Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggestions & Ideas

1. Genetic evidence suggests European migrants may have influenced the origins of India's caste system — http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11381027?dopt=Abstract

1. Majumder, P.P. Indian caste origins: genomic insights and future outlook. Genome Res 11, 931-932 (May 2001).

   — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Things can well be concluded — Science Style! — 117.207.62.240 (talk) 08:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry fella that link is a backdated one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.168.221 (talk) 10:22, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

what kind of link is this????

Some researchers have argued that Y-DNA Haplogroup R1a1a (M17) is of autochthonous Indian origin. However, the latest research sheds doubt on this claim, postulating an Eastern European origin for R1a1a. Stepanov et al. (2011) writes: "The age of the cluster admittedly brought to Hindustan from Central Asia / Southern Siberia is 3,9 +/- 1,3 ky. Probably, the primary center of the generation of diversity and expansion of R1a1a was the territory of the Eastern European Steppe. With the spread of R1a1 carriers, secondary centers of genetic diversity and population expansions were formed in the Southern Siberia and Hindustan." http://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/ichg11s?abst=Phylogeography%20of%20R1a1%20Y-chromosomal%20haplogroup%20and%20genetic%20history%20of%20Indo-Europeans.&sort=ptimes&sbutton=Detail&absno=20168&sid=874567 Incorrect.Nirjhara (talk) 08:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Clear linguistic evidence refuting the The Aryan Migration hypothesis

Nicholas Kazanas have provided a great and clinical paper on linguistic facts from rigved which easily gives the idea. The article Rigvedic all-inclusiveness provides ENOUGH DATA which can make any rational man believe the true happening instead of the academic theory. summing up the value of rigved we get; The rgveda contains and seems to preserve more common elements from the Proto-Indo-European Culture than any other branch of the family. This essay examines various points of language, poetry and philosophy but it focuses mainly on grammatical elements, lexical and syntactical, and on aspects of (fine) poetry. This is one aspect showing that Vedic and its culture is much closer to the PIE language and culture than any other branch in that family. Moreover, it shows that it is most unlikely that Vedic moved across thousands of miles over difficult terrains to come to rest in what is today N-W India and Pakistan, in Saptasindhu or the Land of the Seven Rivers. Certain other aspects show that Iranian moved away from Vedic and Saptasindhu and most probably the other branches did the same at a very distant but undetermined period. Finally, monotheism is also a notable feature in the RV despite its pronounced polytheism. The paper also gives many important linguistic data like of; e) Significant difference between Vedic and Avestan. Vedic redupl : ta-tak-a ‘has fashioned’, da-dar+a ‘has seen’; Av tata"a; simple : veda ‘has known, knows’; Av va,9a; periphr : gamay%&' cak%ra ‘has caused someone to go’ (AV 18.27.2); mantray%m %sa (Br%hma3as etc) ‘has advised’: i.e. main verb, fem. acc sing + auxiliary k4- ‘do’, as- ‘be’. BUT in this form – Av has only with ah- (=S as-) ‘be’: %stara yeint2m + ah- ‘must have corrupted’. Since Av has only verb + aux ah-, this indicates that Av separated from Vedic after Vedic developed as- as auxiliary. Otherwise Vedic would have aux as- first! Let us see. Mainstream doctrine teaches that original homeland of IEs is the Pontic (South Russian) Steppe, just above the Black Sea. But the direction of movement should be reversed. According to the mainstream Doctrine (the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory, actually), the Indo-Iranians formed one unified people then and moved to Iran passing from the Urals. Then the Indoaryans left the common Iranian homeland and moved into Saptasindhu c1500 BCE. (For a detailed discussion, see Bryant 2001.) But if this is true, then they should have had developed first the periphrastic perfect with auxiliary verb as- ‘to be’ like the Iranians, and afterwards the aux k4-. This evidence shows that first they developed main verb + auxiliary k4-RAI 6 in Atharva Veda and long afterwards main verb + aux as- in the Brahma,as. Since the Vedics and Iranians are supposed to have been together and since they certainly appear to share so many features in common, this means that they, the Iranians, left the common fold, not the IAs (Indo-aryans)! and also this; 6. Eight words of closest human relations. 1. brother : S bhr%&t4, Av br%t%r-; Toch pracar; Arm elbayr; Gk phrat,r; It fr%ter; Celt brathir; Gmc bro9ar; Sl bratr4; Lith broter-; Not Hit. (Note: It = Italic, mostly Latin.) 2. daughter : S duhit&4; Av dug

dar-/du#9<r-; Toch ck%car; Arm dustr; G thugát,r; It futir; Gmc daúhtar; Lith dukte Sl d4"ti. Not Hit, Celt. 3. father : S pit&4 ; Av pitar/(p)tar-; Toch p%car; Arm hair; Gk pat7r; It pater; Celt athir ; Gmc fadar . Not Baltic (=Lith or Lett), Sl, Ht. 4. husband, lord : S p"ti ; Av pa i

ti"; Toch pats; Gk posis ; It potis (=capable); Gmc –fa0(s); Lith pats/patis; Sl –pod4. Not Arm, Celt, Hit (but Hit pat -‘just’). 5. mother : S m%t&4 ; Av m%t%r-; Toch m%car; Arm mair; G m7t,r; It m%ter; Celt m%thir; Gmc m/dor; Sl mati., Not Hit; Lith mote ‘wife’. 6. sister : S svás4; Av x$anhar; Toch sar; Arm k5oir; It soror; Celt siur; Gmc swister; Lith sesuo; Sl sestra. Not Hit; Gk eór 'daughter'. 7. son : S s)nú ; Av hunu"; Gmc sunus; Lith s)nus ; Sl syn4; Not Toch, Ht, Arm, G (hui-ó!?), It, Celt. 8. wife/mistress : S pátn2 ; Av pa>n2; G p?tnia ; Lith -patni . Not Toch, Arm, Hit, It, Celt, Gmc, Sl. Only S & Av have them all. Hit has none! Yet comparativists persist in calling Hittite the most archaic IE tongue! How is it possible not to have even one of these nouns for the most common of human relations yet be the most archaic IE tongue? Why would all the others innovate suddenly? (One Anatolian language does have a cognate for “sister”. This is not of help to Hittite.) and there are few others also like the presence of deep monotheistic thoughts in rigved and the refutal of 1500 b.c. IMT by Maxmueller himself!! I want other guys to see and check the paper and to give me their true views. I finish with the words of Watkins;

“The language of India from its

earliest documentation in the rgveda has raised the art of the poetic figure to what many would consider its highest form”. http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/RAI_Aug_2012.pdf Nirjhara (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Remove biased and opinion-loaded line

The following line

Outside of academic debate, an "Indian Urheimat" has some proponents among writers linked to Hindu nationalism such as Elst (1999) and Kazanas (2001, 2002, 2009).[citation needed] "Out of India" scenarios locating the Indo-European homeland on the Indian subcontinent have gained currency in the Indian nationalist discourse since the 2000s.

is heavily biased. Firstly, Kazanas is by no means outside the "academic debate". While it is true that many Hindu nationalists side with the OIT, there is no sense in making blanket statements like this. Moreover, that sentence is irrelevant to the Aryan-Migration debate. Lastly, Shrikant Talageri has been branded as a Hindu Nationalist by those very western scholars who support AIT, only after being defeated or not bothering to participate in a logical argument. These arguments are openly available online, and it is crystal clear as to who argues logically and who comes down to abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.11 (talk) 18:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction with article India?

There is a notice that this article contradicts India. However, the article on India only says "During the period 2000–500 BCE, in terms of culture, many regions of the subcontinent transitioned from the Chalcolithic to the Iron Age.[22] The Vedas, the oldest scriptures of Hinduism,[23] were composed during this period,[24] and historians have analysed these to posit a Vedic culture in the Punjab region and the upper Gangetic Plain.[22] Most historians also consider this period to have encompassed several waves of Indo-Aryan migration into the subcontinent from the north-west." What is the contradiction here? Or has the contradiction been removed after the notice was attached in May 2012? Sreejiraj (talk) 06:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the current version of the article does not appear to contradict India. Whoever added that tag forgot to leave a note on the talk page. The issues probably have already been addressed. Correct Knowledge^«৳alk» 10:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Genetic impacts

The operning paragraph is about how invesions or migrations might leave genetic imprints. It gives general examples to set the scene for the specific discussion. These general examples are themselves part of the context with are discussed by Kivisild, Bryant etc. In other words many of the commentators point to other historical examples of language change in relation to population change to situate the specific issue of I-A in India. So it seems to me that this paragraph is actually crucial to the topic of this subsection. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indo-Aryan migration

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indo-Aryan migration's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Rajkumar et al.":

• From Haplogroup M (mtDNA): Rajkumar et al. (2005), Phylogeny and antiquity of M macrohaplogroup inferred from complete mt DNA sequence of Indian specific lineages, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2005, 5:26 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-26
• From Adivasi: Revathi Rajkumar et al., Phylogeny and antiquity of M macrohaplogroup inferred from complete mt DNA sequence of Indian specific lineages, BMC Evolutionary Biology 2005, 5:26 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-26

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fact Errors

You're article is presenting a defunct theory that was mistakenly created to oppress the indigenous population and is now propagandized to diminish the Neolithic roots of Indian culture. The Aryan-Invasion theory has repeatedly been proven false through linguistic analysis, genetic mapping, lack of archaeological evidence and a lack of anecdotal evidence. AMT is just a bland rehashing of the same BS by Historians who are largely losing all academic clout from the people they are supposed to serve and support. The "Aryan-Migration Theory" is only bandied about by the social-communalist Emeriti that gloss over recorded and archaeologically backed evidence. You're article focuses mainly on the Andronovo culture and paints any theories counter to a migration inwards of culture and civilization into India as pedestrian, while treating the idea of a continuous flow of information across cultures as an impossibility. The errors you made or relevant facts you have omitted are:

1. The Mehrgarh sattlements in Balochistan. Considered to be the oldest continually inhabited settlement in the world, dating from 9000 BC, it doesn't display any signs of a conquest/struggle taking place or leaves any artifacts of such in any of the strata surrounding the supposed "migration/invasion".

2. The historical academia long proposed that in-vivo dental work was a hallmark of the culture of the invading civilization yet pre-Bronze age skeletons in the planned settlements show that it was a common practice for the local people before the supposed migration.

3. Dr Lalji Singh's study on the genetic diversity of Indian populations in comparison with other South Asian populations has shown that there was no massive influx of East Asian genes into the Indian population.

4. The mtDNA and U-haplogroup study that showed North and South Indian "caucasoid" features are actually pre-caucasoid African features from genetic groups that migrated and split off into Western Asians and Southern Asians. http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate.html

5 The linguistic link between Tamil and Sanskrit including the chronology of the rise and decline of the classical versions of both languages and the amount of lingusitic borrowing occurring in each from the other.

6. The anthropological link through religious rituals and importance and similarity of rituals between cultures. Including the heavy significance South Indians place on following Vedic ritual dogma vs the almost non-existence of purely vedic practices in North Indian custom.

7. Lastly in "contrary views", you should absolutely make note of the History of the Debate with regards to colonialism and the national identity, including the inherent mistrust of Western Academia by the indigenous populations. Eloquently dissected by Edward Bryant in The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" The Indo-Aryan Migration debate as well as by John Lukas and Brian Hemphill. Print publication date: 2001 Print ISBN-13: 9780195137774 Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003 DOI: 10.1093/0195137779.001.0001 142.59.203.143 (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)Rajimus123

Can you name any more publications that could help editors of this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

What you are saying is simply nonsense. The theory of Indo-European migration no more "oppresses" Indians than it "oppresses" the British, or the French, or Greeks, or Italians: all countries the IE peoples migrated to after North India. You are confusing the racialised use of the theory with the concept of IE cultural migration/expansion itself, which is completely neutral. As for Neolithic Indian culture, of course India had Neolithic culture. So did everywhere else.

1. So what? There was fighting and struggle all the time everywhere, in Afghanistan, Europe, India - everywhere. There was also peaceful migration, population change and acculturation. Neither the presence nor absence of warfare proves anything outside of a spoecific historical context.

2. I've no idea what "in-vivo dental work" has to do with anything. I've never even heard of this being used as an argument. It certainly gets no mention in the article.

3. I've no idea what a "massive influx of East Asian genes" has to do with anything either.

4. This seems to be a confusion between facial features and genetic history. The former is subject to climate-related selection. The latter is not. Again, it's unclear how this is supposed to have any relevance to a migration of peoples from the Afghan area into the north of India.

5. This point makes no sense at all to me. Are you referring to Tamil borrowings from Sanskrit? How is this supposed to challenge the model of language contact?

