Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations

archive1 archive2

POV-check tag

What will it take to remove the POV-check tag? --UB 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Divine intervention, I guess. Paul B 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that I am opening a Pandora's box but I find that the article has both views (pro-migration & pro-continuity) well represented.--UB 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

whould maybe be replaced by a cleanup tag. Minority views should obviously be discussed, but clearly presented as minority views. We get many editors who are not prepared to base discussion on academic publications, and thus do not accept a presentation of mainstream opinion. This should have no effect on tags, since it is Wikipedia policy to present views weighed by academic notability: this means that a coherent case must be made before tags can be slapped on things. The political implications are notable to India today, but as such have their own article. Nobody disputes there is some continuity: "pro-continuity" here means "no influx, PIE out of India", which is obviously not a tenable academic position. Discussion of the IVC may be fair, but it is simply offtopic here. But I agree the article is not terrible, and we might attempt replacing the NPOV tag with a "cleanup" one, and deal with dissent paragraph-by-paragraph (a general "NPOV" template is not useful on such a long article, since it doesn't show which parts are under dispute). dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How about PCT? It will take care of both PIE as well as continuity.--UB 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I replaced it with the cleanup tag; the article still indulges in much rambling about tangentially related topics. Note that this article should debate various scenarios about the migration's timeframe, and not treat random archaeological, philological or geological topics. The w idely accepted timeframe falls within 1900-1200 BC. There may be a case for pre-2000 immigration (source them), but such views are extremely fringy. There would still be I-A immigration, just in the 3rd instead of the 2nd millennium. I don't know if anyone believes in that, but it is certainly more credible than the idea of I-A miraculously developing independently. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Indus Valley Civilization 's scientific & organisational development was some MIRACLE ! Development of advanced town planning & laying of sewage underground pipelines during IVC was due to some MIRACLE ! Development of advanced maths & using decimal system that time was some MIRACLE ! Construction of sea port of Lothal which was massive, had dredged canal and docking facility was a MIRACLE ! Weights were based on units of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500, with each unit weighing approximately 28 grams, similar to the English Imperial ounce or Greek uncia was a MIRACLE ! Knowledge of Dentistry was a MIRACLE ! Practice of Yoga was a MIRACLE ! But, spreading of Sanskrit ( a scientific & `high' language ) over very vast civilized area of India by some nomadic tribes of central asia is not MIRACLE. WIN 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

um, yes, the IVC was a bronze age civilization with achievements comparable to those in Mesopotamia. If you are into that, you could consider contributing to our IVC article. And yes, even nomadic tribes have languages and rituals. Sanskrit became "scientific" with Panini in 500 BC, which has nothing whatsoever to do with IAM. dab (ᛏ) 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In Mesopotamia , planned cities are not found. No `modern' underground sewage system is found. No decimal system is found which we are using today.No man made dock is found. No common weight measurement system is found as in IVC. This weight measurement unit of 28 gm = 1 unit was used by Greek & English as ounce. Still today, bricks ratio of 1:2:4 is being used. Dentistry knowledge is found so obviously it means that they were having knowledge of Life science Ayurveda. Whatever above written you see in IVC , is still practised in 2006 all over world. That shows that knowledge of IVC scholars was very deep and fundamentally correct. By your writings , you are undermining or negating the achievements of IVC Indians.

Give me example of any nomads who were sucessful in imparting their language & culture over much advanced & vast people. I have given so many examples in previous writings that language change was not possible. In India, historically any people coming & settling in India were asimiliated in vast Indian culture. Even in China history, The Great wall of China was made to ward off Mongolians who were `famous' nomads. But when, these `famous' nomads could invade China ; they adopted Buddhism ( an Indian religion ) and local language. So, mongolians who were central asian nomads when invaded China after 500 BC adopted Buddhism & chinese language but never were sucessful in implanting their language & rituals on Chinese Han people.

Panini had not deviced grammer of Sanskrit. Sanskrit grammer is same from Rig-Veda AND because of that Witzel's mis-translation of BSS verse was found. Panini only codified Sanskrit grammer in mathematical format around 500 BC. At the time of Panini, Prakrit languages like Pali & Ardhamagadhi were already common languages i.e. during Buddha & Mahavir's time around 500 BC. Panini codified already known Sanskrit grammer in concise manner using mathematical formula. His aim was to make Sanskrit grammer easy to understand & remember for common people so that Sanskrit which remained language of learned people that time, will not face any degradation. Even this shows that after complete drying of Saraswati river, IVC Indians were maintaining tradition of hard subject like maths. And, infact they used in language which is unparallel in the world history.

I think, first you should develop understanding in the subject. Otherswise, you will end up in illogical discussions here and Aryan Invasion Theory. WIN 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me example of any nomads who were sucessful in imparting their language & culture over much advanced & vast people.

The Arabs were successful in imparting their language & culture in the Levant over Greek speakers, in Mesopotamia over Aramaic speakers, in Egypt over the Copts, and in the present-day Maghreb over Berber, Punic, Vulgar Latin and Vandalic speakers.

Now, are you going to ask me to prove that people in those places weren't Arab before the 7th century?

CiteCop 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually CiteCop, your point illustrated genocide, not a superposition of language.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

what blooming nonsese. You must be Subhash. su-bhaṣitum, indeed :p (ᛎ) qɐp 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, I think you know by now that I am no apologist for Islamoimperialism, but what occurred was not genocide, but the kind of colonization that V.S. Naipaul described in Beyond Belief.

CiteCop 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys still did not answer WIN's concerns.Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no need to answer WIN's concerns. He's already admitted that his goal here is to distract us from continuing to develop the article, not to seek consensus for the improvement of the material. Why spend time entertaining him? CRCulver 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are some strong accusations. Got any proof perhaps diffs?Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's right there on his Talk page: "I want to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting the very idea of any Aryan Migration". That violates the rule against using Wikipedia as a soapbox. He has no interest in making this article reflect scholarly consensus, and since he has already made up his mind that the article must fulfill his mission, he won't take into consideration any citations from reputable scholarship. Also, note that he won't accept citations as an answer to many questions he asks, he demands that editors come up with their own answers, which violates WP:NOR, so we often have a duty to ignore him. CRCulver 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN wanted an example. I gave him an example even he wouldn't challenge. End of story.

CiteCop 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually we are talking of migrations. The arab conquest is hardly a migration.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs were in the Arabian peninsula. Then they moved out of it. How is that not a migration? CiteCop 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

All "migration" means here is the movement of language and cultural traits, whether violence was involved or not has no bearing on the concept. The situations may be compared. CRCulver 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pottery

what is the relevance of the pottery section? The YV was composed in India around 1000 BC (Painted Grey Ware culture) -- the archaeological match may be very interesting on Yajurveda, but since nobody claims the Yajurveda was composed in Central Asia, the discussion of Iron Age pottery seems irrelevant to the topic of this article. Likewise, presence of Bronze and cattle (on both sides of the Hindukush) predates the IAM timeframe, so its discussion tells us nothing about the topic at hand. dab (ᛏ) 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra

This section does not seem to add any value to the discussion. Can this section be deleted?--UB 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I seems very marginal to me, but it has been given great significance by the anti-Witzel clique as proof of the unreliability of "Western scholarship". Surely it doesn't deserve a whole section. Paul B 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

the present wording is also completely unaware of the context. Nobody in their right mind would use the BSS as "definite proof" of anything. The context was, I believe, that after IAM had been established as likely for all the reasons discussed, BSS was quoted as the most likely candidate of a possible reflection of immigration memories in a "direct statement". I don't know the final verdict on this, but it is certain that nothing hinges on it. There is a fuller discussion on Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, which should just be linked. Since some acadmemic fuss has been made about the passage, I suppose reference to it should be kept. Although it is clear that the episode has more to do with people enjoying having caught Witzel making a mistake than with bona fide debate. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Indo-Aryans

Please refer to the following sentence:

The Sumerian legend of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" (late 3rd millennium BCE) and other Sumerian legends might also possibly refer to an Indo-Aryan culture or to modern East-Iran/Afghanistan/India (see Elst 1999).

The legend of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" does not seem to have any relation to vedic text. I could not locate the reference mentioned. I have gone through Koenraad Elst's Indology Site. Can anybody help? --UB 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some vaishnavites - for reasons I don't understand - seem to want to demonstrate a link between Sumerians and I-As. This stuff pops up on websites (over on Aryan race an editor is trying to add the claim that arya is related to a Sumerian word). Paul B 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Elst discusses the story here [1]. Paul B 09:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

this is nonsense. Elst himself admits that there is no reason to believe any of this, but then goes on to elaborate on the consequences it would have if it could be believed. If we keep this around, clearly mark it as pure speculation. dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following for now, because it seems a bit marginal to me in the present form and had a "citation needed": Whether some terms of the Kassites refer to Vedic gods or names is disputed.

There is a short discussion on this in section 9 of this article [2] --RF 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Substrate influence

The following sentence seems to be a mere speculation.

Elamite language, an extinct language of Southwestern Iran, has also often been linked to Dravidian (in a proposed Elamo-Dravidian or Zagrosian family); if this turns out to be true, it would even more strongly imply a more northerly former distribution of the Dravidian languages.

Since it is not generally accepted that Elamite language is Dravidian, we should delete this sentence.--UB 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the following para does not seem to have any relation with IAM.

The early formation of political states also affects the distribution of languages. The Punjab was in historical times settled by Iranians, Greeks, Kushans (replacing Greeks and their language), and Hephthalites, yet Indo-Aryan languages dominate, probably due to the dominance of later Indian empires and states. Hence in regions where Persian and Indian empires dominated many languages died out. This process can be seen in the elimination of Saka and Tocharian languages through the influence of Persians, Buddhism (spreading Prakit language), and Turks.

--UB 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elamo-Dravidian is a notable hypothesis, not mere speculation, but of course it can by no means be presented as widely accepted. It is pertinent to the topic of IAM only marginally, in as much as the IVC is brought into the debate (which is itself only marginally relevant to the topic). IVC is the likely locus of Proto-Dravidian, and assumption of Elamo-Dravidian settlement of the area between Elam and India seems plausible, and provides context. The IVC has some relevance as the origin of the linguistic substratum in Indo-Aryan, and a possible relation to Elam bears mentioning. But I agree the article should not be sidetracked too much by this sort of thing. I also agree that the second paragraph is too wordy, and it is unclear what point it is trying to make. It is enough to mention that the Hindukush is the classical invasion route into India, with a long string of known precedents. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"much earlier"

Removing the hazy 'critics argue that the migration could have taken place much earlier than 1500 BC', I am asking myself why no reference is made to the Anatolian hypothesis: based on it, immigration as early as 3000 BC could be argued, all within a framework accepted as the main alternative to the mainstream Kurgan view. In an "out of Anatolia" view, the mature IVC could be presented as Indo-Aryan. This will have little chance of wide acceptance (chariots and horses etc.), but at least it will not be a crackpot view (like the more prevalent "Paleolithic Aryans"). I am surprised none of the "IVC must be Aryan" supporters are arguing along these lines. Of course we won't mention the possibility as long as we cannot attribute it to an author, but it seems the only way to piece together a halfway coherent argument to the effect. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument is discussed in Bryant. It is obviously far more plausible than OIT, but is not as gratifying to nationalst ideology. Unfortunately I don't have my copy of the book with me, so can't cite at the moment. Paul B 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OIT presumably means "[PIE] out of India"? I don't know of anybody suggesting this, and it isn't even mentioned as a possibility on this article. "Indo-Aryan IVC out of Anatolia" would need to be considered orders of magnitude more likely. Linguistic mainstream will consider Indo-Iranian separation as early as 3000 BC extremely unlikely. But another possibiliy would be Indo-Iranian IVC with Iranians migrating back west after 1900 BC: this would sit very well with mainstream dating of Indo-Iranian separation. Such a scenario would be attractive to anyone convinced by Renfrew's proposal and would need to be entertained at least as a possibility. That we don't hear more of this is obviously due to the nationalist side being not interested in honest debate, they want Paleolithic Aryans in 80,000 BC, and they don't care about anything west of the Khyber Pass :) dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with dab that Anatolian hypothesis will be much better than OIT. Unfortunately, Renfrew is silent about eastward migration. It may not satisfy the hard core nationalist but most of the others who object to IAM will be satisfied with Aryan=IVC. Can we not include it as a possible alternate theory?--UB 09:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If Bryant discusses the possibility, I see no reason not to discuss it here. I think Renfrew himself takes the Proto-Indo-Iranians out of the Balkans in 3000 BC and moves them to Kazakhstan, so that his I-I story from 2000 BC is identical to the Kurgan one. Arguing for "I-I IVC" would require that some author says "no, Renfrew is right about Anatolian origin, but the I-Is migrated not to the steppe, but directly to the Indus Valley, which they reached by 2600". Thus, "Aryan IVC" is not directly compatible with Renfrew, but it could reasonably be proposed as a variant of Renfrew's view. Of course Wikipedia is not the place for original suggestions, but if anybody has argued along these lines, it would be desireable to discuss it here. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Horse and chariot

I find that the article on Introduction of the horse to South Asia states that:

It should however also be noted that other sites like the BMAC complex (which some consider nevertheless as Indo-Aryan) are at least as poor in horse remains as the Harappan sites.

