's just a propaganda site trotting out the usual nonsense. You can call websites whatever you like, it does not make them authoritative. Paul B (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Peer speech. Peer archaeologist. Peer reviewed? Two out of three doesn't cut it, especially when the two have no meaning.  RJC  TalkContribs 16:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

well. See what you editors have in your defence.Nirjhara (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. The speech is a detailed scientific one which have discarded the relations point by point.
 * 2.THE BMAC have neither any written or archaeologic record for any relation.
 * 3. The relations are got up by academic scholars but have no value incase of proves and bases!.
 * 4. So if logic discards something by analysis and still get hindered its surely madness at his peak.
 * 5. I just want the true position of the BMAC to be given with your kind "academic story" too.
 * There's no doubt that Lal has become sympathetic to these views, but his is not a consensus opinion. If you look at the website you will see it is full of links to fringe stuff and is not a serious archaeology site. You need to look at the predominent view of academic writers who have no nationalist axes to grind. Paul B (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

"Judge the work not the worker" gd tms.Nirjhara (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am unfamiliar with which pillar of Wikipedia that is a quotation from. It seems to run counter to WP:RS. Please elucidate.  RJC  TalkContribs 06:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

well if you belive in truth then its the ultimate pillar, if you check the article then you will find the gist i gave as it is a point to point article by a clinicall archaeologists.Nirjhara (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Aryan?" Human Migration, maybe
Let us set aside the term "Aryan" for a bit (is a red herring or a red flag, imo). Humans have migrated all through recorded & pre recorded history. I understand that Genetics/Archeology tells us everyone is African. The vast stretches of linguistically related peoples cannot be contested. So it is reasonable to assume that people moved/migrated, though it does not really tell us from where to where. Human migrations usually have some serious causes. People do not just up and migrate. And thousands of years ago, it was a lot more of a big deal than it is today. The weather is usually a good candidate for causing significant migrations. And when we consider large areas the size of subcontinental India or Europe, then weather changes have to be on a very large scale. So let us consider, for a moment, the last larg-ish weather unhinging which could have caused some serious large scale migration. The last regular ice age takes us back some what over 15,000 years ago. Actually (just looked it up) wiki says that "The maximum extent of glaciation was approximately 18,000 years ago", and that the ice sheets were gone by about 9000 years ago. Bear with me, and consider that most of northern European humans would have moved south & on to warmer climates by about 15000BCE, and that this migration covered, may be a period of from 16,000BCE to 12,000BCE. This would have been a slow, steady migration, not a flood. The Indian subcontinent at the time was equivalent to what the Europeans found on the north American continent 500 years ago - virgin forest, & savanna (different climate, ofcourse). Ice age migrants would have to bypass already established human habitations arount the mediterranian & the fertile cresent, to get to Iran, and later, India. The slow migration in would have lasted, perhaps, about 1500-2000 years, allowing for assimilation, development of culture & some form of common language. With the ice age in northern Eurasia ending by 9000BCE, a probable reverse flow of people might have led off out of Iran by about 8000BCE, and about 7000BCE out of India. Again, these would be slow, steady migrations, fueled by availability of new virgin spaces in the north. Neither migration (South, then north) would be part of any human historic record, and it would leave behind nothing but a linguistic record from a window of a shared common past before the languages diverged in their evolution again. Further evolution & assimilation in India of migrants that stayed would provide a homogeneous genetic foot print, by & large, other than among isolated communities. No invasion, no warfare, just slow processes of human cultural & linguistic development with a reletively short (ca 2-3,000 years, ca 8500BCE - 5000BCE) of a common history in India in their formative years. Residual communities which did not leave (in Iran and in India) would continue to develop a common history, later complicated by wars etcetera. Again, I will stress that this has nothing particularly "Aryan", or "invasion" about these postulated mundane events. [The boy asked" where did the big rock come from, dad?"-- "The glacier brought it, son" The boy says again:"where is the glacier now, dad?"-- "It went back for more rocks, son". Easy.Smart dad].For those who like it - this is the Ice Age Tourists Event theory, or I ATE, theory in short. Chibber (talk) 06:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Chibber
 * Here the question that whether there was any migration or not is not seen as important but are most indians migrants is the question? Is Rig-veda talking about migration? The purpose was generally british policy of divide and rule and now that same method is used to inculcate wrong ideas such as these. Look at how veda is seen as product of a pastoral race. Vedas could have been written by anyone(even indus people), but they are using the hymns to say that it was written by nomands. Vedas are not encyclopedias and need not contain every detail about the social, political and other aspects of people who wrote it. It is just that they wrote it that way. Even the type of language used may be unimportant because different varieties of same and different languages might have coexisted then. Migrations may have happened at different time periods in the world history which is not denied by anyone, but why specifically aryan migration is invented is questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.61.59.9 (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not brand honest scholars
"...writers linked to Hindu nationalism such as Elst (1999) and Kazanas (2001, 2002, 2009)." Elst as a Hindu nationalist can still be digested, but Kazanas is a real, honest and dedicated scholar. Do not defame him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.22.206 (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a citation needed tag. BashBrannigan (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Genetic section
Some users are again and again, tampering with the genetic section. The subject is under discussion at Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) page, please refer to it before further edition. NearThatTown (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether to remove statements that have citations in peer-reviewed sources is not under discussion there. These edits are not under discussion there. I do not care where R1a originated, but I do care about politically motivated removal of inconvenient information. I do care about taking a scholarly debate and presenting the minority position as the emerging consensus. I do care about the abuse of the WP:BRD cycle, pointing to discussions that do not discuss the edits in question, and about the abuse of WP:NPOV to expunge distasteful points of view.  RJC  TalkContribs 19:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Date
"Recent genetic research indicates that the Indian subcontinent was subjected to a series of massive Indo-European migrations about 3,500 BC"