6. This is a nonsensical argument. It is like arguing that Roman Catholicism must have originated in South America, because countries there are more traditionally devout than the modern Italians. Or even that Buddhism began in Tibet, rather than North India for the same reason. Or, for a more precise analogy, that Theravāda must have originated in Sri Lanka

7. Yes, the history of the colonial dimension to arguments should be included. Paul B (talk) 10:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Piece of crap

This article is a big lie. Logic say and reality confirms. Most people of India and Pakistan share similar color, facial features to the Arabs of central and south including UAE and Oman. In Pakistan and India Aryan rule similar to British rule. There was, i emphasize, no mass japhitic indo aryan migration. People of India and Pakistan are native of the place for centuries and looking at some sculptures and drawings the people of indus valley civilization of similar features as that of current Indians and Pakistanis. To conclude this is a really misleading article and propaganda originated from the west. Most eminent historians especially Ibn e Khuldun concludes all the races of Pakistan and India descended from Ophir and Haviliah youngest sons of Joktan son of Eber son of Saleh son of Arafhanchaz bin Shem.

India Aryan Migration is a scam and a big lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.37.66.99 (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"In Pakistan and India Aryan rule"... I guess by this You do recognise that an Aryan elite migration and conquest DID occur. The RULE is still there, by the way... Because the elite of these countries is still largely made up of hereditary aristocracy, which was in turn largely formed by newcomers starting from the Aryans, at least on the male line... twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Possible Root

Sumerian:Anu Irish Anu

Sumerian:Abarta Irish:Abarta

Sumerian:Cara Irish:Cara

Sumerian:Inanna Irish:Anann

Sanskrit: Tara Irish: Tara

Sanskrit: Siddhi Irish: Sidhe

Sanskrit: Danu Irish: Danu

Sanskrit: Rishi Irish: Ri shee

Theory:Aryan race = Tuatha de Dannan

--Prograce (talk) 11:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

WP is not a place to announce or discuss new ideas. There are many other places on the internet for that. Here we just try to summarise what has been published in the least controversial places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Photo from western China exposes possible Indo Aryan link

[[1]] In this photo the Girl on the right possesses facial characteristics which can be recognized as distinctly Irish. These particular characteristics are most notably seen around the central Dublin area.

These Children belong to the Uyghur people of Xinjiang province. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prograce (talk • contribs)

Well one can't argue with evidence like that! Case closed. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's Irish? Could be Welsh. Or Pictish!

Or, you know, Uyghur. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 12:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Prograce blocked as sock

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prestigiouzman/Archive Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

You guys have the opposite conclusion from 2009 Harvard Study

One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper (abstract, longer abstract, comment) said:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently. (Breaking India Appendix A)

He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A)WrongConclusionfrom2009Study (talk) 18:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

what exactly is your point? Which conclusion is misrepresented where in the article? By the way, Rajiv Malhotra is not a reliable source. Given the sensitivities in Indian identities, interpretations and conclusions based on the Nature-article should be handled with great care. But this blog also points out the pre-colonial origins of the caste-system. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually the source is Kumaraswamy from the Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology, who is one of the authors of the Harvard paper. He seems to be saying that any difference in genetics is attributable to indigenous inbreeding i.e. endogamy. The Wikipedia article does seem to give the opposite conclusion when it uses this study to support the statement "A more recent study has provided support for an influx of Indo-European migrants into the Indian subcontinent..."176.67.169.146 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

This is confusing. The comment you are linking to is not saying that 50,000 years ago was the only source of admixture. And the paper referenced at the end, by Priya Moorjani1 and Kumarasamy Thangaraj et al., says "We report genome-wide data from 73 groups from the Indian subcontinent and analyze linkage disequilibrium to estimate ANI-ASI mixture dates ranging from about 1,900 to 4,200 years ago." -- that fits what everyone is talking about regarding the AIT, does it not? Gschadow (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You falsely equate ANI with Aryans. You misunderstand the 2009 Harvard paper available here. Maybe you are confused by the term "Indo-European speakers". Or maybe you are confused by the fact that ANI are indeed related to West Eurasians. Either way, your confusion is not my problem. The paper states quite frankly "India harbors deep rooted lineages that share no common ancestry with groups outside of South Asia for tens of thousands of years." Tens of thousands of years is way beyond the timeframe for any so called Aryan migration. Please correct the article. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 22:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is it that should be corrected, according to which source? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Well obviously the statement "A more recent study has provided support for an influx of Indo-European migrants into the Indian subcontinent" is completely wrong. The paper says no such thing anywhere. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point right away. I'll have a look at it. Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The undeniable fact that "India harbors deep rooted lineages that share no common ancestry with groups outside of South Asia for tens of thousands of years" has next to no relevance to the question of Indo-Aryan migration. All it means is that there are ancient local lineages specific to India, which is no great surprise. The paper states:

Two features of the inferred history are of special interest. First, the ANI and CEU form a clade, and further analysis shows that the Adygei, a Caucasian group, are an outgroup [Caucasian = from the Caucasus; not = racial sense]. Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, while the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to hypothesize that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke “Proto-Indo-European”, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages38, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture....We caution that “models” in population genetics should be treated with caution. While they provide an important framework for testing historical hypotheses, they are oversimplifications. For example, the true ancestral populations of India were probably not homogeneous as we assume in our model but instead were likely to have been formed by clusters of related groups that mixed at different times.

Mass influx into "India" (a fluid concept itself) has never been a necessary feature of AMT models. Paul B (talk) 16:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that the paragraph is not coherent (any more). Which paper contains the statement "A more recent study..." etc.? It's beginning to dawn on me that "some studies", "more recent studies" etc should be specified rigth away, and referenced. Like "According to X, in [title, year], ...", "According to Y, in [title, date], ...". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Paul B. The mere fact you relate the study to "AMT models", when one of the authors explicitly says "Our paper basically discards Aryan theory" shows your misunderstanding. You are confused by the fact that ANI are indeed related to West Eurasians. You are further confused by the hypothesis that ANI may have spoken PIE. And I notice you cannot point to anywhere in the paper mentioning a migration, the timeframe for that migration etc. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC):

Repeating yourself doesn't make you any more coherent. You are the one who is confused. You simply have not understood what I said. "Discards" in this context, BTW, means "disregards" or "ignores", not "disproves". The full meaning is apparent from the next sentence: "Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events." Their point about ANI-ASI mixture is related to the advent of IE in India only to the extent that uncertainly about a date means they refuse to draw any conclusions about the connection to IE ("we cannot be certain [about PIE] without a date for ANI-ASI mixture"). The last section adds the point that complexities in the history of population mixtures/movement make and simple model impossible. No-one in their right mind believes that population movement in and out of India has not occurred, because it has repeatedly in recorded history. It simply has not had a large impact at the genetic level. Paul B (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was wrong to imply it disproves AMT. But you are obviously blatantly wrong to keep associating the study with AMT. Why won't you admit that?176.67.169.207 (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the indigenous Aryans page. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thoroughly Editing Article

I will be completely honest and frank - I'm sure people have put a lot of time and effort into this article, but it is atrociously written... it has little and often no paragraph structure and is a hodgepodge and spattering of notes, that is extremely difficult to read as it is unclear, does not flow, and is not written in plain English. Clearly people have been editing it in bits and without attention to the whole. Furthermore, this is an enormously controversial and political issue, and there is nearly no mention of that at all. Wikipedia must neither be POV nor disregard either aspects of a subject or views that are sufficiently prominent. I will slowly, thoroughly revamp this article and associated articles, starting with the introduction below.

NittyG (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Revamping Introduction

The introduction does not even really say what Indo-Aryan Migrations are about - "proto-Indo-Aryans" means nothing to people and should be explained in the first sentence... and even when they click on the internal link, it will take people a while to know what it means. Furthermore, as I mentioned above, it does not mention the political, social and cultural significance, which is huge. It also does not mention countering opinions, which though may be considered fringe in the predominating academic world, is prominent enough both in personal beliefs and research that it should be mentioned in the introduction.

Current introduction:

Models of the Indo-Aryan migration discuss scenarios of prehistoric migrations of the proto-Indo-Aryans to their historically attested areas of settlement in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent, generally considered to have started around 1500 BC. Migration of Proto-Indo-Iranian speakers to and within Northwestern parts of South Asia is consequently presumed to have taken place in the Middle to Late Bronze Age, contemporary to the Late Harappan phase (ca. 1700 to 1300 BCE).

Claims of Indo-Aryan migration are drawn from linguistic, genetic and even archaeological sources, as well as from a multitude of data stemming from Vedic religion, rituals, poetics, as well as some aspects of social organization and chariot technology.

Linguistics has been the primary basis of Aryan Immigration theories. Indo-Aryan language derives from an earlier Proto-Indo-Iranian stage, usually identified with the Bronze Age Sintashta and Andronovo culture north-east of the Caspian Sea.

No evidence of massive migration has been found through examination of skeletal remains. The ancient Harappans were not markedly different from modern populations in Northwestern India and present-day Pakistan. Craniometric data showed similarity with prehistoric peoples of the Iranian plateau and Western Asia, although Mohenjodaro was distinct from the other areas of the Indus Valley. According to Shaffer, archaeological evidence for a mass population movement, or an invasion of South Asia in the pre- or proto- historic periods, has not been found. At best, there is evidence of small-scale migrations approaching South Asia.

Since this is, exactly as I mentioned, a highly controversial topic and this article is highly guarded, I figured I should post this here before I change the introduction to offer discussion around it before I would post it. I am aware that the last two sentences of the first paragraph may be particularly controversial, but this is exactly why I think it should be in the introduction, as I noted above. If no discussion takes place in the next week, i will post it. I have done what I can to include the wording that already exists. Anything that was removed will be placed in other parts of the article if they are not already. I have provided no citations of my own, but the internal links should explain the issues. Let me know your opinions on including citations if you feel they are still necessary, I'm willing to add them if need be of course.

Revamped Introduction, Version 2:

Indo-aryan migration models discuss scenarios around the theory of an outside origin of Indo-aryan peoples, an ascribed ethno-linguistic group that speaks Indo-Aryan languages, the predominant languages of North India. Among proponents of Indo-Aryan origin outside of the Indian Subcontinent, there is varying opinion on whether the migrants originated Indic literature such as the Rig Veda, cultural and social constructs such as caste, and technology such as chariots and weaponry. Proponents of Indo-Aryan origin outside of India generally consider migrations into South Asia from Central Asia to have started around 1500 BC, as a slow diffusion during the Late Harappan period. The Indo-aryan migration theories began with the study of the Rig Veda in the mid 1800s by Max Muller, and gradually evolved from a theory of a large scale invasion of a racially and technologically superior people to being a slow diffusion of small numbers of nomadic people that had a disproportionate societal impact on a large urban population. Contemporary claims of Indo-Aryan migrations are drawn from linguistic, genetic, archaeological, literary and cultural sources. Throughout the evolution of the theory, many have rejected the claim of Indo-aryan origin outside of India entirely, claiming that the Indo-Aryan languages developed in India. Some furthermore claim that all Indo-European languages originated in India. Proponents of an origin of Indo-Aryan languages outside India and those who are proponents of an indigenous origin claim to have debunked the other.

The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is highly controversial, relating to the indigenous origin of peoples and culture, thus inflaming political agitation and sentiments. The Dravidian Movement bases much of its identity on the idea of the indigenous origin of Dravidians as opposed to transgressing Indo-Aryans. Many furthermore link Indo-Aryan migrations to the origin of caste discrimination and thus the theory is a basis of sentiments around the origin of caste discrimination, as many believe that Indo-Aryans formed the upper castes. And on the other end, many people express grievances against the idea that Hinduism is an outside religion born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with. The debate furthermore inflames issues around racism and the idea of race, as the origin of the theory was intertwined with the desire of many in the Western world to find the origin of a pure Aryan race, the division of castes by racial basis, and the idea of an Indo-Aryan and Dravidian relating to language families rather than race.

NittyG (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ - I just noticed your posts; I'll read your proposal, and comment on it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically I agree with your proposal, though I think you'll have to chop the long sentences into shorter pieces. and you'll really have to add sources. One factual point: I doubt it that the caste-system originated with the Aryans. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. You're right, it was too dense. I just updated it as version 2. Let me know what you think.

As for the origin of caste, whether you or I doubt what, it doesn't matter; Wikipedia is not about our POV, it is about the beliefs that predominate or are significant.

I will provide references once we finalize it.