It also includes 2 references (Bryant & Thapar)

Also, I may be wrong but I have not seen any reference to any archaeological site prior to Mauryan period which has significant remains of horse.

In light of these facts, can remains of horse be used in any way to either prove or disprove IAM? --UB 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

there are plenty of horse remains from as early as 4000 BC in the Pontic Steppe. That's the whole point of the Kurgan argument. See also domestication of the horse. To imply "either BMAC or IVC" as this passage does is a false dichotomy. BMAC was 'urban', and the horse in those days (2000 BC) was the hallmark of nomadic pastoralists. So while some people suggest the BMAC was infiltrated by Indo-Iranians, I don't think it is likely that BMAC is the origin of Indo-Iranians: urban cultures don't erupt in explosive population expansions (at least not in pre-modern times), the classical mater gentium has always been the steppe. In India, the Swat culture has undisputed evidence of the horse, and both in location (Gandhara) and date (1600 BC) is the perfect candidate for early I-A (Rigvedic) presence in India. The 'inventory' of Rigvedic culture was definitely present in India by 1500 BC. The question is whether it can be argued that it had already been present in 2500 BC. dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to look for any reference to sudden increase in horse remains in India corrosponding to the migration. However, I only find stray reference of one or two horse remains in IVC, Swat culture and other subsequent culture. So, the point is, can horse remains be used to argue either pro or anti IAM?--UB 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

early 2nd millennium introduction of the chariot to India is consistent with the overall picture of the spread of this innovation (Mesopotamia 1700, China 1600, N Europe 1300).

yes, they can: without horses (and chariots), no Rigveda. If the IVC people could be shown to have been moving about in horse-drawn chariots, the case for 2nd millennium IAM would be pretty much destroyed and the debate would be reduced to glottochronology. To the best of our knowledge, the horse drawn chariot was invented around 2000 BC, in NW Kazakhstan: if this is true, the Rigveda can impossibly be older than 2000 BC, plus the time needed to migrate from the Oxus to the Indus (hence, 1600 BC). If people would discover horse-drawn chariots in 2600 BC Harappa, this argument would just collapse. dab (ᛏ) 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... But what you have stated is true for chariot and not necessarily for horse. You have stated earlier that horse remains dates back to 4000 BC. So, horse remain in Harappa by itself may not be a problem. Any way horse is not of Indian origin.--UB 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know remains in India are very few and it is not always easy to distinguish them from remains of the native Onager. Paul B 11:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

evidence of domesticated horses dates to as early as 4000 BC (maybe 3500, there is dispute there too; of course wild horses go back as far as you like in their native steppes). This refers to the Caspian-Pontic steppes, and not to Harappa. Yes, the chariot thing is more conclusive, but even uncontrovertible evidence of horses (not onagers) in 3rd millennium IVC would seriously affect our timeframe here. The horse is not known to have been domesticated outside the steppes anywhere before 2000 BC, and it spread together with the chariot: keep in mind that horses back then were much smaller, and almost useless as mounts, so that before the introduction of the chariot there was no reason to bother importing them to areas to which they were not native. The chariot suddenly made the horse extremely valuable militarily, and the Near Eastern empires show strong interest in them from about 1800 BC. It stands to reason that the same chronology holds for India, unless the opposite is clearly demonstrable from the archaeological record. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab is right here that there are unquestationable evidence of horses ( & not onagers ) in 3rd Millenium IVC. In IVC, pottery of wheels are found and also bullock carts. Since, wooden chariots will not be available to us from IVC excavations ; there should be no doubts that IVC people can ever make two wheeled chariots. So, in above photo by making years of 3rd millenium for IVC India; the picture becomes very clear that IVC was first to make chariots.Due to this technological plus point over steppe nomads they could spread very fast with their other IVC technological advantages. WIN 12:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

presence of bullock carts in the IVC is undisputed and meaningless to the debate. There is no evidence at all for chariots, and claims of IVC horse remains are believed by few archaeologists apart from those who make them. Your statement that "the picture becomes very clear that IVC was first to make chariots" is therefore completely wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to assume chariots for the IVC except for the desire to score points in the IAM debate. In scholarship (unlike politics), a desire to score points is not a strong argument in favour of anything. dab (ᛏ) 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aryan theory was propogated without any evidences of archeology or texts. It was proposed by linguists like Max Muller were not having solid evidences ( except some linguistic similarity )for AIT. But, they never thought of reverse OIT because of superiority complex which was developed after European dark age.But British Raj developed this theory to achieve political & conversion goals without checking Indian side. But, when you are finding more & more evidences which goes against this theory ; you are telling Indian side as political motivated ! Then, what will you tell for those non-Indian scholars who are opposing this theory ? WIN 09:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

we know by now you don't like the theory, WIN. Feel free to cite Indo-Europeanists or archaeologists (Indian or non-Indian) suggesting "OIT", but your conspiracy theories are simply not of interest. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN, we all know that there are many holes in IAM. However, the alternate OIT has far too many holes, many more than IAM, to be acceptable. There has to be some explanation other than these two! --UB 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

I am not saying that OIT means ancient Indians went to Europe and their descendents are Europeans.There is Oppenheimer's genology report but it's timeline is 40,000 BC for ancient India to Europe.

Just think that after going through Sanskrit it was learnt that there is some connections in words of European languages with Sanskrit. Refer this http://digilander.libero.it/toponomastica/ie-roots.html which says about IE roots. In it you can notice that for most of IE root , Sanskrit is cited first. I , myself , has notice some European language words which are exactly similar in Indo-Aryan languages but it's not exact Sanskrit word. Sanskrit daru 'wood' is Hittite taru. But same taru is word in my Indo-Aryan language mothertongue but rarely used now for mentioning tree. And, remember Hittite is very old language than present Romance languages. Welsh dol 'valley', Gothic dal 'valley' - I cite here my Indo-Aryan language Dol = bucket ( similar meaning with valley ) & dhal = human shield used during war ( it's shape is spherical ). Sanskrit dva-rah ( Eng.door )- Albanian derë . In my Indo-Aryan language door = darvaj , delë ( this delë word is used in rural vocab. )

In newer European languages such changes are wider or unrecognizable than Indo-Aryan languages. So, you should understand that how IE words are tied to IE root , same way Indo-Aryan languages are also having similar word developments. Since, Indo-Aryan languages are in Sanskrit base area ; their words changes are not such abrupt like European languages.

In word reading also, devnagari script is so perfect that pronunciation will be same always. Not like cut & put. Any person who can read devnageri script will pronounce same irrespective of knowing that language or word. Development of such a script requires profound & deep knowledge same as development of Sanskrit as a language. WIN 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN, what has that got to do with anything? Believe me, I am familiar with IE reconstruction. Also, Devanagari emerged from AD 1200. Yes, it's a nice abugida perfectly suited for Sanskrit. But what does that have to do with IE or AIM? Please stop spamming talkpages with completely unrelated stuff, and please recognize that copy-pasting random factoids is no replacement for solid education. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Your point about Sanskrit is clear. However, for the purpose of this article we need to answer the following questions.

• Does the similarity of language imply a common origin (PIE)? (if yes, then)

• Did this language spread without movement of the people? (if no, then)

 For above answers, I suggest to read online book http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/  which gives more detailed knowledge than written here.   WIN 08:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Did the original speaker of this language come into India from outside or did they go out of India to other places? (if the answer is they came to India, then)
• When did they come?

--UB 08:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

genetically, Indians descend to some 80% from the paleolithic population of India, just like Europeans to 80% descend from paleolithic (pre-IE) European populations. The AIM would have accounted for a population shift of at best 10% (in rough numbers, just to gesture at the orders of magnitude involved: various tribes totalling around 200k souls infiltrating some 2-3 million pre I-A people in N India). Many people outraged by the notion of "AIM" do not realize this. Languages do not spread entirely without population movement, but they may spread by relatively modest population movements. The main part of "AIM" takes place inside India, with gradual expansion of I-A culture from the Punjab over the whole subcontinent. With all the fuss about Central Asian origins, this much more notable process of "Sanskritization of the Subcontinent" in (early) historical times is sometimes almost forgotten. dab (ᛏ) 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It is an interesting point. After all Swat valley to Bengal is about 2000 km. It is almost the same distance from Swat valley to Mesopotamia!! However, if you believe in PCT then the situation is a little different. Are there any fundamental problem with PCT?--UB 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, travelling from the Oxus to Bengal, Gandhara is merely the first stage. Most of the actual IAM took place within India. The PCT article has been waiting for expansion for some time now. At first glance it seems like a European version of the "OIT", i.e. patent nonsense (naive identification of genetic ancestry with linguistic history). We had Guparra (talk · contribs) announcing he would show there was more behind it, but he never followed up on that. I think I would like to coin the term autochthonism here: PCT supporters in Italy make essentially the same claims as the "Paleolithic Aryans" crowd, they just differ in Eurocentric vs. India-centric flavour. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"At Bactria NorthWest Afghanistan alabaster plates decorated with a humped bull in the Indus or Harappan style, at Bactrian graves Harappan steatite seals, etched Carnelian beads, a cosmetic flacon having an exact parallel at Chanhudaro, pins with spiral, metal mirrors that parallel ones found in the Indus." - There are similarities in archeology findings of BMAC & Indus valley civilization. If IVC people had such impact on life of BMAC people then how & why they will adopt any `central asian' Sanskrit ? Why such points are kept under dark ? Logic is not used but negation. Read more about IVC seal at http://www.indoeurohome.com/ WIN 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

that's most interesting to the topic of IVC, but maybe also to IAM: Are you suggesting even the IVC people had connections to Central Asia? Are you arguing for "Dravidian migration" now? BMAC-IVC contacts may indeed have a bearing on IAM: the Hindukush would appear an even more trivial obstacle, and the "Proto-Dasa" of Parpola may indeed be found in the BMAC. Of course you are linking to just another crackpot site, but I do think it would be interesting if IVC influence on the BMAC could be established. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For you it seems that there was only "one way" road leading to India and not vice versa. As per you, IVC Indians were not capable of crossing Hindukush mountains. I would call Parpola's "Proto-Dasa" theory as crack pot indeed. It means that Indian subcontinent's more than 1 billion people's ancient roots were in central asia and ancient India was populated first by central asian dravidians and then some small % ( around 10% as per you ) by central asian aryans !!! Ancient India was no-man's land and current Indians' forefather came from central asia or BMAC area !!! Wow, how deeply logical and scholarly opinion !!!

Now, I am very much sure about your shallow level of logical understanding. IVC people can do business by sea route to Mesepotamia but they can not travel by road to nearby BMAC area !!! Ha, Ha , Ha !!! Then, as per your logic finding IVC seals in Mesepotamia was due to ancient Mesepotamian ships coming to IVC docks as IVC ships were not capable of going to mesepotamia !!! Sea trade was in " one way " direction !!!

I can only say that, clean dust of " one way " thinking which is without any in-depth logic. WIN 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Substrate influence

This section looks a little long and out of context. It is not clear with this section is trying to prove. Can anybody help in making it more readable and more to the point? --UB 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture - Edwin Bryant

I was reading parts of this book through Google Book and came across the following para on page 44:

"Until very recently, Western scholars, whose primary emphasis and concern, at least historically, have been the origins of Western civilization, have renegotiated and reconfigured the pre- and protohistory of other nations such as India as by-products of their investigations. Yet for the most part, they have not been exposed to concerns over, and responses to their formulations expressed by the native scholars from those countries. India, in particular, initiated the whole field of Indo-European studies when it's language and rich culture were "discovered" by Western scholars. Yet opinions from that country, especially if in disagreement with the more forceful voices in the West, are poorly understood or cursorily dismissed." --UB 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the principal topic of the book. Read it, though I warn you it's not an easy read, even though Bryant is a clear and jargon-free writer. It's rather a frustrating text in many ways due to Bryant's desire to put the best gloss on every possible point of view (though he draws the line at P.N. Oak). Taking views of Indian writers "seriously" should mean treating them in exactly the same way as Western writers, who also include cranks, nationalists and fundamentalists as well as unorthodox but genuine scholars. After all the Greek indigenists are no no more accepted in the West than the Indian indigenists. Paul B 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Iron Age Vedic Civilization ?