This is taken from page 2287 of the given source: "When the ranked caste system was formed after the arrival of the IE speakers ∼3500 ybp, many indigenous people of India, who were possibly DR speakers,embraced (or were forced to embrace) the caste system,together with the IE language and admixture."

YBP is not BC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.154.28 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right. 95.27.96.242 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"Genetic Anthropology" section needs updating
A recent AJHG Paper is directly related to the section and its conclusions are needed to be mentioned. '''Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-Wide Signals of Positive Selection in South Asia '''The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011 Summing up, our results confirm 'both ancestry and temporal complexity shaping the still on-going process of genetic structuring of South Asian populations. This intricacy cannot be readily explained by the putative recent influx of Indo-Aryans alone but suggests multiple gene flows to the South Asian gene pool, both from the west and east, over a much longer time span.'''

Combining our results with other available genome-wide data, we show that 'Indian populations are characterized by two major ancestry components, one of which is spread at comparable frequency and haplotype diversity in populations of South and West Asia and the Caucasus. The second component is more restricted to South Asia and accounts for more than 50% of the ancestry in Indian populations. Haplotype diversity associated with these South Asian ancestry components is significantly higher than that of the components dominating the West Eurasian ancestry palette. Modeling of the observed haplotype diversities suggests that both Indian ancestry components are older than the purported Indo-Aryan invasion 3,500 YBP.''' Nirjhara (talk) 04:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC) And ofcourse we dont have to put those large conclusion except the main gist after the 67th reference, like: A later 2011 study by Metspalu et al. On South Asian population have found both the ancestral components to be older and incompatible with the purported Indo-aryan invasion 3500 YBP ."Nirjhara (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Surely this source can be fitted in to what is there already? Please by all means add more. I have tried to restructure some of the opening sentences in order to better fit the newest sources, and allow someone else to slot those in. But try to add mention of all theories. Remember to avoid trying to delete mention of published theories because that always gets controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Andrew the gist i have shown is the main thing of the paper (with no other "indications" like the moorjan et al.) which can be added after the 67th reference, I have made it a more compatible, please make the gist added in the way you think, i can not cause of my device. Ps. The section has huge numbers of paper sentences which is extra by a lot except adding the main conclusions huge sentences of the papers are added. Have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 12:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Stepanov et al 2011
Can someone (the person who included it ?) please reference the paper properly and link it better (it just links to a generic page of a geneology conference it might have featured in. That is not a good enough reference. Slovenski Volk (talk) 06:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disputed content April 2012
Please see Distributor108 (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not NPOV
There is clearly considerable debate over whether there was an Indo-European migration and it which direction it occurred. Nobody here seems to notice that the vast majority of Europeans support Mueller's original idea of an West-East migration and that many Indian nationals either suspect a West-East migration or dispute the idea of a migration at all.

We all claim--in good faith--that we have what we feel to be scholarly and objective criteria for our beliefs but that is a total crock if we are immersed in one side or other of a debate. If we have been educated in a Christian Western paradigm we are in fact simply blind to the biases that we have and no amount of reasonable blah blah blah can change that.

It is neither necessary or appropriate for this article to tilt this particular debate towards one side or the other. The proper approach is to simply report the debate and perhaps the gist of the pros and cons carefully. This article does not. It attempts to appear neutral but there is a sly slant towards the traditional western view.