NittyG (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Added citations. I'm posting it now. NittyG (talk) 04:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Response to shortened lead

With this edit] Bladesmulti re-inserted a large amount of info, summarizing it as "Agree with many recent changes, but some of the last versions are worth it, for keeping", meanwhile also removing info. Strange. And a pity that there was no participation in this discussion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"idea that Hinduism is an outside religion born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with" is probably objectionable, no one says that hinduism came from other country, but they only add that hinduism carries the influence from europe, whoever asserts or makes up the conspiracies,(mentioned) but hinduism is historically dating back to 3300 BCE from indus civilization. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

It's sourced, I'll check it later. The phrasing could be better, though, I agree with you on that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and only if I could know about the page no. of the source, it can be understood. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Also a section like "refutation" would be good Idea, what you think about it? As this theory instead termed as "conspiracy theory"[2], [3], by some. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some"? Wilke & Moebus mean "Hindutva-intellectuals"; Kalyanaraman talks about a Hindu conspiracy against sound academic resarch. Sometimes I'm really surprised how you read your sources...

Regarding "Refutations", thst's maybe not a neutral term in this topic; it depends on what you define or acceot as a "refutation". There is this section "Concurring views", but it's very short. "Indian reception", "Debate", are also ossible titles. Anyway, such a section would need very good sources, and a balanced presentation, because of the sensitivities involved.

strange thing is, the lead contains a rather large section on "refutations", but it's not clear to me where those "refutations" appear in the article.

Sections 3 to all involve evidence for the theory; the fourth alinea of the lead should be added to section 7. But before I make such changes, I'll have to read the article carefully.

Regarding the Witzel-reference in the lead ("Hinduism is an outside religion"), this is a related link. The original source is, unfortuantely, unaccessible via Google...

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The lede is currently in a form of garbled English that's frankly an embarrassment. And concepts like "outside religion" don't even make sense. The word "transgressions" is also used in a bizarre way. Witzel's article is about the Hindutva obsession with the rather odd idea that it's some how insulting to India to suggest people migrated there thousands of years ago - something that's accepted as perfectly normal in every other culture in the world. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Because Paul B, these genetic studies have nothing to do with Indo-Aryan Migration Theories. Facts are facts.

One of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently. (Breaking India Appendix A)

He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A)176.67.169.207 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You are making next to no sense. My comment said nothing about genetic studies. The paper you keep repeating like a mantra uses the word "discards" in the sense of "disregards" and has next to nothing to do with the issue. It is a fact of history that people have migrated into India many times. The paper is about mass migration, which is not and never has been an issue, Paul B (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Joshua - I saw that you moved the politics section of the introduction to "Criticism". I think that it needs to stay. It is a bit long, but that is because it is an enormously complex and multi-dimensional topic. There are featured articles with longer introductions (here is a random one for example: History of Mars observation). As I mentioned before, this is an immensely political issue, and removing that from the introduction is not really introducing the topic. You cannot remove that and call it a complete introduction. I will restore it and let's discuss here.

Paul B - Perhaps I should change "outside religion" to "religion born outside the Indian Subcontinent," though I think that has been implied by the previous sentences. I will consider that.

You are exactly correct, Witzel's article is about the greivances of many who dub themselves "Hindutva". That is exactly why I said "many people express grievances against the idea that Hinduism is an outside religion born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with." I am simply stating that, and using him as a reference. Whether or not this is bizarre is irrelevant. I am simply stating that it is politically charged, and why. Perhaps I need to say "express grievances against their perception that the theory implies that..."

Transgression [4]:

1. A violation of a law, command, or duty: "The same transgressions should be visited with equal severity on both man and woman" (Elizabeth Cady Stanton).

Again, that anything is a transgression may only be a perception. It is not our place to decide one way or another, we are only stating what people assert that has significance enough to be in this article. Whether it is true or not is irrelevant. That is how it is perceived, and the politics are significant.

As for the quality of the writing, please feel free to offer something better. It is very hard to summarize this topic without making it lengthy.

For everyone - In general, please understand that stating someone's opinion as their opinion is not the same thing as being POV. It is in fact essential to having a NPOV. We are just stating what people believe that has enough significance to be in this article. We cannot take a stance on any issue, but we must state that stance people have taken.

NittyG (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

No-one says that Hinduism is a religion "born" outside the subcontinent. The claim is that the names of Vedic Indo-European divinities derive from a PIE origin, which certainly was not "Hinduism" by any stretch of the imagination. Thwe word transgression appears to being used in the intro to mean the same thing as 'migration'. Paul B (talk) 10:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul B - Yes, I need to reword it. After I rewrite the article, I will add everything that was removed back to the introduction. Here is a revision:

Version 2:

And on the other end, many people express grievances against the idea that Hinduism is an outside religion born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with.

Version 3:

And on the other end, many people express grievances against the idea that key elements of Hinduism, such as Vedic literature and many dieties, came from outside of the subcontinent and are not indigenous to the people and place they identify with as sacred.

As for "transgression", I do mean transgression, and not migration. From what I understand, and I can be wrong, no academic believes that there was an invasion of "Aryans", which this article shows. However, this does not exist in an academic vacuum. You cannot understand this by reading about it in an academic journal. The legacy of there being an invasion still persists in common belief. It is taught in universities and schools in every part of the world (including my high school textbook), and continues to persist in politics.

It was taught in my high school textbook. Furthermore, even within academia, from what I understand, there is still debate among scholars whether the "caste system" originated from among the Indo-Aryans, along with caste discrimination. This is also a transgression, even without Aryans coming as invading hordes.

For reference, see the following sources that are meant to "educate" people on Indian history.

• Shudra: The Rising. In the first 3 mins of the movie[5], it explains the invasion and subjugation of people by the creation of the caste system.
• Indus Valley Civilization: Crash Course World History #2[6]. This is a series of videos meant to be an introduction to world history. Here it says that the "people" that "became" the present day peoples, invaded from Central Asia and overran the indigenous people.

So yes, whether or not you or I or any academic does not believe that there were "transgressions", the belief is there and widely held enough, in fact it is by far the most prevalent of beliefs.

NittyG (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Just changed the intro back to the original. Nothing that was changed from the original revamp was better. I also deleted the "criticism" subsection where the political part was moved to. Bladesmulti - I failed to mention - "Hinduism" is complex, to the extent that it is even something that was not exogenously defined. One of the common beliefs of any foundation of "Hinduism" is with the Vedas. If the Rig Veda originated outside India, then to people it would imply that Hinduism originated outside of India. Of course, there would have been both a diffusion as well as development after a migration, so you are correct in that sense. Perhaps I should not say "Hinduism", I should say "some of the key foundations" or "elements of Hinduism." Personally I don't even like to use "Hinduism", but that is how people perceive it.

NittyG (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead version by JJ was actually better than it's now, you should revert it back to that same one, the lead only. Also JJ, it would be good to have the refutation column, but with different title, you are right about it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply by JJ:

• The "Controversy"-section is relevant, but the lead is supposed to summarize the article. Se WP:LEAD. A long section on "controversy" in the lead without a corresponding section in the article is not a summary. So it should be in the article, be expanded (Bladesmulti gave two useful links to sources), and being mentioned shortly in the lead.
• The section on what originates with the Aryans also isn't mentioned in the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The current version seems to be ideal than previous versions. But once again, we have to know about the page. no. of the given source, which claims that people have astonishingly reacted that hinduism is not outside religion. This one, and more refutations can be added to Controversy, if they have been discovered, although you already explained it. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"Some furthermore claim that all Indo-European languages originated in India. Proponents of an origin of Indo-Aryan languages outside India and those who are proponents of an indigenous origin claim to have debunked the other." Can be added back to the lead, it's the clarification of the whole article, a good representation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

But is it covered in the article? And is it "the clarification of the whole article"? I'm not sure about that... I've re-inserted those two lines, but in the article itself. The lead should summarize the article, not expand it. Regarding the page-number, I'd like to see the page itself, or a quote. By the way, i've changed the sentence in question:

"Nationalistic movements in India express grievances against the idea that Hinduism originated as an outside religion born out of such transgressions and not indigenous to the people and place they identify with.(Witzel 2006))(Note: See also "Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, Harvard University’s international scandal unravels a global Hindu conspiracy.)"

I can't modify it further, without reading the source. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Oaky, I did modify it further:

"Nationalistic movements in India oppose the idea that Hinduism has partly endogenous origins."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoever presented this source at first stage, must backup, or it can be removed anyway. If the information remains unconfirmed. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The point is too obvious, I'm afraid. See [7] for some more sources. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

We have noted almost each of them, one source usually backs up other, which is nothing new. If we are talking about refuting, how about this source, seems latest too.[8]

Ambedkar had said "In the face of the discovery of new facts set out in this chapter, the theory can no longer stand and must be thrown on the scrap heap." You include that? Bladesmulti (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JJ - I suppose it is reasonable to remove it if it is not mentioned in the article. They should go hand in hand. However, the fact that it is not mentioned in both the body and the lead is even more bizarre. I suspect that, given some of the response to even mentioning controversy in my revision, even if it is to simply state the fact that there is controversy without stating a particular opinion, is seen as pushing a POV. And it needs to do more than say "the debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is highly controversial in India, relating to the indigenous origin of peoples and culture, thus inflaming political agitation and sentiments." It needs to state the major elements of controversy. Removing any statement of the politics of race, Dravidian identity, caste, and Hindu identity is like removing any mention of the specific political impacts and context from the articles on Aryans and the Aryan Race.

Looks like we've at least brought the introduction to a more reasonable state. The way you have left the introduction however needed improvement. Sentences cannot stand alone as paragraphs, and in general this article is a massive spattering of disjointed pieces, and there is no structure, flow, or cohesiveness. They need to be combined and flow. Good job in any case, we're making this happen slowly but surely.

I will add everything and start cleaning up this article, and eventually add the parts I had back into the introduction.

And by the way, whoever edited the threading, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE edit it properly. Each reply is not simply a response to the reply immediately above it. Mind what each reply is replying to, and add an additional colon than what the parent of the reply has. I cannot clean up after everyone's mess just so to have a coherent conversation.

Also, Please leave this subsection where it is. This is still about revamping the introduction.

NittyG (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it was pretty hard to get this article into better state. Particular opinion? You mean we can quote mine in this regard? I am sure, we can find a few remarkable quotes related to this subject, critical in form. I just name one from Ambedkar above. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll repeat again: the lead is asummary of the article; it provides an overview and introduction. An extensive overview of controversies in the lead only makes for an unreadable introduction; when there's no corresponding, extensive section in the article itslef it's not even an introduction, but an article on its own. I think you should first take a look at the "Controversy"-section; I've expanded it. And, to make a further comparison: are we also going to sum up all the kminds of evidence? Or do we leave it at the concise overview we've got now?

Regarding clean-up: let's start with the unreferenced parts in the criticism-section, and attribute specific points of view to specific authors, instead of general statemnts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:16, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

JJ - You don't have to repeat yourself, I made it plenty clear that I understand your point and allowed the removal of the parts not mentioned in the article. We will need to massively revamp this entire article. I will be doing that in the coming few weeks. I will add what is needed as far as controversy in the body of the article, and then expand what is needed to the introduction.

NittyG (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Paul B is wrong. Aryan Migration Theory is Disproven.

So I emailed Kumaraswamy Thangaraj, one of the authors of the Harvard / Nature article. I ask him to clarify his statement in Breaking India. Interestingly, he didn't seem to be aware of his statement in Breaking India. But he did say "Our genetic study disproved Aryan invansion/migration theory". This is indeed what I thought his statement always meant. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

And what exactly does he think that means? Firstly, once person's opinion does make something a fact, especially as we have many sources that say the exact opposite; secondly what precisely does he think he is disproving?; thirdly, one author cannot be speak for the meaning of a phrase in a multi-authored article. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You can add about it, on Criticism section. Bladesmulti (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

He can't add the content of an email except under special circumstances. Paul B (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to email the man yourself. He responded pretty quick. thangs@ccmb.res.in176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless the author(of the news) himself/herself requests, how it can be relied? You can ask him to do it? Bladesmulti (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Paul B, where are the "many sources that say the exact opposite"? Even western academic books say 'here is the evidence for Aryan migration'. They never say Aryan migration theory is fact. For example see India: The Ancient Past published by Routledge, which is one of the top academic publishing houses. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what you are trying to say now. You've just said that there are sources saying the opposite - that there is evidence. As for "fact". It is clearly a fact that there was migration, since that's the only way that language spreads. English people migrated to India, which is why English is spoken there. But they didn't migrate en masse. The genetic impact of the British Empire in India was minimal. Paul B (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am saying you repeatedly overstate the strength of the Aryan Migration Theory. The "evidence" comes down to interpretation of what the Vedas say and other rather trivial stuff. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The evidence has next-to-nothing to do with the Vedas. It has to do with a combination of archaeology and linguistics, in particular the latter. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, this article could be vastly improved by being modeled on recent western academic books. Yes, I said western academic books. Such as A History of India by Hermann Kulke 5th edition. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't really think this page can be deleted, but you can add more into criticism, if you have any great refute. Are we spinning our wheels already? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does Kulke say, at which page, that might be relevant? This, for example:

"The second millennium BC saw another major historical event in the early history of the South East Asian subcontinent after the rise and fall of the Indus civilisation: a semi-nomadic people which called itself Arya in its sacred hymns came down to the northwestern plains through the mountain passes of Afganistan." (p.31)

Paul B. is completely correct: the Aryan Migration Theory is not disproven. Referencing to an email which we can't read is irrelevant. The fact that Thangaraj is being quoted by Rajiv Malhotra, without being aware of this, says it all about the direction from where this "disproving" comes. Read also p.32 of Kulke. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

So a Nature-published scientist says Aryan migration theory is disproved. But 2 random people on the internet, who have never been to India, say its not disproved. I am going to side with the scientist, period. Now, where does Kulke, or any recent western academic book, have a genetics section in the manner of this Wikipedia article? The answer is....they don't. The genetics section should be deleted. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not like you have to be in a country, for writing about it. This is 21st century, not 12th century. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I note that all of you are ignoring my last comment regarding the genetics section, because you know I am right. No western academic book mentions genetics for Aryan Migration theory. 176.67.169.146 (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You can attribute, if you have sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Bladesmulti, I already quoted the email above which says "Our genetic study disproved Aryan invansion/migration theory". Also I already quoted the book Breaking India, where Kumaraswamy Thangaraj said:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently. (Breaking India Appendix A)

He further states that the study 'supports the view that castes grew directly out of tribal-like organizations during the formation of Indian society'.(Breaking India Appendix A) So the jati structures emerged tens of thousands of years prior to any arrival of the Aryans into India.(Breaking India Appendix A) Furthermore, this jati structure was not one of higher/lower status but simply one of endogamy within a given community.(Breaking India Appendix A).176.67.169.207 (talk) 22:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hermann Kulke, Dietmar Rothermund, Gavin Flood, Upinder Singh etc. etc. DO NOT use genetics to justify Aryan migration. The whole genetics section should be deleted as editorializing. 176.67.169.207 (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Vishnu stone head in Vietnam

I have serious concerns about the new section "Vishnu stone head in Vietnam", which was added in these edits. The section makes some big claims. These would need to be supported by very reliable sources which draw the same conclusions as are presented here. The source used seems quite amateur and it doesn't actually talk about "indigenous origin of the Vedic religion across Asia" so the new text doesn't meet the standard in both areas. Yaris678 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The material violates WP:OR and should be removed. — goethean 20:48, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, in theory it could be kept if there were better sources out there. But Google suggests not and no one has come to the talk page to discuss it so I have removed the section. Yaris678 (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Just the usual nonsense from Vedic fundamentalists. A website seems to have garbled information from a news report. There's a reasonable discussion here [9]. Paul B (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2014

Genetic evidence for the Aryan Migration Theory Choujis (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Dr Spencer Wells from the National Geographic has been conducting Genetic tests for origins worldwide. My own tests confirm the migration theory. I can present my results, but its all in image formats

here are a few links.

https://news.yahoo.com/genetic-study-reveals-origin-indias-caste-system-161452917.html

http://ces.iisc.ernet.in/hpg/cesmg/peopling.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/science/2013/08/11/genetic-study-finds-caste-system-ancient-india-began-about-years-ago/zPwmhayM7tq0Dh1fFEe9FJ/story.html

https://www.broadinstitute.org/blog/exploring-india%E2%80%99s-genetic-history

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2011/12/peeling-the-population-genetic-indian-onion/#.U7nh4bFpdO8

http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/june-2013/article/people-of-india-today-a-mixture-of-the-pre-caste-era-say-scientists

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842210/

http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2009_Nature_Reich_India.pdf

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Caste-bar-on-marriages-became-entrenched-2000-years-ago-genetic-study-finds/articleshow/21724182.cms

http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/09/24/2695631.htm

http://world.time.com/2013/08/27/what-dna-testing-reveals-about-indias-caste-system/

Acceptance and refutation were added with a lot better sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Genetics section

@Joshua Jonathan, CorporateM, Bladesmulti, AmritasyaPutra, and Dougweller: WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. None of the genetics studies mention Aryan Migration. In fact, Reich 2009 says the ANI's date to 40,000 years ago,. Clearly not about Aryan migration theory. This is an example of how genetic studies are being misunderstood and falsely linked to Aryan migrations. Lastly, the well known academic books on Indian history don't discuss Aryan Migration using genetics studies.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:OR and Wikipedia:Synthesis again? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It is ASI that is not related to other Eurasians for 40 000 years. ANI is much more closely related to other West Eurasians (Europeans, Middle Easterners, Central Asians). Aryans are unlikely to have made any major contribution to the ANI component, however (I'd *guess* it's mostly derived from North Indian Neolithic people like the Harappans). The relevance of the ANI-ASI paper to the influx of Indo-European speakers is the possibility that their arrival led to movement and mixing of people within the subcontinent, and/or that they instituted the caste system leading to cessation of the mixing. The paper found that there was a period of extensive admixture between ANI and ASI from about 4200-1900 years ago, but not afterward (very roughly, at different times in different places). The earliest mixture was actually in *South* India (I'd guess due to movement of pastoralists or farmers from further north, but who knows). The dates suggest that the Aryan invasion (assuming it occurred, disclaimer yada yada) was not the sole cause of either mixture or the caste system.

Trying to sort out proto-Aryans from all the other people that invaded India, in some cases bringing a major religion with them, is difficult even in principle. Usually people talk about the Y-hg R1a1a-whatever-it-is-now - the one that is common in Indo-Aryan speakers and higher caste groups. Which the latest study has arising 4.8-6.8 thousand years ago, probably in Iran or eastern Anatolia, with separate Asian and European branches. Both India and Eastern Europe have low diversity of the haplogroup, and high frequency of a few young clades, suggesting that it is the product of a recent spread from elsewhere. So yes, genetic evidence I'm afraid, though it can't be tied to Aryans specifically (lots of incomers from Central Asia).

But anyway, I agree that this is synthesis and shouldn't be included unless the study specifically mentions the issue. There are some papers which do, though - one on Afghanistan even has Witzel as a co-author (mwahaha). Megalophias (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion is fake theory

Please check these facts

1. Literature: First, the RigVeda. The geographical area of the Rug Veda (Rig Ved) is clearly delineated as North West India; there is no room for any doubt. It specifically mentions the Saraswati as between the Yamuna and the Sutlej, That can only be the Ghaggar river bed. Satellite imagery has established that this used to be a massive river system in the old days. The Rugved does not mention a drying Saraswati, clearly meaning that it must have been written well before 1900 - 2600 BC. There is no mention of either invasion or Migration in the Rugved; if any migration occured, it happened before 3000 BC - if at all. There is also no mention of a central asian landscape in the RugVed; it is specific in that it mentions the Kabul river to the west and the Ganga to the east. There is awareness of the Himalayas.

2. A Radio Metric Dating of the Indus Saraswati places the real age of this civilization to 7200 BC or thereabouts. This was announced by the ASI in an international conference on 5th November 2012. This also suggests that migration did not happen 3500 years ago, or even 9000 years ago.

3. Second, Genetics. a 2006 study clearly identifies that the Indian population has been generally stable for a very long time, and that there has been no major injection of Central Asian Genes for over 10000 years at least. So, if any migration did happen, it was long before settlements emerged, before domestication of the horse, before the Iron or Bronze ages. We are talking about hunter gatherers, small bands of nomads etc. The latest dating of the Indus Saraswati Civilization is 9000 years - as per Radio Metric Dating; the genetic evidence is older by this than 1000+ years at least.

4. The R1a1a gene mutation is found in North India and East Europeans, South Siberia, Tajikistan and North Eastern Iran, A study on this conducted in 2010 found that the oldest strain of the R1a1a branch was concentrated in the Gujarat-Sindh-Western Rajasthan region of India, suggesting that this was close to the origin of the genetic group. A mutation M458 is found in Europeans, but is not found at all in Asians. This M458 mutation is at least 8000 years old, thus lending credence to the observations above From this we can see that the Aryan Migration never happened; Literary, Archeological as well as genetic evidence all points to the reverse. There is no longer any room for any doubt whatsoever...

• http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html
• http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/aryan-invasion-history
• http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm
• http://arisebharat.com/2008/01/21/bbc-accepts-that-the-aryan-invasion-theory-is-flawed/
• http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-new-research-debunks-aryan-invasion-theory-1623744

Amrishnp (talk) 07:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Dream on. Only believers don't know doubts. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of Indian history knows that mogration into India, and the syncretisation of a broad array of cultures, is one of the main characteristics of Indian history. Not only the Aryans, but also the Greek and the Turks, to name only two groups. How many Islamic genes can be tarced in the Indian population? And how many muslims are there in Pakistan and India? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

These are very familiar arguments. What you refer to as "Aryan Invasion theory" is simply the argument that the proto-culture that gave rise to the Vedic hymns entered India at some point at the north west. It doesn't mean that a large proportion of Indians are their descendents any more than the people of Bangladesh must be descendents of Arabs because they are Muslims. The Ghaggar-Hakra River was certainly identified as the Saraswati by most scholars, and generally still is. Since it still exists it's difficult to see why we would have to date the RV 9000BP. Do you have any idea what that would imply? The earliest known chariots are from c2000 BC. The beginnings of the bronze age date to around 3000BC. To have the sophisticated bronze weapons and technology mentioned in the RV would not really be possible for another 1000 years according to the mountains of archaeological evidence that exists. The whole of human history would have to be rewritten - on the basis of what? That the Ghaggar used to be bigger in the stone age? As for "Radio Metric Dating of the Indus Saraswati" to 7200 BC, no one doubts that the Indus Valley Civilization is ancient, but certainly not as old as 7200 BC. If you mean there were stone age peoples who were already settled in the area in 7200 BC, I don't doubt it. But what's that supposed to prove? Paul B (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to find where this odd 7200 BC date comes from. Several websites repeat this mantra: "Radiometric Dating of the Indus-Saraswati places the real age of this civilization to somewhere around 7200 BC. This was announced by the ASI in an international conference on 5th November 2012." This appears to a garbled version of announcements in 2012 that archaeologists have found evidence of Indus Valley settlements dating back further than hitherto known [10]. The actual finding is that “On the basis of radio-metric dates from Bhirrana (Haryana), the cultural remains of the pre-early Harappan horizon go back to between 7380 to 6201 BCE”. In other words there are remains of stone age settlements predating the early Harappan ("pre-early Harappan"). The precise 7200 BC date does not appear. I expect that's a conflation of this finding with imaginary dating of ancient Hindu kingdoms. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Old, but I'll reply anyway just in case:

1. See the Sarasvati River page for the whole very complicated debate.

2. The discovery pushing back the "Indus-Saraswati Civilization" to 9000 BP or whenever is based on finding an early Neolithic site in Haryana which had pottery stylistically related to one of the Early Harappan pottery traditions, showing there was cultural continuity in the area. This is just normal media sensationalism - it was not the *civilization* (big cities, writing, etc) which was that early, just Stone Age farmers who were probably the distant ancestors of the builders of the actual civilization.

3. A genetics paper from 2006 is *ancient*. The field has been progressing at a furious rate since then. Even one from 2010 is out of date.

4.The relevant R1a1a is now put at about 5000 years old, and R-M458 (which is only one of many European subclades) is a good deal younger. The oldest clades are not found in India, but in Iran and eastern Turkey (so far, anyway). This information is from the authors of the very same paper you are quoting, and they had already published those results when you wrote your comment. Megalophias (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

No Indian authority / government / Hindu group has accepted this theory

https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River

"The identification of the Vedic Sarasvati River with the Ghaggar-Hakra River was accepted by Christian Lassen,[3] Max Müller,[4] Marc Aurel Stein, C.F. Oldham,[5] and Jane Macintosh.[6]"

Four self-proclaimed gurus can't get together and conclude on history of a country and its people without consultation / validation with the respective government / people / groups representing this culture.

Standard of Wikipedia is going down very fast. Please upload reliable informaiton {WP:RS} Amrishnp (talk) 11:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

So far for the reliability of "Indian authority / government / Hindu group". Luckily, those people who are interested in facts can read Wikipedia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The sources you are quoting are not written by experts on the topic. They are written by people with a political agenda. M. Lal Goel is not a historian nor a linguist. He is a scholar of politics. If you think scholarly views of history should be decided by consultation with popular opinion and governments you have no idea what scholarship is. No-one other than Hindu nationalists thinks that "out of India" is a viable linguistic scenario. Read WP:RS. Feel free to take this to "the highest level" any time you want. Paul B (talk) 07:30, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul, the accurate assumption would be that there are proponents of different theories, and different type of researchers. Not just Hindu nationalists or western scholars. There are Hindu nationalist who accept the theory based on linguistic and signs. There are western scholars who thinks different. It is has been accepted that Brahminism was popular outside the Indian subcontinent, according to many scholars. IP shouldn't have been responded, and the comment should have been removed. This is not the best place to discuss.