I have deleted `iron age' word from first sub-heading write up. In India, iron of carbon dating 1800 BC is found in central ganga plains. So, one can not tell 100% surely that central asian nomadic aryans brought Iron smelting technology. Refer http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore.html

In Vedic Civilization article, read People and Society section. It's mentioned something like - people started learning agriculture etc. Initial aryan people were tribal type and learnt agriculture - obviously after they came from central asia to Indian subcontinent. But,that time ancient Indians were already reaping rich agricultural output to feed many trading IVC towns. If aryans had to learn basic subject like agriculture from IVC Indians or develop indigeniously without IVC Indians contact, then how can they have knowledge of maths, astronomy,life science, metallurgy etc. with high language like Sanskrit's development skill ?

So, in which way these aryans can impose or make ancient Indians to adopt Sanskrit ?

So, obviously Rig-Ved depicts very ancient time period of India. Because after IVC period, IVC Indians just migrated from arid regions to greener regions carrying their accumulated knowledge with them. But that trading based affluency to make planned cities was absent.

Give me only one example of some tribal people who were sucessful in imposing their language & culture on civilized nation. WIN 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN, when will you realize that you don't have the beginning of a clue about these things. Read Iron Age. Learn that the Iron Age doesn't begin with the first iron artefact dug up. Please, I am sure you have an area of expertise; what is your job? I am sure you can be really helpful in helping build articles in some area you understand. dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know about Iron Age but the wordings in the article was such that it gives impression that Iron Age began after `coming' of some aryans from central asia. And, to rectify that I have written above point. I know that Vedas mentions different colors of ayas i.e. eng. metal like yellow, black etc. So, obviously yellow isn't color of iron. But bronze or gold. I am not having `one way' thinking like you !

And, instead why don't you comment about Aryans' other above point ? WIN 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

you are an imaginative person WIN. Unfortunately, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Nobody claims the "Aryans introduced Iron". Occasional iron artefacts were known even in the Bronze Age. The Iron Age begins with societies relying on iron metalwork. This happened much later than any suggested period of IAM, namely around 1000 BC. Yes, there may be single IVC iron artefacts dating to 2000 BC, just like there are Egyptian iron artefacts dating to 3500 BC. This still doesn't mean the Iron Age began then. But I shouldn't be telling you this, since you are not here to learn, of course, but to preach your "truth". Where do you get your ideas, WIN? From crackpot websites? From your Swami? From foaming redneck politicians? Because you sure as hell don't get them from reputable scholarship. Which is the only sort of evidence that you'll have no problem introducing to Wikipedia, thank goodness:

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS

thank you and goodbye. (ᛎ) qɐp 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, whatever I have written is not some `imaginative' idea like Parpola's central asian dravidian concept in which you agree. I have made above points for Iron age Vedic civilization because ( as told earlier ) previously what ever was written on the article were suffient to give false impression to readers that central aryans brought Iron Age in India.And, due to this superial skill they were able to do what is currently credited to them. Now, any form of Invasion is ruled out so supporters want to show some kind of superiority over ancient Indians which made Indians to adopt central asian language and culture. So, if central asian nomadic aryans are not having any superiority against ancient IVC Indians who were much more advanced than some nomadic central asian aryans then why & how they can adopt some foreign language & culture ? I have already said that Persians who are from same IE group had not changed their language ( i.e. Persian ) after Islamic Arab Invasions then how can ancient Indians can change language + culture + each and every nomenclature from some Dravidian to Sanskrit as told as per this theory.

Dab, I know about depth of your `one way' understanding. Even, linguists like Max Muller who had propogated this Aryan theory had no solid evidences except some similarity of words. So, why are you not telling that linguists as crackpots ?( who had no expertize in other concerned subjects but they were superbly imaginative to fabricate the theory ). Because it suits your notion. Telling every opposition as crackpot is like hiding your head in the ground. WIN 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if central asian nomadic aryans are not having any superiority against ancient IVC Indians who were much more advanced than some nomadic central asian aryans then why & how they can adopt some foreign language & culture ? I have already said that Persians who are from same IE group had not changed their language ( i.e. Persian ) after Islamic Arab Invasions

And yet, Greek speakers of the eastern Mediterranean, Aramaic speakers of Mesopotamia, the Copts of Egypt, and the Romans of the present-day Maghreb all adopted the language and culture of invading nomadic Bedouins from the Arabian peninsula whom they were much more advanced than.

CiteCop 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of India by some central asian aryans is totally ruled out. If you can understand difference between Islamic Invasions and aryan migration then you would not have told such. There is no animosity between North & South Indians.There are no scriptures from both areas or in local tradition saying some animosity. South Indins have Caste, even people's names, traditions etc. every thing from Vedas. First , develop understanding about India and then you can understand my writings.

Kurdish people may have converted but their language is converted.The first mention of the Kurds in historical records was in cuneiform writings from the Sumerians (3,000 BCE).But Kurdish language is found to be Iranian branch of IE and closely related with various dialects of Persian,Pashto and Baluchi.

Now, Kurdish people are in Mesepotamia from 3,000 BC and their language is IE one. Then, does it mean that central asian aryans invaded / migrated to Mesepotamia before 3,000 BC ? WIN 07:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the paper "The correlation Between Languages and Genes: The Usko-Mediterranean Peoples," the Kurds adopted Iranian language with the invasion of the Iranian Medes about 8th-7th century BCE.

In other words, the Kurds were invaded by Iranian speakers and then adopted Iranian language.

CiteCop 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Avesta

How is the second para relevant to IAM discussion? Basically, the para states that Avesta can not be dated on its own. It can be dated only with respect to the date of Rigveda. This para should be shifted to the article on Avesta. --UB 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is relevant because the Gathas and the Rgveda date to <500 years of each other. Burrow may date the Avesta on the basis of the conventional date of the Rgveda but Boyce, using genealogical calculations, ends up in the same ballpark (1500 BCE-1100 BCE), as does Gnoli (c. 1000 BCE) and, on the basis of linguistics, Mallory (1400 BCE-600 BCE).

CiteCop 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But, Gnoli has also written below sentences.

The crucial geographical list of sixteen Iranian lands, in the first chapter of the VendidAd, is fully identified: “From the second to the sixteenth country, we have quite a compact and consistent picture. The order goes roughly from north to south and then towards the east: Sogdiana (Gava), Margiana (Mourv), Bactria (BAx?I, Nisaya between Margiana and Bactria, Areia (HarOiva), KAbulistAn (VaEkArAta), the GaznI region (UrvA), XnAnta, Arachosia (HaraxvaitI), Drangiana (HaEtumant), a territory between Zamin-dAvar and Qal‘at-i-Gilzay (RaYa), the LUgar valley (Caxra), BunEr (VarAna), PañjAb (Hapta HAndu), RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river RasA flowed.”

Gnoli notes that India is very much a part of the geographical picture: “With VarAna and RaNhA, as of course with Hapta HAndu, which comes between them in the Vandidad I list, we find ourselves straight away in Indian territory, or, at any rate, in territory that, from the very earliest times, was certainly deeply permeated by Indo-Aryans or Proto-Indoaryans.”

Secondly, Avestan language is improperly pronounced form of middle Indo-Aryan language with non-perfect grammer of Sanskrit. i.e. Avestan is degraded form of Sanskrit. Anybody knowing Sanskrit can come to know this. Refer www.avesta.org

WIN 12:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnoli notes that India is very much a part of the geographical picture

Gnoli also notes that Central Asia—Sogdiana, Margiana, Bactria—is very much part of the geographic picture.

Secondly, Avestan language is improperly pronounced form of middle Indo-Aryan language with non-perfect grammer of Sanskrit. i.e. Avestan is degraded form of Sanskrit.

What's to say that Sanskrit isn't an improperly pronounced form of Old Iranian with imperfect grammar, i.e. a degraded form of Avestan?

CiteCop 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To understand what's called degradation or improper pronunciation , first you will have to understand Sanskrit , Avestan or Indo-Aryan WHICH YOU DON'T. First learn that languages and then you will get rid of `one way' thinking. WIN 05:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So how do you think palatalization and the centum/satem divide informs our little discussion?

CiteCop 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

And how did Sanskrit get to be so perfect? Did it just emanate from the Brahman? Paul B 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul, regarding Sanskrit's perfection ask Forbes Magazine ( July,1987 issue ) or I hereby quote some encomiums showered on Sanskrit language by Prof James Santucci,California State University:

1. Emphasized the study of sounds, not letters

2. Emphasized the descriptive use of grammar and not the prescriptive use of grammar

3. Most likely discovered the zero element in morphology, most certainly employed it well before the Europeans in linguistic analyses

4. Emphasized the notion of substitution rather than transformation(vikåra)

5. Developed morphophonological explanations (= sandhi)

6. Stressed in phonetics the place and manner of articulation

7. Recognized ablaut correspondences;

8. described language in a formal manner and not as a logical system

9. Developed a metalanguage

10. Approached the sense of the phoneme

When you find all such qualities in any world language then write here.

When Hindu tradition or scripture says about origin of Sanskrit from Brahman ( the supreme ) and not from some central asian nomads, even this is a tight slap on your face who always tries to downgrade Hinduism or India.

Read Grammar section of Sanskrit. You will not find such a long, very deep grammer in any IE languages.As per AMT, Sanskrit is brought by some nomadic people from central asia. If Sanskrit is from central asia then why the parent area is not having that deeper grammer in current language or that deeper IE vocab. If your mothertongue is not Sanskrit or you are not in touch with Sanskrit then one can easily forget that Sanskrit grammer. So, how it became possible that North Indians started speaking Sanskrit instead of their some other mothertongue ?( Remember that Dravidans were drawn down to South is an obsolete Invasion concept ) How Sanskritization was total in North ? How & why South India also named their biggest rivers to Sanskrit or adopted Vedic culture in totality except changing mothertongue ? Why culture changed was total but not language ? Even `aryan' trademark caste is present in South India - How it became possible ? WIN 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) WIN 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You signally fail to answer the question. How did it get to be "perefct"? Did it just start off that way, emerging fully formed? Paul B 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually WIN your last sentence is a dead giveaway to the AMT pushers (they could say Iyers and Iyengars are translplanted Aryans). I don't get the "perfect" part either. But the point about central asia makes a lot of sense. KAzakh, Uzbek, Uigur, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Turkish, and Mongol are closely related, and those are the languages that are extant in the Androvo region. Should there not be a trace of PIE in the area?Bakaman _Bakatalk 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, Iyer are Shaivaites. Shiva is called as Dravidian God by Aryan theory proponants. As per AIT , Dravidians were original IVC people who were drawn away by hordes of Aryan invaders. Finding Pashupati ( Shiva ) seal in IVC was told to support this Aryan invasion & fleeing of Dravidians in South. Since invasion by Aryans on Dravidian IVC Indians is out of favour, how will you explain Sanskritization of North and Vedizination of full India ?

Do you mean to say that Iyer who are brahmins ( & Aryan as per AIT/AMT ) adopted Shaivism & Tamil language ? Aryan nomads who migrated to India , who were told be `so much' powerful to convert language of Indian subcontinent ( except 4 Southern states ), forgot or changed their main God as Dravidian Shiva and language in South ? Then, what happened to this `unparallel nomads in the world' named Aryans ? Just think it over again then you will realize what I mean. WIN 08:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sogdian and Tajik, to name two. And let's not forget that the Turkic expansion dates to the c. 6th century and the Mongol one to c. 13th.

CiteCop 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Do you not think Tajik may have came from an eastward expansion of Persian influence, perhaps Sassanian times? India was crushed by the Huns during the Sassanid heyday.Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Also this map here shows Sassanid influence right before the time of Muhammad. Tajikistan is under sassanid rule, as is Afghanistan, and parts of central asia. Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were just asking for Indo-European languages in the region.