--174.7.25.37 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree ! I came to this article to understand different points of the view of the debate but found out that this article looks like its written and edited by one of the participants(in support of the migration theory) in the controversy and not an impartial observer. I have studied some of the arguments against this theory and can say that irrespective whether one agrees with it or not, they are based on some solid logical arguments backed by evidence and people who read this article also have the right to know about the arguments opposing it. By the way, there are many Europeans who oppose this migration theory and couple of them even advocate Out of India model and there are many Indians who agree with this migration theory.So its not a Europeans vs Indians thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.106.77 (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

POINTWISE REBUTTAL OF ROMILA THAPAR,S AIT/AMT CLAIMS

 * 1.In her lecture of 1999 at JNU she has mentioned the rivers Sarasvati,Sarayu and Sapta Sindhu in India and Hairawati, Harayu and Hapta Hindu in Iran.Clearly, the liguistic change is from India to Iran.It is obvious when he Aryas migrated from India to Iran their accent changed to Iranian accent.E.G.(Asian children born in Scotland speak English in Scottish accent).Also, Sindh became Hind in Iran and middle East and India in Europe due to linguist change.So, the point is that the linguistic change is from India to Iran,Middle East and Europe and not the other way round.
 * 2.Thapar has also mentioned about rural imagery in the Vedas.Well, the reason for rural imagery is because the the Vedas were written in the forests.The writers of Vedas, the Rishis preferred to live in the country side rather than in Urban areas.The Rishis lived in forests,in ashrams, with their families and disciples and they used to keeep cattle, cows, goats and sheep etc.These ashrams were run like today,s boarding schools, Christian convent schools or muslim madrasas.These Ashrams were suppoted by Aryan kings.the classic example is the story of Shakuntla where the sage Kanwa was living in the forest and the king was living in the city in his palace.The sages were peaceful people and probably the villagers and the tribals used to steal their cattle and for this reason the rishis used to call them dasa and dasyus(thieves and robbers?).These Rishis were also family priests of Aryan kings and their tribes and they used to write in their favour and call their opposing Aryan kings and tribes Dasas, Dasyus, Danvas, Daityas and Rakshasa etc.the point is that the Vedas were written from the point of view of aryan sages and the aryan kings they represented.The sage Vishwa Mitra was a king living in urban area and afterwards he went to the forest to do tapasya and became a sage.
 * 3.Ships with hundred oars.In the Vedas there is mention of ships with hundred oars.Thapar asks a question, how do pastoral Aryas know about ships with hundred oars?.She says it must be a fantasy.The answer is, of course the pastorals would not have known about ships with hundred oars.But, the Indus Valley people certaintly knew about ships with hundred oars.Who were these Indus Valley people?.The Aryas were the Indus Valley people and that is how the Aryas knew about ships with hundred oars.Simple.
 * 4.Aryanam Veho.In her lecture Thapar says that in the Avesta it says that the Aryas came from Aryanam Veho.She interprets the phrase "Aryanam Veho" as,the way from which the Aryas came or the way along which the Aryas came.This is an ambiguous interpretation.It does not say which way they came.Aryanam Veho actually means, way of Aryana, via Aryana or through Aryana.In the ancient times Afghanistan was known as Aryana.So, the phrase Aryanam Veho actually means, way of Afghanistan, via Afghanistan or through Afghanistan.So, if the Iranians are saying that they came via Afghanistan, way of Afghanistan or thruogh Afghanistan then they must have come from somewhere beyond Afghanistan.They did not come from Afghanistan but came via Afghanistan.If someone in Iran says that he came via Afghanistan then he must have come from India or Indus valley.Every great civilisation colonised its neighbours.The Indus valley people must have sent out colonies, too.The Mauryas sent out colonies to central asia.this is how Buddism was spread abroad.The Indus Valley Aryas must have sent out colonies to central Asia, middle East and europe.The proof is the treaty between Mitannis and Hitittes in which the aryan Gods were invoked and the similarity between Sanskrit and the language of Avestan and the horse treaty of Kikkuli.Rajbaz (talk) 12:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 5.Who came first?.Vedas or Vedic civilisation.If we look at the world,s great civilisations we notice that before the Jewish civilisation, Jewish prophet Moses, his ten commandments and the Torah came first and the Jewish civilisation came later.Jesus, Bible and the Apostles came first and the christian civilisation came later.Zoroastrian prophet Zarathustra and the Avesta came first and the Zoroastrian civilisation came later.Mahatma Gautam Budh and his eight noble truths came first and the Budhist civilisation came later.The muslim prophet Mohammed and Quran came first and the muslim civilisation came later.The Sikh Gurus and the Guru Granth came first and the Sikh civilisation came later.The Aryan or Hindu Vedas,Vedic Rishis(Seers),Manu,Vivashvant Manu and Manu Smriti came first and the Vedic or Aryan civilisation came later.The first Aryan Rishis or Seers were Atri and Marichi and Rishi Vishmamitra was 48th in descent from Atri.There were seven different Vedas written by seven different Rishis and their families.Manu Smriti was written by Vivashvant Manu.manusmriti was the law book of the Aryas which dealt with the wordly affairs and the Vedas dealt with the spiritual affairs.Vivashvantmanu was the law giver of Hindus and this makes him the founder of Hinduism.That is why Vivashvant Manu is regarded as the Manu of the present Manwantra.