Amrishnp, You are sure? I don't think that one of the scholar, Anthony, who has written that Vedas were recited in Syria(during 1500 BCE) had any consent from the Syrian government. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know of any scholar who thinks "Brahminism" was popular outside the Indian continent. There are many scholars who think that ancient Indo-European "pagan" religions have certain similarities or links to Vedic Hinduism, which sometimes includes a hereditary caste of priests similar to Brahamins. But the specific Vedic traditions that created Brahminism are unique to India. Indeed, this is one reason why the out of India model is implausible. If it were true, you'd expect to see evidence of specifically Vedic culture outside India, as I-E spread westwards from the Indus. If you can show me evidence of scholars who think otherwise, feel free to present it. Of course there are different theories, but OIT ("Out of India theory") is overwhelmingly motivated and supported by nationalist and "Hinduist" writers. It has no discernible scholarly existence outside of that culture. Paul B (talk) 09:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

There was consensus to keep the theories, per WP:NPOV on the talk page of Indo-Aryan. We go along with it. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are saying. A consensus to keep theories on the talk page? What does that mean? Paul B (talk) 09:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus on the talk page of Indo-Aryan migration theories that these theories should be mentioned on the article space if they are related with the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If you mean I-E migration theories should properly be discussed at the talk page of Indo-Aryan migration, not the Rigveda, you are right. To be fair on the OP he opened discussion at both pages, but it just seems to have "taken off" here. I will copy over the discussion to that page. Paul B (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Blades you mean this section Indo-Aryan migration#Concurring views? It's there, and that's enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a rather misleading section. Famously, archaeologists in many areas have difficulty finding clear evidence of invasion/migration events, as is evidenced by the debates about Celticity in Britain and Ireland, or the fact that until very recently there was no archaological evidence of such a well-attested event as the invasion of the Huns. And of course what goes for India goes for most of the I-E-speaking areas. It's exactly the argument used by Germans back in the 1900s as evidence that Germany was the home of I-E. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul_Barlow , Bladesmulti. Parameter for judging scholar article is biased here. 4 people can't get together and decide what is reliable source and what is not reliable. It should be based on certain criteria and not personal preference. Please tell me what criteria are you using to decide reliability ? (don't send me Wikipedia RS link). I can challenge this Aryan Invasion theory using evidences that support your criteria (probably biased ? ) of scholarly article. Anybody can conduct a research and publish an article but this is regarded as personal opinion and not scholar article. Even 4 governments supporting such an article doesn't make it a fact, its a view / perception based on some observations but not fact. Amrishnp (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You say "don't send me Wikipedia RS link", bur what else can we do? The link explains what Reliable Sources are according to Wikipedia. For a subject like this, they are scholarly publications in accredited journals or books by experts on the subject. Just read the link. I don't I don't know who these "4 people" are supposed to be. The academic community decides what scholarship is. Paul B (talk) 10:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Oldest horse remains

worlds Oldest horse remains dating to 54.5 million years may or has proves the horse & rhino is indigenous to india

Does this mean that the horse evolved to it's current state and different breeds may have been imported OUT OF INDIA, rather than imported in as the horse seems to be present within india for more then 54.5 million years even before it had connected/crashed to form part of asia?

Just Asking this as one of the main support for the aryan theory "i think" was that the aryans from Central asia introduced the horse into current india/pak land mass from central asia, if that is the case does this latest news come in handy here or in the out of india theory?

http://news.discovery.com/animals/ancient-rhino-horse-relative-roamed-island-of-india-141121.htm 92.236.96.38 (talk) 08:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)Caplock

Read WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

More helpfully, see Evolution of the horse. Cambaytherium lived more than 50 million years ago. Even if the Perissodactyla evolved in India, Equus ferus, which was domesticated only 5000–6000 years ago, did not. Its immediate origins are on the steppes of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and the more distant origins of the whole Equus genus are actually in North America, where it went extinct 12,000 years ago. Both issues are completely unconnected – the distant ancestry of horses is as irrelevant to the issue of the introduction of the domesticated horse to India as the African origin of humans is to the ancestry of modern Indians. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Second wave missing

@Joshua Jonathan: The "second wave" here [11] is cut off. Probably a cut-and-paste error. I am looking forward to you finding it again. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - but without a proper source... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The source was Mallory, which I added. But you should note that this section is highly confused. It clubs the Hittites and Mitanni together, whereas the Hittites are in Beckwith's "Group A," i.e., they predate the Proto-Indo-Iranians, and the Mitanni are "Indo-Aryan," i.e., postdate the Proto-Indo-Iranians by multiple generations. Putting them together makes no sense. The "waves" mentioned here are also very confusing. I think we should stick with Beckwith, whose treatment is very clear and illuminating. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 11:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the info. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Jonathan. I still don't like the way the "second wave" is dealt with, but it is not too pertinent to this article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Old Indic inscriptions

@Joshua Jonathan: I see that you have added a mention of Old Indic inscriptions created by Mitanni. Please double check the sources. My understanding that these inscriptions were in Hurrian, where fragments of Indic appeared, including the names of Gods, the kings, and technical terms of horse-training. I remember thinking that these Indic people seemed to be fanatic illiterates! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

See Mallory (1989), p. 37. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive box

@Bladesmulti: This page has archives, but I don't see a list of archives. Can you fix it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are 3 archives, repaired already. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah! I fixed it! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Page move

I just noticed your comment on hypothesis, and the link; it is tested. The move to "hypothesis" was not neutral. Why didn't we notice that before?... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

At 4 october 2014 Mange01 moved the page to "Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis", stating "Only a theory or hypothesis". Blades has correctly reminded us that "A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it." The IAMt is definitely a theory, and not a hypothesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sintashta culture

@Joshua Jonathan:, I don't think this edit [12] is productive. The new text is quite opaque in the context of this article. The old version was clear and succinet. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

How about shortening it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good! Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sources

This may be a useful source, in addition of the detailed overview of Anthony:

• Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina (2007), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians, BRILL

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, apparently, the book is encyclopedic. Here are a bunch of short summaries:

• Diakonoff, Igor M. (1995). "Review: Two Recent Studies of Indo-Iranian Origins". Journal of the American Oriental Soceity. 115 (3): 473–477. JSTOR 606224.
• Kuzmina, E. (April 2002). "On the Origin of the Indo-Iranians". Current Anthropology. 43 (2): 303–304. JSTOR 339377. written in response to Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. (February 2002). "Archaeology and Language: The Indo-Iranians". Current Anthropology. 43 (1): 63–88. JSTOR 324130.
• Waghmar, Burzine (2008). "Book reviews: The Origin of the Indo-Iranians and The Prehistory of the Silk Road by Elena E. Kuz'mina". Journal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology. 3: 185–186. doi:10.1484/J.JIAA.3.17.

• Smith, Frederick M. (March 2009). "The Origin of the Indo-Iranians by Elena E. Kuz'mina". Religious Studies Review. 35 (1): 72.

00:41, 19 January 2015 Kautilya3

Lead

If you don't agree with one sentence, that's not a reason the revert the whole edit, is it? The sentence which covers that is synthetic:

"Throughout the history of the theory, some have rejected the claim of Indo-Aryan origin outside of India entirely, claiming that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India."

I've retained the sentence with Bryant's reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Current lead looks better than other before but ''The same reasoning underlies contemporary hypotheses of Indo-Aryan migration, {{sfn|Bryant|2001}} together with (much debated) genetic,{{sfn|Wells|2002}} archaeological, literary, and cultural evidence,'' is still missing. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The debate about this "Indigenous Aryans theory" is highly controversial, inflaming political agitation and sentiments in India. - Could be removed as it is kind of repeating other one. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll check and correct later, okay? Work is waiting! Greetings, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Those pages does not mention that Indigenous Aryan theory or tells that they inflames political sentiments in India only. It has affected many religious and political debates in many countries, Aryan ideology of Nazi is also another example.[13] I have inserted citations to each of the current sentences. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see enough evidence to say that the Aryan Migration theory is "controversial". It is a scientific theory built to explain all the known facts. It may not be perfect, but it is the best we can do with the present state of knowledge. "Political opinions" in India can't make it controversial. There must be solid scientific flaws that have been pointed out and we need evidence that the scientific community at large takes such flaws seriously. Otherwise, it is just like creationists calling evolution "controversial". No go. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Hypothesis(see Hypothesis) are not scientific it is rather a guess than a established theory. Aryan Migration theory is controversial, there is a whole book by Edwin Bryant on this title. Now instead of questioning that how much controversial it is nor it isn't, bigger point is that the previous lead was incorrect, focused like there is no controversy outside India about this theory when you have whole Aryan ideology somehow based on it. It has been accurately disputed by many scholars as well, even doubting if there is any evidence of settlement.[14] It is also referred as "Indo-aryan controversy".[15] Bladesmulti (talk) 02:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is highly controversial, or we can simply write that it is often termed as Indo-aryan controversy? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the latter conveys the intent justly. There are differing proposals, all by scientists and some have more acceptance. If I may be permitted to draw a crude parallel, until earth-is-round got acceptance, it was an established truth that earth-is-flat. We do not know yet what may be the future course and research on migration theories, it has not concluded yet. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Romila Thapar also says that it is now generally established that Harrappan declined because of weather and there was no invasion or large migration, "nor does the archaeological evidence register the likelihood of a massive migration". There are concurring views, see [16] I think that we will have to take these views seriously because other reliable author consider these hypothesis to be "accepted until", he didn't said that it is still accepted. Bryant also talks about the linguistic evidences outside India and regard them as "archaeological evidence outside of India is equally controversial". Bladesmulti (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's obvious that the AMh is controversial to some in India, while it is a matter of serious scientific research for many around the world. The basic outline is quite generally agreed upon, except for some people who prefer the "Indigenous Aryans" "theories". The fact that theories may change does not mean that the IA"t" has the same weight as the AMt. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, this sentence is incorrect:

"The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is highly controversial"

The "theory" is controversial (to some), but the debate? It should be something like this:

"The IAMt is controversial to some [who are looking for Aryan origins in India], and continues to affect political and religious debate in India."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It should be :- The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is controversial, thus continues to affect political and religious debate. Throughout the history of the theory, some have rejected the claim of Indo-Aryan origin outside of India, and some of them claiming that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India. Removed highly, not supported by these 2 citations that I have inserted. Other sentences are appropriately supported by the citations. It is not controversial just in India but also outside India along with the linguistics evidences that are used for describing these hypothesis just like Edwin writes.[17] This is not really a new change but review of what had been already added for over a year. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, is the debate controversial, or is the theory controversial? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It is included in the debate because theories are sometimes different with different evidences, although having same base. It is not going to change a lot if it is the theory about the origin or the debate about the... Bladesmulti (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

We should change it to "Throughout the history of the theory, some have rejected the Indo-Aryan migration theory and some of them claiming that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India. According to some, the IAMt is highly controversial, thus continues to affect political and religious debate." Current sentences, at least the last one is not really supported by the citation.

Extended content
References

Bladesmulti (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Nice box. I've changed the last sentence into

"The IAMt is a controversial topic in India, inflaming political agitation and sentiments. Some have rejected the theory of Indo-Aryan origins outside of India, claiming that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India."

This is complemented with

"This linguistic argument is complemented with genetic,{{sfn|Wells|2002}} archaeological, literary, and cultural evidence, and research and discussions on it continue."