The expansion of western Iranian languages such as Tajik into Central Asia is probably a combination of both Sassanid expansion and refugees from the Muslim conquest, largely replacing the eastern Iranian languages that were formerly spoken in the region.

Bactrian, for example, is textually attested to before the conquests of Alexander the Great.

And then there are the 2 Tocharian languages, which aren't even Indo-Iranian at all, but an Indo-European subfamily all by itself, and the only "centum" Indo-European language found outside of Europe.

Linguists think it's most closely related to the Italic and Celtic Indo-European subfamilies.

CiteCop 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well what are the eastern Iranian languages then?Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Iranian languages and Eastern Iranian languages will probably explain it better than me.

CiteCop 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Compared to the 10 million or so Tajiks and the 70 million persians, or even 20-30 million Pathans Wakhi (an eastern language) with 50k seems a bit small and insignificant.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Pathan is an eastern Iranian language.

CiteCop 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Pathans have been in Afghanistan and India for so long their language is somewhat neutral and does not have the adventurous overtone of Wakhi. Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, after the Norman invasion, English doesn't sound as Germanic as it used to.

It's still a Germanic language.

CiteCop 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

All right I think were off track here. Pasto isn't very similar to Hindi, though most Afghans do have a supericial understanding of Hindi. Androvo is still a whole bunch of linguistic mumbo-jumbo. What are the origins of Turkic languages, which are domiciled in the "Androvo region"? Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at a map of Central Asia, there's a place where the "four corners" of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and Russia meet.
That's roughly the area where the Turkic languages originate from.
CiteCop 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Saptarshi & Arundhati AND Indian Sacred Fig tree mentioned in IVC seal

Refer http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola12.html where Saptarshi & Arundhati ( wife of Rishi Vashishtha ) are mentioned. This is read by Asko Parpola. He reads Dravidian word ( Old Tamil word ) Elu-meen i.e.Seven Star. But, if you know all Seven Stars of Saptarshi & Arundhati then they are from Vedic & Puranic legends. They are all Sanskrit names. Rishi Vashishtha is also credited with many Rig-Veda hymns. If Aryan theory is believed then IVC Indians changed their Seven Rishi & wife's name from some XYZ Dravidian to pure Sanskrit.IVC Indians were great sky observers and they changed their tradition stories of Seven Rishi or all astronomical names of planates,stars, constellations ( Nakshatra ), Rashi etc. each & every to some `foreign' Sanskrit language. Ref. Hindu Calendar . So, how some central asian nomadic language developed such a high technical nomenclature in every technical & scientific subject with total Sanskritization of all most all of Indian Subcontinent ?

Refer http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola11.html where Asko Parpola says that Indian Sacred Fig tree i.e. giant Vad / Vat tree's name comes from dravidian name in Sanskrit or modern Indo-Aryan languages. If India specific tree's name comes from Dravidian ( & not from Sanskrit - so called central asian language ) then Elephant's ( a India specific giant animal's ) name is from Sanskrit i.e. Hastina and not from Dravidian. Or why giant rivers of India ( North or South ) are having names in Sanskrit & not Dravidian. This means that ancient Dravidian Indians forgot to give names to their rivers or changed each & every river names of their land or even their own names ( as evident from their current names ) to central asian tongue while celebrating their `ENLIGHTENING' arrival !!! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! This shows `one way' thinking. Whatever suits to your supportive notion should be fabricated ( ignoring other facts ). Remember that Invading Europeans who were technically much much ahead of native americans could not change USA's giant rivers original native names Mississippi River and Missouri River. It is said for IVC "the structure of their cities were so far advanced that it was not surpassed until the late nineteenth century in Europe (Heinz 1997:68)" From http://www.csuchico.edu/~cheinz/syllabi/asst001/fall97/2chd.htm . Then, why Vastu Shastra or Sthapatya Veda i.e. Science of town planning & architecture is originally written in Sanskrit and not in Dravidian ?

Harvard references

I've beeen working on some major updates and clean-ups to this article off-line, and I was wondering if anyone would object to my changing this page to use Harvard references with templates. It's effectively that already, since most of the footnotes are effectively just Harvard citations. It would also make it clearer which claims are being attributed to which source without having to click through, and would make it more obvious which citations are (for instance) missing page numbers or have malformed references. Actually, there are already several Harvard citations interspersed through the article, which I've been trying to track down references to. Anyway, if nobody objects, I'll be bold and switch it over soon. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead.WP:BOLD . Bakaman _Bakatalk 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Brahui language, Dravidian substratum etc. modifications in article

I have given well ref. points for Brahui or Dravidian substratum points. Do you think that you are bigger than those scholars ? Regarding Brahui language , what's written reflects older scenario and newer scenario should be represented in the article so that readers get upto date informations. Same is the case with Dravidian substratum point. I have given direct words of against linguistics with proper ref.

By continuously deleting well ref. points you are going against that any violation. If my ref. points are wrong then write on talk page but don't delete it one sided to suit your POV. WIN 12:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the points that I deleted were either relevent or well referenced. As for the Brahui, it was me who added the references to the recent research, in case you hadn't noticed (which, unsurprisingly, you have not)! Paul B 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=93129986&oldid=92879707 to know who added Brahui language 's ref. and then check this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=93130681&oldid=93129986 which shows that you modified that ref.

In Brahui language article page, it was me that first edited to give ref. and mention that its immigration in Baluchistan is in last millenium.

Secondly, Dravidian substratum influence is refuted by many linguistics scholars ( despite supporting AIT/AMT linguistically ). Just because it is not pleasing you , that don't make them inferior either. So, don't delete that ref. points and instead try to understand newer development in this subject. WIN 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

clutter

guys, you are not writing a book. keep it on-topic, refer to sub-topics by wikilinks, don't write entire chapters about topics treated elsewhere. The scope of this article is very narrow: what sort of case can be made for PIE migration out of India, when and to where did this migration take place. Please, it is enough to say that some scholars are sceptical towards the substratum thing. The substratum is not part of this discussion, both IAM and OIT work with and without it. What we want here are scenarios about how the migration took place, outside India, not phonological details of Sanskrit. Can we please stop discussing India now, and focus on the actual out of part soon? When did the centum dialects leave India, what route did they take and when, etc. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Please note that a recent revert [3] with the edit summary It's not undue weight. Remember both are hypothesis unless otherwise proved. Secondly, it was linguistics franernity that first fabricated AIT without any proofs. misses the point; While both are hypotheses, one has received overwhelming academic support. On WP we cannot change that; we can link to articles on the minority hypotheses; but we have to clearly state up front that they are minority hypotheses. From WP:NPOV: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at al". Note it is only for the sake of peace that these views are in the header at all; by rights, as they are views held by a tiny minority of academics, WP:NPOV says .. they should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Is that a satisfactory explanation? Please do not revert without discussion.Hornplease 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yep, its as simple as WP:NOR. Too many people do not understand that Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth", but about accurately reflecting academic discourse. If you want to change presentation on Wikipedia, you'll have to change academic communis opinio first, and that doesn't have an "edit" button. This is the only policy that allows us, since we do have edit buttons, any sort of stability. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[4] is not any original research. So, first understand what [5] contains. Read *Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization - Bal Ram Singh - UMASS center for Indic Studies . You should know that except Linguistics eating fat pays, all other science stream scholars oppose it. So, it is not an original research. WIN 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, a press release from the Center of Indic Studies doesn't really qualify as a reliable source on the number of scholars that adhere to either theory. Both Mallory and Bryant note that Indo-Aryan migration is the dominant explanation, so it has to be given the lion's share of explanation. Incidentally, Mallory is an archeologist, and I daresay if you look up any of the relevant journals, the number of papers that question IAR are minimal. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

the press-release is not "from a university", it is a press-release (not a journal article) by some Indologist. This Indologist seems very eager to claim "leading geneticists" "collide" with linguistics, but when you look at the actual genetics paper, it does nothing of the sort, and the "leading geneticists" are just co-authors in a larger group. This is obviously just a biased blurb. You can post it under external links, but further than that it has no relevance, it's not even by a geneticist. If there were an actual geneticist paper making the same claim as the press-release, the matter would be different, but that paper would still need to be presented alongside other papers that make the opposite claim. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WIN, your comments do not address my points about undue weight. A single press release from a single university (and not a particularly notable one) does not buttress the case for greater weight to alternative theories. (In addition, the release you quote is hardly equivalent to any peer-reviewed, published work. I have seen it quoted before, I believe, and was a little puzzled by the non-academic tone.) Hornplease 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, you must also have be puzzled by non-acedemic tone of Witzel's papers against OIT .WIN 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone of most of his peer-reviewed work is not unusual. I presume you are conceding the undue weight point at this time?Hornplease 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, it's not just Witzel, Thapar, and the rest of your bugbears who believe in IAM. Walk into any Indology department, or look at any of the relevant peer-reviewed literature, and at best you'll be able to count the number of people critical of IAM on one hand. IAM is accepted in all the major Indo-European handbooks and textbooks of comparative linguistics I've ever read, and so must it be in this article. Whatever personal issues you have with Witzel are irrelevant. Remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V) and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (WP:Undue weight). " Those are absolutely non-negotiable policies here on Wikipedia. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the discussion is on the idea that saying

The opposite theory is the Out of India theory which argues that the reverse events took place. It's not widely supported by linguists.

As opposed to

Other theories have been advanced seeking an alternative explanation but have found little academic support.

Is WP:Undue weight. WINs version isn't saying that the Out of India theory is true and neither is it saying that it is supported by anyone. So the issue of undue weight is the fact that Out of India theory is written there instead of other theories (which Hornplease presents with a wikilink to Out of India theory). This article is on Indo-Aryan migration is it not? Not the Kurgan hypothesis...The Out of India theory is the only one that suggests Indo-Aryans did not migrate into India, so it is the only theory which opposes Indo-Aryan migration into India. Other theories is not necessary here.

Now, I know the majority of academics don't believe in it, but it's not undue weight to fleetingly mention the fact that there is a theory, which a lot of people (in terms of sheer numbers) believe in, which presents the exact opposite migration. Thus I think it deserves mention. I won't revert Hornplease until this discussion is concluded. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being the voice of reason as always, Nobleeagle. I think the issue with that statement is that it says that the theory isn't widely supported by linguists (as opposed to academia in general), implying that the opposition to the theory comes from linguistics, and not other fields—which appears to be what WIN actually believes. In reality, of course, most archeologists and other relevant experts disagree with it as well. Furthermore, I think people object to WIN's editing of the earlier sentence that says most scholars adhere to the theory, even though that's exactly what the citation says. And finally, it's apparent that many sections of the article contain more criticism of IAM than support, which is unacceptable. Anyway, why mention "Out of India" in the first paragraph rather than the view even more popular among the hoi polloi, to wit, that Sanskrit is the progentor of all the Indo-European languages? Based on some of the comments WIN used to incessantly post on this talk page, he/she actually believes that too. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Forget Sanskrit = PIE, no-one can put that onto a Wikipedia article unless it is accompanied by the word "wierd" in the same sentence, Out of India theory seems fine. In relation to the actual sentence that is being discussed. If the only problem is saying that it is not widely supported by linguists then all that is needed is to rephrase the sentence WIN has proposed. There is a source I've seen somewhere which suggests that most archeologists in a particular study came to the conclusion that a migration into India was unlikely. To say linguists, archeologists, geneticists, astrologers and whatever other field of academia you can find, do not agree with the theory, that substantially downgrades a theory which is supported by some outside the field of linguistics....I just tried finding a sentence which may solve this problems but I must say WIN's seems OK to me and is true without being presented from either side of the coin. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I am open to changes to my sentence; I do think saying that "not supported by linguists" or whatever leads the reader to suppose that other disciplines 'support' it; any sentence should clearly indicate that the alternative theory is a vast minority in all the relevant disciplines. Hornplease 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

the main alternative to Kurgan is Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. Many people would call even that fringy. IAM is a corollary to that too (although a 4th millennium IAM, and thus an "Aryan IVC" is possible there). There are various sub-scenarios to both thh Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses. Any other alternatives are pure fringecruft and shouldn't be presented as anything else. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Most Indo-European textbooks will point out that the Kurgan hypothesis is generally accepted among archeologists today. It's a corollary that they accept the Indo-Aryan migration. And no, I don't think there's anything wrong with WIN's changes sensu stricto (except for the aforementioned deletion of "most" and the thing about the linguists), but then, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current sentence either. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer paper by Prof. B.B.Lal who is Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India named `The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts' http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html. Kurgan hypothesis is generally accepted in IE textbooks but that seems not to be in accordance with overall picture. Read the paper which check all possible hypothesis with wider angle. WIN 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, WIN, remember that Wikipedia is not about truth. B. B. Lal may well have shown that the Kurgan hypothesis has major problems and shouldn't be accepted, but until most Indo-Europeanists accept his conclusion—and one way of checking that is to see what appears in the textbooks—it'll have to be given marginal treatment in Wikipedia. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Text books may not represent latest developments. Still in India, it's taught ( in some state text books ) that Aryans invaded ancient India. So, I totally disagree that text books portrays properly. WIN 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about school textbooks; I'm talking about the textbooks used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the subject. There are plenty of recent ones, like the excellent ones by Fortson and Lehmann. And textbooks aren't the only measure—also articles in the major peer-reviewed journals and so on. Come now, surely you're not suggesting there's been a sea-change in expert opinion in the last few years? If there was, it would be obvious, and it isn't. As Nobleeagle pointed out, OIT is fringy in academia by any measure. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

In the second para in the introduction states "Based on linguistic, archaeological and cultural evidence, most scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India ..."