 * 6.Dates of Vedas.all the seven Veda Mandalas were collected by rishi Vyasa into one and were called Rigveda.for collecting the Vedas together into one Rishi Vyasa is called Veda Vyasa or collector or binder of Vedas.This happened at the time of Mahabharat.Rishi Vyasa is also the author of the Great Epic Mahabharata.From the first Rishis, Atri and Marichi to the time of Mahabharat or Rishi Vyasa sixty generations are given.This means that the Vedas were written over a period of sixty generations.The average for one generation is about thirty years.If we multiply 30 by 60 it gives us 1800 years.This means that the Vedas were written over a period of 1800 years prior to Mahabharat.Rajbaz (talk) 11:53, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This isn't really the place for a discussion about the topic of the article or to rebut the claims made by certain scholars, even if mentioned in the article. See WP:NOTFORUM.  RJC  TalkContribs 15:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic Evidence Should be Discussed More Prominently
I have read the article in its entirety. It is somewhat sprawling, and difficult to read. However, it is technically, and factually correct. It is, therefore, appropriate given the article's title. I do feel, however, that the alternate hypothesis namely the cultural transformation hypothesis should be mentioned in the abstract. I will edit the abstract to take this consideration into account. I also feel that the linguistic evidence for the Aryan migration hypothesis should be given preeminence as it is the most significant evidence for an Aryan migration into the Indian subcontinent. Since the current data in support of the Aryan migration hypothesis is mostly linguistic, it is this category of evidence which should be discussed the most, and given preeminence in this article. I feel that the article makes a significant error of judgment in discussing the genetic and archaeological evidence at length instead of the linguistic evidence. The linguistic evidence is by far the most persuasive explanation for the coexistence of Aryan languages in the Indian subcontinent. Discussing the linguistic explanation in fact would also cause naturally to be discussed the coexistence of Aryan and Dravidian language families in the Indian subcontinent. This is by far the most important fact as it pertains to this discussion. Firstly, modern scholarship and contemporary literature as to the indigenous language of the Indian subcontinent is coalescing around the Aryan migration hypothesis. Simultaneously, the linguistic debate as to whether Aryan or Dravidian was the indigenous language of the Indian subcontinent is also becoming more conclusive. Broadly speaking most scholars agree that Dravidian was the indigenous language of the Indian subcontinent including the Indus and Ganges river basins. Over the course of time I will endeavor to amend this article to be much more readable and to updated to include references to the scholarly literature on the subject. Thank you.  புகழ்  21:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another comment from the region called 'bane of indianess', as the so ethical white chips from islands called GB so used to pronounce, from closed mouths 'Madras' (TamilNadus capital). So your point of you is only 'linguistic' to establish this theory as evident from your headline +Linguistic Evidence Should be Discussed More Prominently+ then you are no more than a mouth organ of witzel which has one and only wish of JESUS's india by dividing the people(using the centuries of dracula called caste system a blot of our ignorance of future). The linguistic interpretation is nothing more than a superiority complex of their skin color and love for their modern civilization, which has been refuted by many scholars time to time. These old 'steppe' fathers will be extinct soon. My friend from Tamil Nadu do not be a fallen for the old pour being obtuse distinct specimen as evident from this in whole Indian states 'Indhiyak kudiyarasu' for the Republic. 'Putra'? machha! be an Indian before creating a ghetto called 'Dravida'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.99.50.47 (talk) 12:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

In a tounge-in-cheek post, I suggest that, at best, one can talk of a human migration - immigrartion, emigration in and out of the Indian subcontinent in a disorganized movement of peoples some time between 8500BCE and 5000BCE. That would have been in response to the last ice age over the northern hemisphere, the only climatic change large enough to warrent such movement of people on such a scale. There is certainly no physical evidence of any organized "invasion" as the misguided authors of the Aryan Invasion Theory originally proposed, or as has subsequently failed to be substantiated by new discoveries of physical evidence in any meaningful manner. On the other hand, physical evidence of a very large number of new archeological sites along the course of dried river beds certainly points to a very logical reason for the abandonment of those sites (rivers changing course/drying up), which may not be as exciting as an invasion, but is certainly part of the bread and butter task of maintaining a civilization. Contrary to suggestions on these pages, there are reasons other than an invasion why civil societies relocate, though I can understand why a Eurocentic viewpoint would hold to to the more violent possibilities. And last but not least, those who argue that "human evolution similarly has no physical evidence" need to take remedial instruction in elementary logic.Chibber (talk)