Does this work? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversy is not limited with India, and the citations are not saying that it is controversial only in India, it became controversial in Europe before it was in India. Shaffer, Kenneth Kennedy and few others have not rejected this theory for supporting OIT. Current sentence somehow labels that except India it has gained worldwide acceptance, and those who reject this theory instead support the origin of languages in India. It is not supported by the citation. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Most scholars support it, so I wouldn't say it's "controversial" in Europe or the USA, nor in the aademics. By the way: Bhadriraju Krishnamurti states that there is "no decisive support to the recent proposals that Aryans were native to the Indian subcontinent." That's not the best reference for "Throughout the history of the theory, some have rejected the Indo-Aryan migration theory."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they do, it also affects religious sentiments as well as political. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

"Scholar" is too generic a description. As far as I know, the archaeologists and linguists developed the entire theory of Indo-European migrations, and they have a lot of data. It is the religious studies and textual scholars who contest the theory. So the "debate" is between these two groups. I think all the people in Blades's box above are in the second category. I think very few of them, with the possible exception of Bryant, understand the archaeological data. So I would be reluctant to call them "scholars" in this context. But I would like to see what Mallory wrote about Bryant's book. Does anybody know where I can find his review? Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC) And, the thing in India is that the Indian archaeologists side with the textual evidence, which is natural I suppose. (Many of them are Brahmins and some are also Hindu nationalists.) They are also right in that none of the BMAC archaeological features have been found east of the Indus. So, we are kind of stuck! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indian archaelogists (too) have integrity. Casting unfounded aspersion based on nationality is not good. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Unfounded? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Any reference (bringing their integrity into question due to their nationality)? --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Here's another review, by Stephanie Jamison:

"...the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." (p1-2; Journal of Indo-Eurpean Studies 2006)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is dated and I need not point out that criticism is a two way street. Nevertheless, take it in context and do not label all Indian archaeologist because of their nationality or unwittingly summarize and dismiss it as they are Brahmin or Hindu, such assessment is most unfortunate. This particular criticism also does not do that. I hope I make my point clear. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean Bryant (2001) is dated? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean more. Isn't it? --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Unfortunately, there is a lot of ideology among the "indigenous aryans" community but there is also some genuine scholarship and science. So, I don't want to paint a broad picture branding all of them. We need to search carefully for the genuine scientists. The Dhavalikar article I mentioned earlier elsewhere is very helpful in this regard. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm trying to access the article, but it looks like I can't do so via my university, unfortunately. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All Universities should have access to JSTOR, and the Wikipedia library too. If you can't get it, please send me private mail and I can send you a copy. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

All universities have different access to JSTOR, depending on their subscription. I can't access it either. It's not exactly a major high-impact journal. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead/Definition and NPOV

1. No professional historical linguists in the world doubt that the Indo-Aryan languages are related through a shared ancestor.
2. No professional historical linguists in the world doubt that the shared ancestor of the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of the Indian Subcontinent.
The lead gives undue weight to the fringe view by proposing that it is a theory that "explains the similarity", this has to be rephrased to taking the genetic relationship of the Indo-Aryan languages for granted and to show that there is no serious debate about this in the literature. The OOI theory is a fringe hypothesis and a local indian phenomenon fueled by a Hindutva ideology. It has no scientific standing outside India, this has to be clear from the lead.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither has any scientific basis. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You hav e no clue about what the word "science" means and you should stop using it until you do.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Migration can be only proved by the DNA analysis, something that this hypothesis lacks. And that is what we have to mention in the lead that how it is contradictory to the scientific research on genetics and how its relevance is in decline now.[18] You are just proposing more ideas to make this hypothesis sound real, when Wikipedia:FRINGE clearly says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." Bladesmulti (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

No that is wrong. Language spread also demonstrates migration. But not necessarily large migrations, since sometime military conquests can impose a new language on a majority by a minority (hence the idea of an invasion). You on the other hand need to start providing some really good sources in support of your claims. But you can't because there arent any. Why on earth you would link to a book on "interfaith dialogue" I have no way to know, clearly you arent so stupid you would think it counts as a reliable source for this topic. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC

So you are saying that the policy is wrong and we must not insert anything that debunk the hypothesis only because you think that it is real? Yes it counts as reliable on this topic and for the statement. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am saying that you either dont understand the policy or are violating it on purpose. Either way it is not going to work. Wikipedia writes what reliable mainstream sources written by specialists in the relevant field say. That is it. What you or I or some accountant from Punjab believesis irrelevant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the violation of Wikipedia:FRINGE to pose a hypothesis with only one-sided puffery. Just having reliable mainstream(according to you) citations cannot override these policies. Can you even tell that which policy is actually supporting your original thought? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not what FRINGE says. The policy clearly says that fringe hypothesis do not need representation, and that mainstream reliable sources determine entirely how a topic is represented in the encyclopedia. You are misrepresenting policy. That is something that can get you blocked.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

But how it justifies your declination of actual scientific researches? That are important to describe in the lead that the hypothesis has failed to demonstrate scientific evidence. What you are saying is actually supported by even a common policy on editing, but when you are only accepting one - sided explanations about a hypothesis, that is no more advocated and had its previous forms that are now regarded as pseudo-scientific, such as aryan invasion theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You have not presented any "actual scientific researches" you have presented statements by non-scientists backed by religious organizations. You do not understand what "pseudoscientific" means and you also dont understand that we are not discussing the "Aryan invasion theory" (which is not pseudoscientific by the way, just a hypothesis that has fallen out of favor) but the well-established view that Aryan MIGRATED into the indian subcontinent bringing their language and their genes with them. Noone is arguing about whether that was an "invasion" or not, and whether it was is besides the point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DNA researches, especially when they are labelled as scientific are actually scientific. You don't seem to be getting it. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

DNA research does not show anything about language. And the single genetics paper you have quoted actually states that Indo european speakers clearly represent a more recent migration into the subcontinent than the dravidian and munda speakers. You are misrpresenting it, as you are misrepresenting everything here.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I never talked about the language, but migrations. According to this citation, there was no genetic influx in last 3,500 years. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly Indo-Iranian languages broke up aound 4200 years ago. So that number fits PERFECTLY with the mainstream view of the migrations. You are not really trying are you?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And another report suggests that whole Indian populations had no genetic admixture for over 40,000 years.[19] Bladesmulti (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you brought something new or answered any of the raised questions above. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. What's your exact proposal for the lead? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I already rewrote the definition sentence to something more neutral. But probably what is necessary is reviewing the entire article for neutrality and then write a balanced lead. The problem here of course is that the entire article is written from the POV of the "Aryan Invasion/Out of India" debate perspective, but this is a mistake since really what the article needs to represent is the mainstream view in historical linguistics, which is of course that there is no doubt about the arrival of Indo-Aryans from outside of the subcontinent, but that what can be meaningfully discussed is only when, and how they arrived and from where.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is great amount of criticism of Indo-Aryan Migration from mainstream western scholars such as Edwin Bryant (author) and Jim G. Shaffer. Neither of these people accept Indo-Aryan Migration. So the lead of the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis article needs to be similarly revised.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Not correct. Bryant first of all is not an historical linguist, he is a scholar of religion, and has no expertise in this field,. The fact that he is unable to distinguish between absurd arguments and actual linguistic science does not mean anything at all. Secondly he does not reject the model but only say that it is "not conclusively proven" and that more evidence is needed. That is irrelevant, because there is an overwhelming consensus in the relevant discipline (historical linguistics) that this hypothesis is among the best founded for any linguistic hypothesis in the world. It is indeed at the foundation of the discipline of historical linguistics as a whole. Secondly the fact that there are a couple of fringe opponents does not change the broad general consensus that exists within the discipline. Fringe views do not require representation in the lead. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

So you admit the only evidence for Indo-Aryan Migration is "historical linguistics"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" Indo-Aryan is a linguistic grouping. Only historical linguistics can be used to make any claims about languages spoken in the past. Archeology and genetics cannot tell us what languages the people who came from outside of India into the subcontinent spoke. But because genetics and archeology shows us conclusively that people did come from outside india into India, and because historical linguistics shows conclusively that the Indo-European languages originated outside of India that makes it a simple historical fact that this happened. As I said what can be meaningfully discussed is when it happened, and how it happened. But there is no room for doubting that it happened while maintaining an evidence based approach to the study of history.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You are the one who called "historical linguistics" the "relevant discipline." And the largest most definitive genetics study by Harvard researchers, and published in the top biology journal, concluded the Indian population dates to 40,000-60,000 years ago with no genetic admixture since.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is the relevant discipline for any and all claims about the history of languages yes. It is correlated with evidence form other disciplines. Please provide the citation to the study you mention.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vic, the IEMt/IAMt does not speak about large groups of people moving around, sot he lack of genetic changes fits into the theory. It speaks about linguistic and cultural change. Small (elite) groups can effect great changes. David Anthony and Michael Witzel have given some explanations for this; see Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis#Anthropology: elite recruitment. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is true that even in the absence of genetic evidence that has no bearings on the linguistic question since languages can migrate independently of genes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: I have the link on my userpage. Please see.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that you either misunderstand or misrepresent that study. The presence of ancient lineages with no connections outside of India obviously has no bearings on the possibility of recent admixture from outside. They also state VERY clearly in the abstract that north indian populations show genetic affinities with other IE groups outside of India, it even demonstrates that the presence of IE genetic relations varies with Caste - higher castes having more IE ancestry.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks:

• "We analyze 25 diverse groups to provide strong evidence for two ancient populations, genetically divergent, that are ancestral to most Indians today. One, the “Ancestral North Indians” (ANI), is genetically close to Middle Easterners, Central Asians, and Europeans, while the other, the “Ancestral South Indians” (ASI), is as distinct from ANI and East Asians as they are from each other."
• "Many Indian and European groups speak Indo-European languages, while the Adygei speak a Northwest Caucasian language. It is tempting to hypothesize that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke “Proto-Indo-European”, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages38, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI-ASI mixture."

You stated "Harvard researchers [...] concluded the Indian population dates to 40,000-60,000 years ago with no genetic admixture since. So, if "the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke “Proto-Indo-European”", and they have been in India for at least 40,000 years, well, that's an interesting new perspective, isn't it? ;)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, here's more:

"The stronger gradient in males, replicating previous reports, could reflect either male gene flow from groups with more ANI relatedness into ones with less, or female gene flow in the reverse direction. However, extensive female gene flow in India would be expected to homogenize ANI ancestry on the autosomes just as in mtDNA, which we do not observe. Supporting the view of little female ANI ancestry in India, Kivisild et al.44 reported that mtDNA ‘haplogroup U’ splits into two deep clades. ‘U2i’ accounts for 77% of copies in India but ~0% in Europe, and ‘U2e’ accounts for 0% of all copies in India but ~10% in Europe. The split is ~50,000 years old, indicating low female gene flow between Europe and India since that time."

Which fits in perfectly fine with the idea that male elite groups brought the Indo-European languages and culture inti India. Thanks, Vic. This is a really good quote. Unfortunately not fit for use in the articles, since it is my OR, but hey, it's sound reasoning, isn't it? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: It is not OR, because Beckwith has said exactly this. He said that the males migrated and married local women. The pidgin languages that their children spoke gave rise to the variety of Indo-European languages. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus:Yes ANI's are more related to Europeans, but that relationship goes back 40,000 years. In the book "Breaking India" one of the authors of the 2009 Harvard paper is quoted:

Our paper basically discards Aryan theory. What we have discussed in our paper is pre-historic events. Data included in this study are not sufficient to estimate the time of ANI settlement. However, our earlier studies using mtDNA and Y-chromosome marker, suggests that the ANI are approximately forty-thousand year old. We predicted that the ASI are part of Andamanese migration, therefore they could be about sixty-thousand years old. Our study shows that the Indian populations are genetically structured, suggesting that they practice endogamy for thousands of years. Every population is genetically unique, but we cannot assign genetic information to differentiate whether he/she belongs to higher/lower caste. As one is aware, Jati/ caste has been introduced very recently.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not what the study you cite says. You cannot cite a study to argue the opposite of what it is arguing. Also as I mention the genetic data cannot "discard" a linguistic argument, it has no bearings on the linguistics. They are independent lines of inquiry. Incidentally "breaking India" does not look like an RS for this topic.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am quoting one of the authors of the paper.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of context.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

How is a lengthy paragraph out of context?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no information about the context in which it is quoted in the text or the context in which the quote was originally said. In anycase the quote is irrelevant unless it is actually stated in the peer reviewed scientific paper where it occurred and it does not. If the claim about such a surprisingly deep horizon did not make it through peer review then we have no business repeating it. Btw when you quote people please say who you are quoting and the exact location of the quote, page number etc.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Can you properly indent your posts?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:36, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Even assuming that 40,000 year old genetic admixture hasn't changed, that still doesn't say anything about the Aryan migration issue. For all we know, the Central Asian tribes might have migrated to the "peripheral" countries (South Asia, West Asia, Europe) in dribs and drabs in all times. A fresh group of Central Asians coming in 2000 BC wouldn't necessarily produce new genetic markers, because their genes would have already been in the gene pool of the peripheral countries. So, the presence of genetic markers, if any, would tell us something, but their absence says nothing. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

May have fully sums up it all. Means nothing is actually confirmed. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Mainstream sources

This section is going to review how the question of the Indic/indo-aryan homeland is treated in mainstream secondary literature, such as textbooks, encyclopedias and handbooks. This is the best kind of literature for establishing which views are mainstream and have the backing of a scholarly consensus. Here are a handful, more to come.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Danesh Jain, George Cardona. 2007. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Routledge, Chapter 1. General Introduction (discusses the debate of the Indic homeland and sides with mainstream migrationist view)
• Benjamin W. Fortson, IV. 2011. Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction. John Wiley & Sons, p. 206 (states invasion as simple fact, mentions no other view)
• J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams. 1997. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. p. 306. Taylor & Francis. Assumes as fact that proto-Indic was on the iranian plateau and moved from there into the subcontinent
• David W. Anthony. 2010. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton University Press (In his widely acclaimed book stating the mainsream view of the IE past Anthony locates Proto-Indic in the Andronovo culture, does not mention the OOI theory or its proponents)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Anna Giacalone Ramat, Paolo Ramat. 1998. The Indo-European Languages. Taylor & Francis (locates proto-Indo-Iranian east ad nrth east of the Caspian sea with Indic speakers moving gradually into India beginning in 2000BC, does not mention the OOI scenario)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Colin P. Masica. 1993. The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press (contrasts the scientific view which poses the migration against the "traditional indian view" which has "no memory of a migration", it clearly states that "the philological evidence alone doe not allow an Indian origin of the Aryans")User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move from Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis to Indo-Aryan migration theory. Given the fact that the article had been at plain Indo-Aryan migration for a long time, until previously, that the preceding move to Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis was apparently not discussed at the time, and in light of the recent discussion at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, I would encourage another discussion whether it wouldn't actually be even more proper to move it back to where it was earlier, but for the moment the outcome of the present discussion seems clear. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

---

Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis → Indo-Aryan migration theory

• Support At 4 october 2014 Mange01 moved the page to "Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis", stating "Only a theory or hypothesis". Blades has correctly reminded us that

"A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it."