The fourth para states "Archaeological data indicates that there was a shift of settlements from the Indus Valley region to the east and south during the later 2nd millennium BCE, but is inconclusive with regard to a preceding immigration into India"

Also, in the rest of the article almost all the archaeological and cultural evidence has been disputed.

So, I am changing the second para to "Based on linguistic evidence, most scholars ..." --UB 06:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Indigenus Aryan Theory ( IAT )

I want to ask Paul , how IAT is not based on Anatolian hypothesis ? What IAT article says that IVC people were Indo-Iranians ( i.e. IA language speakers) .

So, there are 2 possibilities.

1. IVC people were native to ancient India ever since & speakers of IA language( same as per OIT )

2. they came to Ancient India as per Anatolian hypothesis or Kurgan hypothesis. If you put IA language speaking people coming to ancient India during middle IVC period then Kurgan hypothesis will hold true.

I have seen his continuous deletions in this matter on this article page. So, resolve this issue by answering here. WIN 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"ever since" is not a well-defined term: your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from scholarly debate. Your 2.) are prefectly valid migration scenarios that we have been discussing for ages. 2a) ("Anatolian") means that pre-Indo-Aryans migrated to India (say in 2800 BC), and Proto-Indo-Aryan developed within India (and, possibly, Iranians re-emigrated "Out of India" around 1900 BC), while 2b) ("Kurgan") means that Proto-Indo-Aryan formed still outside India, and Indo-Aryans (not pre-Indo-Aryans) migrated to India (say in 1800 BC). Forget about your 1) "ever since" and discuss 2a) vs. 2b), and you'll be fine. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a change which simply deleted information and produced unintelligable sentences. Your edit summary, which did not seem to be clearly related to your edits, said the following, "There can not be separate Indigenious Aryan theory as it's part of OIT. IAT is purely based on Anatolian hypothesis." I have no clear idea what this means. You seem to be saying that IAT is "part of OIT" and is therefore the same theory. Then you say that it's "purely based on Anatolian hypothesis". Since the Anatolian hypothesis proposes, as its name implies, an Anatolian urheimat, it obviously can't be "part of OIT" , which proposes an Indian urheimat. The difference between IAT and OIT is that IAT does not require that PIE emerged in India. It is therefore consistent with the Anatolian hypothesis and with other real or potential urheimat hypotheses. Paul B 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per Anatolian , they came in 2800 BC during IVC period , imposed their IE family language on IVC people and hence IVC will be IA language speaking people. And, then when Saraswati river dried during 1900 BC, some of them migrated West to Iran.

As per Kurgan, I-Ir people came in 1800 BC with IA people on their tour to ancient India and after leaving their IA brothers safe & sound , Iranians left happily to reside in their Iranian land ! I know all this and hence the question above.

Dab , "ever since" means before out of India Origin mentioning hypothetical scenarios. I am well verse with genetic facts of `Out of Africa'by Stephan Opphenmeir ( sorry if the name is wrong ). "Out of India" theory has nothing to do with any of your allegations. If you know, then that was ever since prevailing before Europeans came to India. So, it is nothing new development. OIT which is traditionally known to Hindus and it's suppression with racial implementations during Britishraj that it got political tone in India. So, stop trying to tell everybody that OIT is devoid of scholarly debate. Bryant also says that linguistic facts can not refute OIT. Now, why Witzel is telling that Dravidians came to Sapta Sindhu in middle vedic period. What happened to Aryans warring with Dravidians.What your Western linguists were doing for last 150 years ? Linguists have to modify whole scenario now & then is `very scholarly' ? Witzel will translate BSS verse wrong to show Aryan migration IN India ( forgetting Sanskrit grammer rules ! ) and Purpola will tell about Dasa - Aryans coming to Punjab via baluchistan from central asia. Then, this Dasa - Aryans ( not Dravidians ) will fight with original aryans who came directly to punjab from central asia.

No migration of such a scale is archelogically found during alleged period as per Anatolian or Kurgan hypothesis then also you are telling `it's fine' to discuss ! Language is like some air that flows freely from central asia to ancient India and language imposition of mass scale is possible without poeple movement ! It's the height of pseudoism. WIN 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WIN, your English is simply not good enough for you to collaborate here. Sorry, but all of your Talk page posts end up being incoherent due to a lack of a suitable command of English. Could you not volunteer for the Wikipedia in your native language? CRCulver 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When you don't have any sensible answer then start writing about my English !!! Good , I like that !!! WIN 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WIN, you are just trotting out your usual mish-mash of obsessions and trivialities (Witzel's completely non-notable "mistranslation" etc). OIT obviously did not prevail "before Europeans came to India" because it is a product of the concept of an IE language group - a concept that did not exist before Jones. Paul B 10:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, should I tell you again that Vedic Brahmins are telling OIT type version during Bhagavat Puran recitation. And, these brahmins are alleged to be direct descendents of migrating Indo-Aryans !

Anyway, sidetracking IAT clarification and spouting bad & non-sense is your usual habit. Concentrate on main topic. I have written above that IAT will be possible under OIT scenario only and not Anatolian or say Kurgan. And, hence my point made that IAT is part of OIT scenario.WIN 12:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense is your forte. If you can show where in the Bhagavat Purana the concept of Indo-European languages exists then we can discuss the notion that "OIT" was first proposed by "Vedic Brahmins". IAT is possible with any early PIE scenario, as I've already said, and as nids(♂) has also pointed out to you on the IAT page. If you don't understand this point, further discussion is fruitless. Paul B 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"further discussion" has been fruitless since day one in this case, except for those with penchant for the surreal, of course :) dab (𒁳) 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide references for which scholar has proposed Indigenous Aryan Theory in which publication? Bryant coins a term Indigenous Aryan in his book In Quest of the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, but he has not proposed any Indigenous Aryan Theory. I checked the page Indigenous Aryan Theory, but did not find any reference there.Sbhushan 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mandavilli

absolutely fascinating. All I can say is, As so often, I am struck by the lengths nationalists will go to create their own version of history. [6] dab (𒁳) 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Contant deletions by Crculver

Crculver, I am again & again asking you about your particular objections. For Airyanam Vaijo section , my additions contains ref. If you have any problem with wordings than write it here before simply reverting all modifications. WIN 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

edits like the one reverted here are childish pov pushing, rife with grammatical errors. Not worth keeping. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To site properly ref. points or links is childish ? Do you think that you are better than B.B. Lal ? Is it POV pushing to write about Saraswati river that it's mentioned in RV,SV,AV,Brahmanas etc. - which is a well known fact ?

Stop accusing me for POV pushing. I am just writing that so & so is opposed by OIT supporting scholars. Is it POV pushing ? Infact it's you who can be termed as POV pusher. WIN 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not B. B. Lal. We do have a fair article on the Sarasvati (most of which I happen to have written myself). You have yet to make your first useful edit. I do commend people like Nobleeagle who go and write a bona fide Out of India article, even if I think the entire topic is made up of hot air. But your contribution to Wikipedia so far has really just been a mild waste of everybody's time, quite obviously because you cannot wrap your head around the concept of an encyclopedia, or tell succinct prose from suggestive rambling. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not B.B.Lal.But you might be Witzel or surely his follower. To delete links of articles / papers of such a highly knowledgeable scholar of concern field , is definitely your kind of POV pushing. WIN 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

if you don't stop your stubborn edit-warring we'll have to finally block you for disruption. Your additions aren't even grammatical, and all they do is add pathetically transparent spin. You are really not up to the task WIN, I would just drop it if I were you, all you do is make "your side" look more silly than would be strictly necessary (the more intelligent authors manage to uphold at least a superficial semblance of scholarship). dab (𒁳) 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I know that you strongly dislike any AIT/AMT opposing scientific findings from other sciences as they are against it.Hence you are continuously deleting B.B. Lal 's papers in External Links. So, stop portraying youself as `only scholar' in this world on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIN (talk • contribs)

WP:DFTT dab (𒁳) 14:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up?

What is going on here? Geo. Talk to me

care to read the stuff right above? Or do you want a personalized introduction? dab (𒁳) 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has the potential to get messy for everyone. I have started a subpage /chat2007 where we can discuss the problems and end this sucker. Please add Points of Contention to the list. Geo. Talk to me 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It will never "end". I honestly don't think the subpage will help. Paul B 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it out. Atleast we will have a neutral party to help resolve the differences.Sbhushan 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, I am perfectly "neutral" insofar as I fully respect Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV (which itself includes WP:UNDUE). If you present pertinent academic references in good faith, we'll be sure to include them. That's really it, you cannot ask anything beyond that. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. If you do that, you'll find a cool reception. similarly, if you scatter random citation requests just to keep us on our toes, you'll find you will not get far. A bona fide summary of the position of a reference does not need more than one citation, or we'll end up citing references for every noun, verb or pronoun. If you have a bona fide point to make, make it. If not, leave it alone. If you're just here to smugly haggle over perfectly valid paragraphs just because you can, you'll just wear out your welcome. I put it to you that you are just not satisfied with the status quo of academic opinion, and you try to pretend there are "differences" where there are in fact none. If you think you can do this just because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", you will find that this doesn't work out. If you don't like the status quo, you will not be able to anything about it even on Wikipedia. You can always discuss obscure minority opinions somewhere, granted they have some minimal notability at all, but such discussions will always need to state up front that they are about fringe views. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, we agree that this is AMT page and everyting should be provided with references. No one should be doing any original research. I am hoping we can provide details of the Academic position supporting AMT from mainstream scholarship and counter arguments also from mainstream scholars. I am only going to provide input from mainstream acedemic scholars who believe in AMT. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. applies to all of us.Sbhushan 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased". If you are here for good faith work on the article, and if you are able to understand the terms "academic source" and "undue weight", cheers to you, do edit away. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I can't resist a challenge (nor temptations) so let us talk about "Indigenous Aryan Theory". No reference has been provided so far (see discussion at [7]. You have yourself mentioned that this is OR (see here [8]. Bryant defines "Indigenous Aryanism" on page 4 of his book as group of scholars who oppose Aryan invasions and migrations. Nowhere in his book he mentions any scholar who accept migration pre-IVC or a scenario where PIE enters the region in question pre-IVC and develops into Indo-Aryan. You should also know that mainstream can never argue for earlier migrations (because lots of other eveidence will support OIT in that case). So this "Indigenous Aryan Theory" is OR, setting up "strawman" and should not be included in Wikipedia.Sbhushan 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for references