The IAMt is definitely a theory, and not a hypothesis. The term "hypothesis" is being misused to cast doubts on its scientific status. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:06, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "paradigm" is an even better term. See Witzel 2001 & 2005. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Very clear and well-established theory with extensive longterm scholarship and supporting evidence. Softlavender (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly well-established. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment There are almost same amount of results for both theory and hypothesis, also Indo-Aryan theory and Indo-Aryan hypothesis. I would like to hear from Mange01 first. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Now having read it carefully for almost 2 weeks, I have found that there is no firm evidence for confirming that there was any migration. Like Kurgan hypothesis, it is as better to call this theory as hypothesis, as there is no scientific proof that North Indians or South Indians are actually different. There is no recent debate on this matter, since the last DNA research that was unfavorable to these theories. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, I think you're confusing a few things:

• First, the question here is not whether there was a migration of IA into India, let alone if this is to be decided by a genetic argument, but whether the article's title should be IAM-"theory" or IAM-"hypothesis";
• Second, the IAMt is about a lot more than genetics. It doesn't even state that there was a mass-influx of a genetically homogenous group. So, you're contesting another theory, namely the so-called "Aryan invasion theory", which is outdated and not part of the IAMt, but a deliberate and rhetorical (mis)representation of the IAMt by some opponents;
• Third, the question is not what you think about this theory, but what the scientific community thinks about it. The answer to that question is very clear.

That there have been migrations, and spread of IA languages and culture, is not contested, not even by the "indigenous Aryanists." The real research question is: how, when and where did these migrations and diffusions take place? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Which scientist said that it is a correct theory and there are no doubts? I don't see that this theory it is even included in any university or college courses, just anywhere around the world as there are many flaws and lack of firm evidence in the theory, it is better to regard it as hypothesis.

There are also evidence that domestication of horse took place at least 2,000 years before migrations, all we have is a few linguistics similarities that have been refuted time to time, by those who don't accept the hypothesis and also by those who were making their own hypothesis. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"all we have is a few linguistics similarities that have been refuted time to time" Thanks for proving you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. Start with Benjamin W. Fortson IV (2010), Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, 2nd ed., Wiley-Blackwell (Blackwell Textbooks in Linguistics 19), and do not come back before you've worked through the book. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You basically cited the citation for supporting what I had said, he writes that there is a considerable difference in every methodology, then there is a page that comes to include that these analysis "have been seriously questioned or refuted, and there are good reasons to be very cautious", with named framework. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You're rambling. Shut up and go read the damn book. You have no place debating linguistic evidence when you don't even understand historical linguistics. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It also says that "most Indo-Europeanists reject the notion" that these linguistics would represent "any Indo-European migrations", you are getting it wrong, I am not debating the linguistics, but only counting it as one of the evidences that is suggested in this theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

WTF? Whom are you even quoting? Your assertions make no sense. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction is what we were talking about. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Which pages? Google Books links please. This sounds like quote-mining. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Before the move, the article was called Indo-Aryan migration. I don't see any reason for the article title to state whether it is a hypothesis or a theory. Yaris678 (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I had the same idea at first. But, as far as I know, there is no conclusive archaeological trail that shows how and when Aryans entered India. Until such a trail is found, it is best to call it a "theory." Kautilya3 (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean "hypothesis". Still, archaeology isn't the deal-breaker here. It's notoriously unsuitable to decide an issue like this one.

Yaris678: Good point. I notice that Theory of evolution simply redirects to Evolution. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It isa clearly a theory, as it has been worked out in detail. Paul B (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Edwin Bryant, a top authority on this subject, says there is no concrete evidence for Indo-Aryan Migration. Bryant says:

• "I still remain agnostic"
• "I have not found the available evidence sufficient to fully resolve the issue to my full satisfaction"
• "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive upon careful scrutiny"VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment You quote Bryant stating (bold emphasis mine) "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations". So, Bryant calls it a theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

NB: Bryant does not say he rejects the theory; he calls the evidence "inconclusive", and says that he remains "agnostic". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant explicitly says he supports the theory, just that it's not proven. He never says "there is no concrete evidence". In any case, these assertions, even if they were true, have no relevance to the issue: the distinction between a hypothesis and a theory in the humanities. As Joshua says, one of your own quotations from Bryant calls it a theory. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. He is "agnostic" about Indo-Aryan Migrations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. He clearly says it's the most likely explanation. In any case, you are not responding to the point at issue. Paul B (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What don't you understand about "I still remain agnostic"?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact that you are signally and repeatedly failing to respond to the actual issue. This is pure misdirection. BTW, 'agnostic' in this context means unsure. As I said, he clearly says IAM is the the most likely explanation. What don't you understand about that? Just to be clear, Bryant's "agnostic" is a sentence-fragment at the end of which he states that he agrees with Muller that "the original point of origin is probably somewhere in Asia". In any case, this is wholly beside the point. All of the pro-'hypothesis' editors here have come up with arguments that have nothing to do with actual question - the difference in meaning between 'hypothesis' and 'theory' as it applies to this case. Paul B (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The misdirection is on your end. Here is Bryant's bit regarding Muller. This is damning criticism of Indo-Aryan Migration, not agreement:

"At the same time, I find all the IE homeland proposals offered so far to be highly problematic and unconvincing. Therefore, the entire homeland-locating enterprise, with its corollary of Indo-Aryan origins, despite the increase in the body of data available on the issue, has not advanced much further in my mind than the opinion expressed by Max Müller two centuries ago that the original point of origin is probably “somewhere in Asia, and no more." (The Indo-Aryan Controversy, p.470)VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

User:VictoriaGrayson, I've only just seen this. Please try to be honest, howeever difficult it may be. The comment about misdirection concened the irrelevance of this stuff to the issue under debate (hypothesis or theory). You know this, so you are just indulging in more misdirection. And the quotation is not "damning" criticism of Indo-Aryasn migration. It is criticiasm of the idea that a specific homeland can be identified with confidence. In fact very few scholars would disagree with that. That's wholly separate from the issue of whether I-E peoples entered India. Bryant has repeatedlty asserted his view that this is a highly likely scenario, the opposite one (OIT) being highly unlikely. Jonathan has already given quotations from his books asserting that. So your responses here are indeed bluster and misdirection. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: Where did Joshua Jonathan provide quotes saying that Bryant thinks Indo-Aryan Migrations are more likely than OIT? Bryant says nothing of the sort, let alone repeatedley. VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Chapter 11 presents the views of Michael Witzel. For example p.343: "Given the frequency of movements, large and small, into South Asia via the northwestern (and other) corridors persisting until this day, the vehement denial of any such possibility [of IAM] (Section 11.8 sqq.) is simply unreasonable." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:19, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant finds flaws with Witzel's argument. See Bryant's chapter.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 05:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment - What is the basis for calling Bryant a "top authority"? What is he supposed to an authority on? Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no basis. Bryant is not an authority. He has just managed to place himself in a place that was created by a strong political movement, not scholarship. Jamison writes about Bryant in a review of one of his books: "Neither of the editors is a linguist by training, and they therefore have been credulous about accepting patently weak or false linguistic arguments, and this in turn has led them to be more even-handed in their assessment of the material presented than it merits." (JoIES, 34, p256) Chaipau (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If an Ivy League Harvard and Columbia professor who has written extensively on the subject is not an authority, noone is an authority. By the way, thanks for admitting the only evidence is linguistics.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

He is a professor at Rutgers University, which is not Ivy League. But that is besides the point. Do you have a source that says Bryant is an authority, or is it your own opinion? You also haven't answered my question as to what he is an authority on. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

He was a professor at both Harvard and Columbia, and still has affiliations with them. He is an authority on Indo-Aryan Migrations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So are Mallory, Witzel and Anthony. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Not so fast. Mallory and Witzel are the "authorities" that lent their name to give some respectability to Bryant's book [20]. Witzel called it a "balanced book" and Mallory said it had "scholarly fair play." On the other hand, the indigenist arguments here lack both balance and scholarly fair play. So much for that! Ms Grayson continues to claim that Bryant was a "professor" at Columbia and Harvard, despite our page Edwin Bryant (author) saying otherwise. She says that he is an authority on "Indo-Aryan migrations" despite our page saying that he is a scholar on Hinduism. Imagined realities, these! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear @Kautilya3:, Bryant has 2 books on Indo-Aryan Migrations.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: One book and one edited collection. There is no point talking about the second, because it got trashed by linguists like Stephanie Jamison as being totally amateurish. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Who the heck is Stephanie Jamieson? And why is she more authoritative than Edwin Bryant? Please see Edwin Bryant's CV HERE.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

She is the linguist & Sanskrit scholar chosen by the Journal of Indo-European Studies to review the edited collection. (You would have known if you ever bothered to read the review.) Hence the impact of the book on the field of Indo-European Studies is zilch. And you can see her CV as well, since you seem to be really into citing CV's, [21]. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Still not credible enough, because all she has got is a few edits or letters. None of her own individual publication or special recognition for any of these studies.. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What is the matter, Blades? Have you forgotten how to google for people [22] or to search for their papers [23]. If you want to prove that Stephanie Jamison is not "credible," you will have to try a lot harder. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Only 18k results, many of them dominated by some Stephanie Jamison Watkins, then a Stephanie Jamison who is a chartered accountant, and many others. Google scholar has some good results, but that's not a lot for building up as something that would be equal to Edwin Bryant or anywhere near. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, lLook for Stephanie W. Jamison rather than Stephanie Jamison.--regentspark (comment) 15:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