Let us disucss one item at a time. Tag for "invasive". Which scholar is agruing for Invasion scenario.Sbhushan 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

your tags are not bona fide. Read the sentence you tagged at least, it begins "linguistic evidence alone cannot determine ...." I doubt you are here for constructive improvement, but feel free to prove me wrong. dab (𒁳) 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We will get to "linguistic evidence..." also, but first lets address "invasive". Invasion theory has been discarded for sometime now. So is there any one arguing for "invasive" anymore.Sbhushan 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed not, as far as I am aware. Certainly not me. The point of mentioning the "invasive vs. gradual" scenarios is that there are often polemics by "anti-migrationists" that set up unrealistic "invasion" strawmen only to shoot them down. The bottom line is that 19th century may have over-emphasized its fascination for "invasion", but that you can tone this down to a more realistic "gradual imposition of a superstrate" without problem. Nobody to the best of my knowledge would claim anything stronger than "gradual imposition of a superstrate" today. This certainly wasn't all peaceful, the martial character of Rigvedic tribes is more than clear, but then very few population movements in the Late Bronze Age were. The standard assumption used to be that the substrate population was Proto-Dravidian. It is an interesting development that this may not after all have been the case, but that the Proto-Dravidians just like the Indo-Aryans may have filled the power vacuum following the IVC's decline. Compare this to Gaul. Its territory presents itself completely divided between Romance and Germanic "invaders". The Gaulish language that used to be ubiquitous all over Western Europe has virtually disappeared over a few centuries. And yet, genetically, the inhabitants of former Gaul are still "autochthonous", they are the direct descendants of the Gauls, but they were linguistically assimilated either to the Romans or to the Germans. The IVC/Indo-Aryan/Dravidian case would be perfectly analogous and not in any way far-fetched or unrealistic. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis on invasion is actually more typical of the mid 20thC than the 19thC, following the emergence of theories about the importance of chariots and the claim that the Aryans overthrew the IVC. But in reality there is no clear distinction between "migration" and "invasion". As you say, ancient migrations and expansions were not typically peaceful. Hardly anyone ever imagined large scale organised military expeditions like Darius's or Alexander's invasion of the Indus. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is basically correct. The IVC wasn't identified until the 20thC, long after most of the early theorizing about Aryan movements into the subcontinent. Only after the IVC was found did it even become an issue whether the Aryans had anything to do with the IVC's disappearance. Wheeler's pithy "Indra stands accused" was a speculation, and in fact was shot down pretty quickly too (e.g. Grahame Clark), but patient scholarly criticism gets lost in this age of sound bites. rudra 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't care for the historical "invasion" or if you want to keep this in the article. What this says is that few mainstream scholars still believe in "invasion" scenario, although a minority. So if anyone argues against invasion then it is due to these mainstream scholars.Sbhushan 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It's that the distinction between invasion and migration is, in part at least, artificial. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference that you provided for substrata does not work. Did you mean this article [9]. It seems that EJVS has moved hosting to different location.Sbhushan 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

EJVS has moved hosting to: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ I noticed this when I needed to fix a broken link on another page. I am wondering if there is some way to quickly locate broken links to it on Wikipedia in an automated manner? Buddhipriya 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"no archaeological evidence"

At present, the article claims there is no archaeological evidence for IA arrival in India, just as there is no archaeological evidence for the arrival of any other IE branch to its historical location. This is the opinion of some people. Strictly speaking, the statement is empty, since archaeological evidence can never tell you about the languages involved. However, there is archaeological evidence accepted as related to these movements by other people. This would be the Swat culture for IA migration, which is a perfect fit for the mainstream scenario, and e.g. shaft graves for the arrival of the Greeks, and of course kurgans in general. In W Europe, it's the Beaker people, Unetice culture or Urnfield culture, according to your taste. None of these instances are proofs, of course. But all of them are accepted as possible evidence of IE expansion by some people, so the article at present is making a patently false statement. The "supporting source" simply shows that some authors reject all such evidence, which is true, but doesn't imply that there is no evidence. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine if the loaded 'clear' goes back in, if the full quote from Kenoyer goes back in as it was here. Kenoyer's is a much more current view from someone who has been working on Harappa digs, is a qualified and mainstream expert, etc. Such views deserve more prominence in this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Kenoyer states that there is no evidence for "invasion or mass migration", which is indeed true as far as I am aware. We are looking at the gradual intrusion of a numerically small superstrate, as in many, if not all, other known cases of prehistorical migration. I do not think IVC collapse under the impact of an IA invasion is tenable today. Current suggestions (see Indo-Iranians) allow for gradual infiltration in several waves, possibly early IA presence even from 1900 BC (Parpola), with the "Proto-Rigvedic" Indo-Aryans arriving in a second wave that establishes the Swat culture, and spreads into the vacuum left by the IVC (not "destroying" the IVC). I think 1900 is the very earliest possible date for IA presence, since Proto-Indo-Iranian split cannot be dated to much before this. dab (𒁳) 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is, I fully endorse Kenoyer's quote of

there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities, with no biological evidence for major new populations

the key word here being 'major'. Since no major population shift is postulated by anyone today anyway, this more or less states the uncontroversial, and would be more relevant to the Late Harappan article than to this one. But even here, I suppose, it is important to state: there was no major population movement. This is all about a superstrate: 10%, maybe 15% of population, arriving over the time of half a millennium. It is important to state this very clearly, already to avoid the perpetual "Aryan Invasion" strawman. To give you some context: I live in Switerland. "foreigners" arriving over the past 25 years amount to 6% of the population. This corresponds to a rate of influx ten times higher than that postulated for IAM (10-15% over 500 years). Yet nobody (except for nationalist crackpots of course) is talking of an "invasion of Switzerland". It's simple "migration". IAM was ten times less of an "invasion" than this, the only difference being that the new arrivals were installed as a superstrate, not a substrate. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that particular phrasing is that it's so pedantic and obtuse to a casual encyclopedia reader. We're writing for a mass audience here, not for academics. The version that I put there is much simpler and more clear:

"There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." The 'invasions' part I don't mind having deleted, but "There is no archeological or biological evidence...for mass migrations" is so much more clear to the typical reader of Wikipedia than phraseology like "the intrusion of an Indo-Aryan superstrate would not have been sufficient to displace indigenous culture." ॐ Priyanath talk 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, this is misleading, since it pretends to be an argument in the IAM debate, while in reality nobody even suggests there is a "mass migration". It's beside the point. dab (𒁳) 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then let's say right in the intro that "there was no mass migration". That way there will be no confusion, no straw men battles, and again it communicates to a mass audience much more clearly than ""the intrusion of an Indo-Aryan superstrate". ॐ Priyanath talk 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the discussion above [[10]] to remove the "invasive" hints from the first paragraph. If we quote invasion, then someone will argue against invasion. AMT is linguistic theory, it has been discussed number of times that archeology contradicts migration.Sbhushan 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my motivation, Sbhushan. I want to mention "invasion" as a matter of intellectual honesty, because proposed scenarios used to envisage it, not because I support the idea. I think Priyanath's idea is good: The intro should state something like "while historically, IAM was sometimes envisaged as 'invasion' or military conquest, contemporary mainstream scenarios preculde such drastic change, and surround the gradual intrusion of a superstrate instead". But I am sorry; while I am ready to indulge the "mass audience" by saying "no mass migration", I am afraid there is no way around "intrusion of a superstrate" for the simple reason that this is the correct terminology. We can accomodate the less learnéd of our readers, but we should never talk down to, dumb down or assume the reader is a moron. On Wikipedia, if you don't understand a word, click on the link. dab (𒁳) 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

following is the quote from Bryant 2001 page 231

The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working out-side of South Asia are voicing similar views.

Bryant does not distinguish between migration/invasion/complex trickling. It would be more accurate to say that language migrations doesn't require archeological evidence (quote Erdosy 1995). But saying that archeological evidence is inconclusive is misrepresentation of consensus opinion of archeologist.Sbhushan 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

it is not a misrepresentation. Bryant is spinning things. The fact of the matter is that archaeologists tend to refuse to identify migrations in almost every single case worldwide, India is no exception. All Bryant's statement amounts to "there is no positive archaeological evidence". That's a no-brainer, because there never is in the absence of epigraphy. This amounts to "inconclusive". You can say that nobody finds proof for IAM, as long as you also say that nobody expects to find it, and that there is as little, or less, proof of Greek, Germanic, Italic, Armenian or Celtic migration. dab (𒁳) 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, archeologist say "no evidence", you say archeologist don't know what they are talking about so we should say "inconclusive". What should go in the article is verifiable statement and no weasel words WP:weasel.Sbhushan 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sbhushan: "There is no archeological evidence", period, is clear and unequivocal, and that's what the article should say. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, it's not about 'dumbing down' for our readers. It's about communicating to the reader. That's what 'writing' is all about. When there is a clearer way of stating something, using laymen's language, then we should use it. In fact, a noted Archeologist who is the current leader of a dig at Harappa put it this way: "There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." He didn't phrase it that way to 'dumb it down', he was stating clearly and simply what it is. Since you insist on using academic language, then I insist that Kenoyer's quote go somewhere in the article, preferably where I placed it originally. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no archaeologist or biologist, yet I prefer to read articles on archaeology and biology in proper terminology, not "retold for the layman". Using "layman's language" is not clearer, it's less clear. Good writing is about building a clear and coherent case in straightforward syntax. Your citation is fine. But it is out of context, the context being not AIM in general, but the outdated notion of a "mass migration". I repeat that I am happy with your suggestion of saying "no mass migration" in the intro, do go ahead. We're still going to state that if it's not about "mass migration", what it is about (it "is not about" lots of things, including heavy metal music, Greek comedy, Middle Irish and the decline of the Mayan empire). The intro has to state what it is about, viz., the intrusion of an IA superstrate. dab (𒁳) 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you're playing games. It's 'not' about alot of things of course. But many people think that it is about mass migration, so the intro should say that it's not about mass migration. The reason many people think that is because this 'theory' has had a continuous downward spiral from invasion to mass migration to some migrants who trickled in over time and brought in a different language. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the theory (or theories) what is most notable is the variety of views. The very earliest versions actually envisage a tiny migration of "Brahmins" who establish their sway through priestcraft. Some of the most racist versions, such Rosenberg's, have a small elite of warrior "Nordics" overwhelmed by a sea of racial inferiors. The notion that the migration need only be quite small is not specific to this subject, it follows from genetic studies in other places where language change is known to have occurred - in Britain and France for example - but where the genetic contribution of the bearers of the language is small. Paul B 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. the "downward spiral" is entirely an artifact in the interpretation of angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the "invasion" scenario was a bad faith conspiracy from the beginning (for reasons best known to themselves, I have yet to hear how colonialists could profit ideologically from a Bronze Age invasion). There were reasonable proposals from the beginning. The more drastic proposals have been shown to be untenable over the decades. That's progress as in 'narrowing down' the scenario, not a "downward spiral". And as Paul says: India is no special case. Thougt on migrationist scenarios on the whole underwent this sort of evolution. India is just one of several case studies of that. And Priyanath, I am not playing games: I have told you twice already, I agree with saying "no mass migration", alright? I'll say it again. But if you don't read my comments, there isn't much I can do. Here goes: feel free to say "no mass migration, but don't delete the "intrusion of a superstrate" bit. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not h. propaganda. I've never even heard of the 'downward spiral' - I just came to the conclusion based on reading the history. I'm not a Hindutva or an activist. Lots of straw men around here, eh? The earlier theories may, or may not, have been reasonable proposals from the beginning, but the theory has spiraled ever downward. I've added the 'no mass migration or invasion' to the intro. Not the first paragraph as you are suggesting Sbhushan, but I'm open to seeing it go there instead if you like. I just think it fits better where the archaeology is first discussed, but if you move it up, I won't object. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, you might have misunderstood my comment. I have asked for removal of "invasion" from first paragraph. Dab and Paul have argued to keep it in the first paragraph. I agree with where you have placed archeological comment. I would prefer to remove the "inconclusive" part in the same paragraph.Sbhushan 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys stop sitting on fence? Couple of days back you argued with me to keep the statement “invasion” in the first paragraph and argued that invasion and migration were not different in that time period and Different linguists have argued for either. Now you are saying angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the "invasion" scenario. Can you make up your mind and stick to one position.Sbhushan 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Quoting half a sentence as if it were a complete sentence changes its meaning. Dab said that conspiracy theorists like to claim that the "invasion scenario" was "bad faith" from the beginning - i.e. that it was cynically invented for some villainous reason (racism, imperialism, christian conversion, etc). As I said before the idea of a major invasion was probably most popular around the mid 20th century. A fictionalised version of this scenario appears in the novel The Venus of Konpara. Very early versions often use the model of religious conversion achieved by Brahmins (by analogy with Christianisation) or tribal migrations as suggested by Biblical stories. The idea that there was some sort of struggle between incoming Aryans and "natives" becomes common in the late nineteenth century. After the discovery of the IVC this sometimes envisaged as a more military-style campaign. Paul B 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, in that case can we remove this section from first paragraph.

Linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds, but contemporary consensus clearly favours "gradual migration" over "military invasion".

Also see earlier discusion at [[11]]Sbhushan 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, a couple of days ago I suggested you are unable to follow an argument, and you are only reinforcing that impression now. We are required to argue a point, but we are not required to point it out in painstaking detail if you are unable to follow the conversation. Maybe you should begin with reading the article in its entirety. dab (𒁳) 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

please look up WP:civ and WP:NPA, from now onward I will only respond to your comments, if I see link to published material.Sbhushan 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to modify the intro to reflect the new consensus. CiteCop 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: All I can say is: simply unbelievable. The fellow actually quotes from page 231 of Bryant's book here, and then demonstrates that he hasn't read it. Bryant didn't write "no archaeological evidence". He wrote "no convincing archaeological evidence". Go look it up. rudra 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

change in page name to Indo-Aryan Migration Theory

Please see discussion at [[12]] regarding name change. The straw poll [[13]] was 100% for name change. If you disagree with name change, can you please provide your input. Otherwise can we change the name to include "Theroy".Sbhushan 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

we have discussed this at length. please see the archives. I suggest you do strawpolls on talkpages (after consulting past discussions). I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but now you have managed to create a pov fork of a talkpage, congratulations. In a nutshell, it is not "a theory", but a concept that is the subject of various theories. That an Indo-Aryan expansion took place within India (that is, across the Gangetic plain and then across the Vindhya range) is completely undisputed and obviously also qualifies as Indo-Aryan migration. "IAM" is not about a migration across the borders of the current-day Republic of India in particular, any serious discussion will ignore these boundaries as obviously irrelevant. Yes, practically all scenarios include a migration across the Hindu Kush west to east, but that is not a prerequisite to the concept. A migration across the Hindu Kush east to west (to get the Mitanni-Aryans "out of India") will still qualify as "IAM". It is really not about "if" so much as about "how and when", and there is more than one "theory" on that. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Kurgan hypothesis is also not "a theory", but a concept that is the subject of various theories. The article is still at Kurgan hypothesis. We can of course also move the article to Indo-Aryan migration theories, if the issue is that there are many theories. This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others). It would be more accurate and npov. Most pro-migrationist scholars believe it is just the most likely theory of all theories, and "Aryan migration theory" or better "Indo-Aryan migration theory" happens to be the best known name for it. The term is also used by people like Bryant or Witzel.

Is it allright then that this article also discusses migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Ukraine, in Mesopotamia (Mitanni), in South-East Asia, in Sri Lanka, in Nepal, and of the Ghandari/ Niya Prakrit, Parya and Dumaki speakers? You once said the scope of this article is any migration of early Indo-Aryans, but when I once added a sentence about migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Ukraine, it was removed from this article.

Maybe we could make something of a shorter article here with links to more detailed articles including Indo-Aryan migration theory, and which discusses all the different migrations of IA-speakers? As a matter of fact, the majority of the current article is about the Aryan migration theory. The movement of Vedic Aryans from the IVC eastwards or southwards is barely discussed in this article, and it merits to be discussed at length in a separate article anyway. We have moved the AIT article to another name, I think the article which discusses the AMT should also be under "Indo-Aryan migration theory" (or theories/hypothesis) to be as accurate (and npov) as possible. --RF 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, water down the focus of the article by playing wordgames. CiteCop 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is trying to water down the focus of the article? We had many discussions if the AIT page should be moved to AIT (history and controversies) (like here [[14]]), if the Indo-Aryan migration should be created, if the India page should be moved to ROI. Why is not allright to discuss a move of this article?

CiteCop, Please correct me if I missunderstood your comments. You would prefer to keep the focus on the Aryan Migration theory as discussed in IE studies as Aryan migration into South East Asia during the time period of 1900 BC to 1500 BC. Watering down version is being proposed by Dab.Sbhushan 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. "Kurgan hypothesis" refers to a basic postulate, steppe origin of PIE, which may be accepted or rejected. "Indo-Aryan migration" refers to any migration of (early) Indo-Aryans. That these peoples migrated is entirely undisputed. Mainstream opinion is presented prominently per WP:UNDUE, but if there are quotable theories of IAM east-to-west from the Indus to Mitanni, we should definitely also mention them here. That there was IAM within India is completely undisputed, and the distances covered within India are greater than that from the Oxus to the Indus. This includes expansion from the Punjab to the lower Ganges, and expansion beyond the Vindhya. It is not a "theory" that these expansions took place, but an undisputed fact. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing focus should be a consensus opinion, can we have a straw poll on that? Regarding name used in IE mainstream litrature, please check Bryant (2001), Witzel EJVS VOL. 7 (2001), ISSUE 3 (May) page 2 "THE 'TRADITIONAL' IMMIGRATION THEORY" [[15]]. Can we close the poll in 24 hours.Sbhushan 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has very very little on Indo-Aryan migrations inside India, not to speak of other migrations of Indo-Aryan migration speakers that would fall into the scope of this article with such an article title. This article is basically about the AMT.

Maybe we could make a separate Indo-Aryan migrations (disambiguation) page, where other migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers are listed? This could be linked from the top of the page. (Only we don't have many such articles at all). --RF 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The straw poll favoured renaming of the article as "Indo-Aryan Migration Theory". This is also the name used in peer reviewed litrature (see comment above dated 27 Feb). How do we make this change happen?Sbhushan 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally figured out how to do name change. As per above discussion, I will be changing the name on 20:00 9 March 2007. Please provide your comments before that.Sbhushan 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you leave it as it is; it will only lead to more revert-warring. dab (𒁳) 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can other editors who OPPOSE name change please speak up? Please provide your rational also.Sbhushan 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave the page as it is. Stop rocking the boat, and either get on board with those editors among us who have at least some measure of formal training or leave. CRCulver 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss in a reasonable way, I have an open mind. The change in name to “Theory” is better for the article. I will provide reasons in favour of changing the name and you can provide opposing reasons. The reasons in favour are:

1. This is the name used in peer reviewed literature (see ref above)
2. As per naming convention, the name should be with Theory
3. The most important reason is to keep the article focused. As CiteCop said above water down the focus of the article by playing wordgames. WP:UNDUE only applies if they are competing theories. IAM within India does not compete with Indo-Aryan Migration Theory (IAT). Also, IAM within India is completely undisputed. So anyone can fill the majority of article with IAM within India and that would be acceptable as article is about all migrations. Only way to keep the article clean is to keep it focused on one topic.Sbhushan 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Points of Contention

Add any you see missing

1. Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN?
2. Does the article have NPOV problems?
3. What can be done to improve this article?
4. Should the name of the article be changed?
5. Where are the main problems in this article?

Discussion about point 4. Should the name of the article be changed?

I think a better article name would be "indo-aryan migration theory" (or hypothesis). This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others).

I don't think this move would be controversial, as many (most?) of the pro-migration scholars believe that the migration scenario is just the most likely scenario and hypothesis of all other theories. But even if it may be the most likely hypothesis, it is still an unproven hypothesis, and not a proven theory.

When I brought this up some time before, the reply was: "the point is that it is undisputed that the I-As migrated somewhere, at some point in time. The debate surrounds questions of date, scale and direction. Therefore IAM is not so much a hypothesis as a field containing various hypotheses." and it was also once said that the article scope's is any migration involving indo-aryan speakers that are before 0 BC. But when I once added a small sentence about migrations of Indo-aryan speakers in the ukraine it was removed from the article. As a matter of fact, most of the article is about the so-called Aryan migration theory.

I have not insisted much upon such a move (and will not insist much upon it), because I think article titles are not that important, but it would be better if the article title would be more accurate and npov (analogous to Kurgan hypothesis). What do others think? --RF 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see this question being raised - I've been very puzzled reading this and related articles. I believe it's POV to not have the word "theory" or "hypothesis" in the title. The sixth word in the article says it's a theory. It is a theory. Walks, talks, and quacks like one. The title should say so. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the theory label. It is a theory which is not proven yet, so it should NOT be presented at fact. But it should mention that this theory is most favoured by linguistic.Sbhushan 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the theory label as well.Bakaman 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The theory label looks good enough to me as well. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about 3. what to do to improve this article

This is a controversial topic, with everyone having very entrenched postions (including me). The best way to impove the article would be to provide references as per WP:V. We can add tags where reference is not clear and if the author doesn't provide references in a week's time, the statement is to removed.Sbhushan 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, anyone have a problem? Geo. Talk to me 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Better sources + Standardizing in case of references (using the ref tags/footnotes instead of the paranthesis) and overcoming the dependence on Mallory (and Mair) by using other sources. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

discussion about 1. Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN?

I have put few tags for references. Dab's action of reverting without providing reference is not acceptable. For one tag, Dab is completely wrong, P. Thieme has rejected the Kuniper's list in total in his 1994 paper. A tag is a request for reference, it is authors responsibility to provide reference, otherwise I have right to remove the statement. Dab has to follow WP policies same as all editors.Sbhushan 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with it. He is deleting well ref. materials or external links in the article, just because it has some scientific materials opposing IAM theory. Dab's sentences are written in a manner which portrays this theory as a fact. And, when I wanted to mention XYZ as per theory supporters and ABC as per opposers , Dab & Crculver immeditely deleted it in the name of `poor english'! I have many times told that under mask of migration , always invasion which is ruled out totally , is argued. I strongly oppose dictator like behaviour of Dab. WIN 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes dab adds information which he says is obvious without referencing, while he removes other people's information. I have no doubt that dab is knowledgeable on the matter, but he needs to follow the same rules as others. But then I have also been accused of dictatorship on other pages I know more about. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab's behaviour on articles regarding the Vedic civilization has been extraordinary at times. I'm saying this because this concern is not exclusive to the editors involved in the crafting of this particular article, but is shared by other editors as well. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of WP:RS and WP:SOAP are not violations of WP:OWN. CiteCop 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that adding unsourced information was "enforcement of WP:RS".Bakaman 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

in all seriousness, our articles on Vedic topics would be a sorry mess if it was not for the constant effort of a few editors, of which I am one. Editors like Freedom skies or WIN would turn them into an orgy of naive hype in no time. This isn't related to WP:OWN, it is a simple matter of protecting articles from substandard edits. Any reasonable, that is well-sourced, encyclopedic addition is most welcome. Bakaman is perfectly aware of this, he just makes a habit of stalking me. It is not my fault if certain people prefer ideological or crackpot fringecruft over mainstream opinion (and the realization that the internet is full of such people is hardly a novelty), Wikipedia is still bound to presenting mainstream per WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, it seems you misunderstood my comment. You are being asked to provide verfiable citations for comments that you are adding. No original research policy applies to you also.Sbhushan 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll on 4

Should this article be moved to Indo-Aryan Migration Theory?
Yes

• ॐ Priyanath talk 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sbhushan 17:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• --RF 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• -- WIN 08:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• -- — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bakaman 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No

• not a "theory", see above dab (𒁳) 14:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• rudra 04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The future of this article

As more and more Indians are discovering Wikipedia, there's little hope in getting this article balanced, ever. So I would suggest an unconditional surrender instead of gradually losing battle. At least this way the article will look and smell bullshit instead of disguising the odour with tons of French perfume. 212.199.22.114 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

that's implying every Indian is a dim-witted ideologist. I am counting on more intelligent Indians discovering Wikipedia, and helping protect the articles for the very reason that articles that reek to heaven of naive bullshit tend to give a bad impression of the Indian psyche. If I was Indian, I would regard it a patriotic effort to keep WIN-style nonsense off Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The other ones are Arya Samaj trolls.Bakaman 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian Languages are from Non-IE family

Why anyone has not paid attention to the fact that languages of Caucasus mountain region is non-IE one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_languages . While this area is next to PIE Kurgan area, why this area is still non-IE language area where as Himalayan mountain range which is bigger and higher than Caucasus range is told to got converted to IE.

Why IE languages could not occupy Caucasus mountain area despite being very much in the vicinity ? Why IE people could not convert languages of just nearby mountain people ? That means there was strong language opposition from those natives or IE people did not bother to climb Caucasus mountains ? WIN 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. On most of the Himalayan plateau, Tibetan, a Sino-Tibetan language is spoken. 2. Why could IE not convert Dravidian and Munda languages where there are no mountains? CiteCop 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

how could you possibly get the idea that "no one paid attention" to the Caucasian languages being non-IE? That's a universally known fact. An I-E/Kartvelian relationship is postulated by the Nostratic supporters. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Tibet is equally big as W. Europe. In Himalaya, there is a highest altitude plateau. Whereas Caucasus is much smaller mountain range in width compared with Himalaya. Tibet's geographical isolation can not be compared in Caucasus case as there is no such big plateau. Also both sides of Caucasus are IE , leaving only Caucasus mountain area. Whereas Indian side of Himalaya is IE , where as much steeper Himalaya is the reason of Tibet's isolation .

2. Right, why 10% of South Asia is non-IE. But their religion & culture is totally Vedic or IE. Remember that Witzel has told that Indo-Aryans accepted material & culture of native IVC people based on newer findings.

If PIE people could not convert nearby Caucasus area then how come they converted both sides of Hindukush mountains or made half world population IE ? WIN 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryan Theory deletion

I have been requesting citation for Indigenous Aryan Theory since Feb 13th (see here [[16]], [[17]] and [[18]]). So far I have not seen any citation of verifiable source. The arguments I have got so far are:

• Join two separate words and attach theory after that. This is not acceptable verifiable source. Some one in published material has to present this theory, before it can be used like this.

• The words "Indigenous Aryan" is coined in Bryant (2001). I have provided ref to show that Bryant also says that unavoidable corollary is Out of India theory.

• Another proposal is to use this as political/ideological motivated theory. This might be possible, but then the theory cannot make claim that are being presented. Individual claim need citation from a published material.

I am going to request deletion of Indigenous Aryan Theory page as it does not meet verifiability requirement. If any editor feels that citations are available, please provide them on [[19]]) page. Providing original research is not acceptable.Sbhushan 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryant does not say that the unavoidable corollory is OIT, as I have shown. In any case the term is not confined to him. It's an out and out lie to say that the phrase is an arbitrary coinage joining "two separate words". You know this because of the references that have been provided. Your arguments are utterly nonsensical and endlessly repetitious. They serve no purpose other than to attempt to delete something that you don't like, even though the term Indigenous Aryanism is very well attested. You support adding "theory" to the title of this article without demanding peer reviewed citation for the exact phrase "Indo-Aryan migration theory". This is sheer hypocrisy. It's nothing more than an attempt at censorship through pedantry. Paul B 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page 74 is not the only page Bryant states this clearly. Interpreting Bryant's words is called original research. On page 6 and page 140 he also states this. I am quoting page 6

It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there.

This is quote from page 140

Since the principle that cognate languages stem from some kind of a protoform has yet to be refuted, as has the postulate that protolanguages must have been spoken in some kind of a reasonably delimited geographic area, there seem to be only three (or four) options that could account for the connection of the Indo-European languages as a family. Either the Indo-Aryan languages came into India from outside or, if it is to be claimed that the Indo-Aryan languages are indigenous to India, the corollary must be that the other Indo-European languages left from India to their historically known destinations. The third alternative is that there was a very large surface area stretching from the Northwest of the subcontinent to the Caspian Sea wherein related, but not necessarily homogeneous, Indo-European languages were spoken. Trubetzkoy (1939) offered a fourth proposal, that Indo-European was a language created by the creolization of several different languages in contact.

Can you quote any page in Bryant where he has mentioned anything that is being presented on IAT page. Till you quote a verifiable reference IAT is original research. In political/ideological discussion Aryan is used for Indo-Aryan and not for Indo-Iranian languages. I can provide quote for this also from Bryant.

Regarding "theory" comment, I can provide you quotes from mainstream IE community where Aryan Migration is referred as a theory. Check Bryant (2001) and also Witzel's publication. It is not question of mine or your likes/dislikes. WP policies are clear about what should be included on WP.Sbhushan 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What reference has been provided???? R. Schmit is talking about "Aryan" which is different from how Bryant as defined "Indigenous Aryan". So far in discussion, not one publication has been quoted that provides citation for any claims being made in the article. Take "indigenous" add Aryan based on R. Schmit and create all kind of controversial cliams that can not be referenced to any publicatio. As I have asked repeatedly, provide the verifiable citation and not original research.Sbhushan 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the article, the better solution is to provide details of the theory based on published material. I have added material based on Bryant (2001) with page numbers. Bryant (2001) has been mentioned as the source since creation of the article. Dab is still trying to push his OR of adding 2 words together and creating a theory. Can I request other editors to get involved in the article. I am not sure how RfC is done. Any advice?Sbhushan 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the term may have been coined by Bryant, but it is in wider use as a term for Hindu nationalist propaganda (as shown in the article). I would be most happy to devote one line to it being pseudoscholarly bullshit pushed by "religious fanatics" (as you seem to agree). But if we're going to discuss "evidence" for the "theory" (as opposed to simply discuss the political agendas involved), we will damn well be allowed to spell out just what proposal it is for which we're looking for evidence. We agree it's bullshit, alright? We are giving brief background on why it is bullshit. dab (𒁳) 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, if you want to present this as Hindu nationalist propaganda, go ahead. But realize that you can't link this with any mainstream position in any way. Ideological discusion is that Vedic has been around since before last ice age (extreme example) or that Sanskrit = PIE. My personal view is that this argument is not defensible.

IF you want to somehow link this with mainstream, then Bryant has not left any choice. You can not do "furhter analysis" of his words. So "unavoidable corollary" left is Out of IndiaSbhushan 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

um, the "indigenous Aryans" article is about propaganda. It's so categorized. It's stated up front. It's all referenced. It's so much glorified gibberish spiced with testosteron. I'm sorry, but you are not making sense. As propaganda, it doesn't make strict scholarly sense, and there can be all sorts of "corollaries" from it, including, but not limited to OIT, since ex falso quodlibet. While otoh "OIT" is at least a well-defined proposal which in a certain sence includes an "indigenous Aryan" position a fortiori. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case don't make any claim that this could somehow be compatible with Renfrew's model. The sober voice BB Lal (as per you [[20]]) argues for Sanskrit in 5th millinium BC as per the article that you sourced. This is not compatible with any mainstream theory.Sbhushan 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested Third pary mediation at [[21]], interested party please provide comments.Sbhushan 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, Lal is a comparably reasonable voice (which isn't saying much with all the pseudoscience flying around). But of course I cannot vouch that he never proffered nonsense. I haven't seen him claim "5th millennium Sanskrit", which would be supreme nonsense of course, and I think this is just once again you misreading your sources. He quite reasonably says that the Harappan culture has its roots in the 5th millennium, and he comparatively reasonably dates the RV to "before 2000 BC" (based on a single(!) verse saying "Sarasvati flows to the Sea", which is blatant naivete to any philologist) which is "only" some 500 years before its accepted date. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These are BB Lal's word from the article (check conclusion about 3rd last para) that you cited [[22]] Putting together the various parts of this jigsaw puzzle, it would mean that if the Vedas reflect the literary counterpart of the Harappan archaeological complex, the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit. And since the Harappan Culture had its roots going deep at least into the fifth millennium BCE, it would imply that the Sanskrit-speakers were there in this area as early as that.Sbhushan 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed post per WP:BLP See diff [23]

Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals, but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the Sumerians really spoke Aramaic. Shame on any archaeologist who argues nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his life. I'm still waiting for the moderate voice arguing "yes, there are the nationalist crackpots, but...". But the Hindutva ideologues, and their WP minions, obviously cannot get themselves to accept even the most blatant nonsense for what it is. Until they learn to differentiate between "complete nutcase" and "arguable if fringy", this simply means that all their stuff looks like complete bollocks. Wake me up when some pro-OIT editor comes along who exhibits this minimal amount of honesty. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- your comment about honesty. Lal's article was provided by you, you thought BB Lal was comparably reasonable voice, you misquoted BB Lal's words to push your POV. You still haven't provided any citation for your POV that you want to publish in Wikipedia voice. Source of dishonesty is very obvious.Sbhushan 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

this is what you keep saying. None of it is true (except that I called Lal "comparatively reasonable", yes). I don't know why you keep saying it, but repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Now will you, or will you not get mediator assistance, and have a mediator talk to me? There is no other way I will debate with you at this point, sorry. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC re User:Dbachmann

I have opened an RfC related to IAT at [[24]]. Could you please add your views to that.Sbhushan 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I have reverted this edit [25]. The Indra part would rather belong on the Indra, AIT Dasa article (if at all). The Indus script part is offtopic here as well. Discuss on talk before reverting. --Rayfield 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dialectical variation

Shouldn't the first paragraph and map in this section belong to the Indo-European languages page (where it could fill out the information on isoglosses)? I don't see how erudite details on dative plurals in Celtic, etc illuminate anything about IA migrations. rudra 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise

We have three article to deal with broader topic; Indo-Aryan migration for mainstream view, Out of India for minority scholarly opinion, and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy. There is no need for a fourth article like indigenous Aryans. Would this be acceptable compromise.Sbhushan 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

BBC View

Can someone add this BBC published link at 'External Links' section. I don't have autharization to add this link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4. Niranjan B 12 March 2007

You mean [26]. Page 4 is essentially a disclaimer, "dear Indian patriots, ~we know you don't like it, please don't fry us". dab (𒁳) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

But what is the problem in adding this to "External Links" . If you are 'concerned' about India bias in Page 4 [27] then you can add page 1[[28] also. I know you don't like to add whole article in this topic. You want us to believe your outdate '1848' theories. When we question then we become Indian Patriots!. This is not the patriots Vs hater, it is discovering truth, not accepting blindly whatever some western scholars said 150 years ago (We did that long time). BBC is widely browsed website visitor should know BBC’s views on this topic. For common visitors it is better than other external links. Niranjan B 12 Mar 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.213 (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

not at all, there is no problem with linking this (preferably to page 1). It used to be linked, and I hadn't noticed it was gone. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer Page 4 [29]as this is directly linked this topic, Page 1 gives only brief history of early history. So Page 4 is more relevent here. Niranjan B 14 March 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.213 (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Can some one add this (BBC) external link? I don't have autharization. Niranjan B 26Mar2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.177.1.213 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Deletions by Dab

Dab, you are deleting well ref. sentences. Even addition contains all ref. material mentioning finding of Horse remains from south asia before hypotheical aryan migrations. It's in pure bad faith to delete those sentences which gives details of newer findings. You are doing the same thing in OIT or related subjects pages. You are describing views that are attested by scholars from India & Western world as fundamentalism or `subordinate' ! You want everybody to believe in a pure hypothetical theory and hence deleting real opposing points ! My additions are more proper than your creation of Indigenous_Aryan_Theory. WIN 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you propose to debate an academic subject you have no background in? Just because humanities don't use mathematic formulas doesn't make them any less a specialist subject. Pretending you know about Bronze Age India without academic background, because you happen to be Indian, is like pretending you know about, say, the theory of gravity just because you happen to have a body. I ask you. Do try to go over to General Relativity and sprinkle it with confused claims on grounds of "I know", being part of the physical world. But no, in humanities, anyone is an expert. To the point, we have history of the horse in South Asia. It is true that some authors (yes, the ones you cite), are desperate to build a case for the presence of the horse in Neolithic India, for transparent ideological reasons. The claim is just that, a claim made with an ulterior motive. You will not be able to state in Wikipedia's voice anything that takes this sort of thing serious. dab (𒁳) 09:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is purely your POV. And, pushing POV is against WP policy. WIN 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Domesticated horses in IVC or Neolithic India was a big hoax, WIN. Didn't you read about it? Don't accuse dab of bad faith. deeptrivia (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WIN just copied some passages from Kazanas. As if Kazanas' "research" were worth anything. And now we have someone else taking up cudgels for a slew of "references" that neither of them have checked. A significant omission, btw, is the pair of articles from South Asian Studies 1997 (Bokonyi, and the comment on that by Meadow and Patel.) Of course, they could put the passage in quotes and prefix it with "According to Kazanas", but that would defeat their purpose. Tsk, tsk. rudra 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed. It has long transpired that Kazanas is Subhash Kak's meatpuppet. If he was at least an expert in anything we could cite him regardless of this, but so far we only know that he runs a Yoga institute in Greece and allegedly has a M.A. in something. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Genetics studies

What is the use of piling up studies concluding that "influx from the northwest was low"? This is undisputed, and stating this once as general consensus is enough. What we need are studies that focus on said influx and give us details of what we should understand "low" to mean (2%? 5%? 10%?). dab (𒁳) 10:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with all these studies is the time depth involved. None of them have error bars sufficiently narrow to say anything particularly conclusive about influxes as recent as the 2nd BCE. That's why I would argue against quoting any genetic studies at all: the time frame is wrong in relation to the subject here. rudra 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)