That has got about 6,500 results in Google and about 36 in Google books, her argument is really not enough for establishing any rejection as long as she has herself provided no better reason that how Edwin is incorrect. Nor I see that anyone consider her argument to be appropriate like thousands cite the argument of Edwin. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you're looking for (and no time to read the tome above!). But Jamison is a linguist who specializes in indo-iranian stuff. Bryant, on the other hand, is into religion. Jamison is reasonably well respected but if you're talking about what one says about the other then I can't help. Also, this really has little to do with the theory vs. hypothesis debate which is more about what Indo-Aryan Migration is called in generally accepted scholarly world (theory). --regentspark (comment) 16:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unnecessary. There is no conclusive evidence, it is still under active research for valid reasons. "Indigenous Aryans" also have eminent adherents and a trail of scientific evidence in its support. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment You speak about "evidence", which indicates you threat this as a theory, not as a hypothesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It's a hypothesis, not a theory. Only its supporters call it "theory", but there is no experimental procedure for validating it the way we can the theory of gravity, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical argument. Firstly it's untrue that "only its supporters call it 'theory'". In fact its opponents call it "Aryan Invasion Theory". Secondly, you make the mistake of assuming that the term 'theory' only applies to scientific models that can be confirmed or falsified by experiments. That's wholly untrue. The term theory has a long history and is applied to any worked out model in history and other fields. In fact it's the term 'hypothesis' that's largely restricted to science. Paul B (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The equation of "scientific method" with "experimental method" is one of my pet hates. In any historical science (palaeontology and various other palaeosciences) as well as others such as astrophysics or cosmology, experiments in the proper sense are just not feasible (the closest thing to experiments you can perform is computational models). The real core of the scientific method is the testing of hypotheses using observational evidence; experiments are only a convenient way to arrange opportunities for observations. (Thanks, @David Marjanović, for this point). In the humanities, such as in history, hypothesis testing depends strongly on finding parallels, for example: if you hypothesise that X has happened, find cases where the events presupposed by X, or something really close, have happened before. This makes it far more probable that X has actually happened, especially when X, or the events presupposed by X, are really specific. Note that neither in natural science nor in the humanities can you ever absolutely prove that an event has happened, or that your explanation is correct, you can only amass evidence such that it is vanishingly unlikely that the proposed explanation is wrong, and you can refute alternative explanations. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(Note the delicious irony in this context of historical linguistics inspiring Darwin.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support or accept. "Theory" is ok from my point of view since it is just as frequent, although I prefer "hypothesis". To just call it "Indo-Aryan migration", as if it was a non-controversial explanation model, is not good. That's why I made the original page move.Mange01 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I find it curious that you didn't bother to rename "Indigenous Aryans" to "Indigenous Aryans hypothesis." Is that a "non-controversial explanation model"? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of fact "Indo-Aryan migration" is uncontroversial. The controversy is about how, when and in what directions migration happened. Paul B (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan migration is controversial.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul, I also say it is controversial. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just making meaningless contradictions is unhelpful. You don't appear to have even tried to understand what I am saying. The fact of Indo-Aryan migration is accepted by even OIT proponents, so "Indo-Aryan migration" as such is indeed uncontroversial. The controversy is about "how, when and in what directions migration happened", as I said (read the ultra-OIT novel The Return of the Aryans). This is yet another reason why the term theory is preferable to hypothesis, since it is the various controversial theorisations of the uncontroversial fact that ethnic movement happened that is at issue. Paul B (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversial perhaps, but still over-whelmingly accepted by mainstream historians across the world. The evidence is just too strong.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@HammerFilmFan: See the comments of Edwin Bryant above.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:25, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A single (more or less) voice, run over by the flood of inarguable evidence. Not unlike one of the few BAND holdouts in paleontology.HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please elucidate the flood of evidence.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Mallory & Adams, Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I was surprised at the move to a "hypothesis". This Indo-Aryan migration has the highest support among other competing theories. Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Indo-Aryan migration is clearly the preferred explanation by mainstream scholars and thus more than a mere hypothesis or even theory. I've noticed that the fringe theory of Indigenous Aryans neither has the term "hypothesis" nor "theory" included in it's title. Krakkos (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Considering that the largest and most definitive genetics study (by Harvard researchers and published in a famous scientific journal) found that the northern and southern Indian populations date to 40,000-60,000 years ago and have no genetic influence from outside since, which one is the fringe theory?VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The parody that speaks of "Aryan invasion", and supposes that the Aryan migration consisted of a folk migration of large groups of genetically homogenous people. That's not what the current theory says, but what some opponents fail to understand. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, you should know that the baptismal name of this idea is "Aryan Invasion", later 'toned down' to "Migration" because nothing suggesting an invasion was found (destruction of some sort). JaguarEyes (talk) 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@JaguarEyes:, you should know that this 'baptismal name' is a fantasy. Prominent 'invasion' models did not develop until the 20th century, as an explanation for the fall of the Indus civilisation. They were specifically based on the archaological evidence that existed at the time. Before that migration was the dominant model, as it has been since. Paul B (talk) 12:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Paul Barlow: A fantasy only to self-styled Victorianists, not to those who are comfortable in the 21st century without any pretentious labels. Read about Mortimer Wheeler and his ilk. A few may not have supported Invasion, but 'Invasionism' is the real old school for this whole idea. And also note how the word 'Aryan' was introduced into English as meaning a race, which is NOT what the actual word means. JaguarEyes (talk) 07:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@JaguarEyes:, If you think this sounds clever, I assure you it doesn't. You are merely proving my point. Mortimer Wheeler is the archaeologist of the 20th century who excavated the Indus civilisation. Hence my comment "Prominent 'invasion' models did not develop until the 20th century, as an explanation for the fall of the Indus civilisation. They were specifically based on the archaological evidence that existed at the time." You are just proving what I said. The archaeology uncovered at that time seemed to support an invasion model rather than the migration model dominant in the Victorian period with Muller and other writers. I am not a "self styled" Victorianist. I am one. So what is this nonsense about pretentious labels? The grandiosity of your first sentence sounds far more pretenious to me, but frankly it is rather unnecessary to sneer at descriptions on user pages that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. And the word "aryan" was not introduced into English as a "race". It had been in use since the 17th century as an ethnic label, but not as a racial one (i.e. a physically definable subgroup of humanity). Again you are simply wrong. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

JaguarEyes, Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM; I think you're a clear case of WP:SPA and WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

No @Joshua Jonathan:, I'm only asking you to be neutral and not suppress information on Wikipedia. And @Paul Barlow:, we should agree it is no use arguing, but just letting you know, the original word doesn't mean 'ethnicity' either. JaguarEyes (talk) 15:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact many scholars believe that the earliest Inod-Iranian usage was ethnic. It was undoubtedly an ethnic term in Iran from which the earliest Western uses were taken. All this is clearly documented in scholarship. Paul B (talk) 15:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Please go ahead and quote this scholarship.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

See Aryan#In Iranian literature, which cites some of this scholarship. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

See, I can argue with you @Paul Barlow: how the view was before the discovery of Indus Valley Civilization- blatantly racist, and eurocentric, but like I said arguing is of no use. And @Joshua Jonathan: should remember that scholarly references regarding the Controversy should be respected. Wikipedia is a neutral source. The articles will not conform to your or a particular group's viewpoint. JaguarEyes (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

@JaguarEyes: No, we can't be "neutral" about this debate. Wikipedia policies explicitly prohibit being neutral about fringe theories and pseudo science. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You are really not aware of the controversy @Kautilya3: if you think it is a fringe theory or pseudoscience. Universities worldwide introduce this controversy to their students. Earlier, you wrote that the editors are not linguists. Bryant has a PhD in Indic Languages. Clearly, you are just ignorant of the matter. JaguarEyes (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that none of these theories are either fringe or pseudoscience, because no such scholar calls them as one. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• @JaguarEyes: You are beginning to cross the line with personal attacks. You should stop now before you end up getting blocked. The editors are not linguists according the Stephanie Jamison's review published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies. It is the scholars' opinions that count on Wikipedia, not your opinions. And, if you start spouting opinions without considering what the scholars say, your opinions count even less. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I have always quoted scholars. It is you who is giving personal views calling it fringe theory. If you call it fringe theory/pseudoscience, it is a fact that you are ignorant of the scholarship regarding the controversy, not a personal attack. And there @Kautilya3:, again you prove your ignorance by writing about a review; what you don't understand is that it is not uncommon in academic circles to criticize and counter-criticize. There is no reason to believe one scholar and not the other. Also read what @Bladesmulti: and @VictoriaGrayson: wrote. And just so you know, Google knows a lot more about Edwin Bryant than about Stephanie Jamison. Oh, the page does not exist? JaguarEyes (talk) 12:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @JaguarEyes:.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Which part? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: It is clearly not well-substantiated. The book by Edwin Bryant raised some serious questions. And just to let you all know, on Edwin Bryant Wikipedia page, the section dedicated to his book 'The Indo-Aryan Controversy', consisted only of 'criticism' (in form of a 'comment'), and not a single sentence about the book. This shows a bias against the book. Why would anybody quote from a book review and not the book itself? I have tried to rectify this bias. Anyways, I think a caveat regarding this controversy should be included wherever this topic has relevance, and counters and disagreements should also be included in this article. JaguarEyes (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress. If there are any improvements needed, you are always to welcome to do them. But, before accusing the entire Wikipedia of "bias," you should have checked the history of the page to see how this fragment came into being. Did you do so? Kautilya3 (talk) 10:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's quote Bryant again: "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations." Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Good point but specious really. Recall that the book title is "The Indo-Aryan Controversy". There may be some exceptions, but for most who support this idea as a 'theory', there is no question of controversy, but this is how the book mentions it. Now, in supporting or opposing this move, we debate the acceptance of this idea. The tone of the sentence you quote is obvious in this matter, and so is the content of the book. @Kautilya3: Either you always fail to make any sense when you write or English is not your first language. Or both. Just when did I accuse the "entire Wikipedia" of bias? I'm accusing that ONE editor of bias who quotes only an unfavorable review, and nothing else, the page history notwithstanding. If one has to edit, the first thing one would usually try to find is the theme of the book. JaguarEyes (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Stephanie Jamison's review makes clear that this book has no academic weight whatsoever. The editors are not linguists and they don't have any first-hand knowledge of Indo-European Studies. So they believe that there is a "controversy" whereas there isn't one. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

She, whoever she is, says that the editors are not linguists? Edwin Bryant has a Ph.D. in Indic Languages. Moreover, such criticism is not unknown in academic circles. There is no reason to believe what one writes in a review, unless you are the reviewer's disciple. JaguarEyes (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

JaguarEyes, you wrote "in supporting or opposing this move, we debate the acceptance of this idea". No, we're not. We're discussing if the IAMt is a hypothesis or a theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's IAMh. Since you quote him cleverly, highlighting the the word theory, you may like to know that he also writes, "no way out of this impasse... except by taking small steps... agreeing upon rules of evidence... allowing a hypothesis to remain exactly that, and not become an automatic claim". JaguarEyes (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is the dominant scholarly theory. A hypothesis is a proposition stated for the purpose of discussion or argument and it becomes a theory when it is generally accepted as is this one. --regentspark (comment) 18:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Does the same argument in favour of terming IAM a theory apply to the Kurgan scenario as well? It's still at the title Kurgan hypothesis, although the lede acknowledges "Kurgan theory" or "Kurgan model" as alternative terms as well. (By the way, I wish people would stop trotting out archaeological or genetic continuity as evidence for indigeneity. Even historically unambiguously documented migrations have no clear archaeological and genetic correlates. Archaeology and genetics are notoriously poor tools for the investigation of Holocene migrations, especially when the region migrated into was already populated by modern humans – for the Bronze Age or more recent times, historical linguistics is a far superior tool. Also, I wish people would stop basically assuming that all prehistoric languages were ancestors of languages that we know about.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:21, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(I took the liberty of indenting your comment, assuming it was in response to RegentsPark's statement.) In my terminology, a hypothesis becomes a "theory," when we have accumulated enough evidence in favour of it that all the alternatives are essentially ruled out. If the evidence is "conclusive," i.e., direct and irrefutable, then we stop calling it a theory and take it as a known fact. I have supported calling the Aryan Migration a "theory" (and not fact, because we do not yet have conclusive evidence for it). On the other hand, the Kurgan hypothesis seems like it is the most likely scenario, but not enough is known to make it a theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Kurgan is still mostly considered as the most acceptable hypothesis of all, it is the most dominant one. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: OK, so that's your terminology. Is it also the way the terminology is used in general? My impression is that the difference is more gradual and there is no objective (let alone quantifiable) cut-off point that makes evidence "suggestive" (for dominant hypotheses), "strong" (for theories), or "conclusive" (for facts; or however you term these steps). Also, the dichotomy between theory and fact you are advocating is rejected by our very own article Evolution as fact and theory.

As for the Kurgan scenario, alternative proposals such as Renfrew's and Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's, let alone Out of India, suffer from so many serious difficulties that they seem unsurmountable, and the arguments originally adduced for them are not particularly compelling. The main weakness of Kurgan seems to be that it has possible problems too, but in no way are they equally serious drawbacks as those of its contenders. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: I think the move from "hypothesis" to "theory" is often overt, i.e., somebody decides to call it a theory in a publication and people agree that it makes sense. The move from "theory" to "fact" is often tacit. People simply stop calling it a theory. We don't have a "theory of Indo-European languages" or the "theory of Indo-Aryan migrations" within India (from Punjab to Gangetic plains), even though they are all very much theories. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When the evidence for an explanation becomes overwhelming, this does not mean that it has become fact, because that implies that it cannot be overturned even in principle. A probability of 1–1E–100000 is not the same as 1, strictly speaking. Actually, even theories that used to be considered factual have been replaced, such as Newton's mechanics, or, I believe, various atomic models. It's just that, especially in Newton's case, while his theory was strictly speaking wrong, it was close enough for most real-world applications. As Asimov points out in The Relativity of Wrong, there are degrees of "wrong". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

"Kurgan hypothesis" seems to be the common term. I realize I started this whole thread with the wrong quote:

""A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it."

It should be (from Theory):

"A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory."

The noted similarities between various languages are the phenomenon or observation. the idea of a migration from an "Urheimat" was the original hypothesis. The IAMt is not just one "hypothesis", it is an explanatory framework which links several disciplines and a lot of data, and offers a plurality of testable hypotheses. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so, finally we start defining what we have been voting on! Remember that wikipedia is not a reliable source. Here is what I know, having been trained as a Physicist. The classical terminology was

• hypothesis = a single testable premise
• theory = a collection of related hypotheses
• law = a hypothesis that has been sufficiently verified and accepted

However, in the 19th century, people thought that the term "law" was too presumptuous and gave up using it. Thus, what should have been "Maxwell's laws" got to be called "Maxwell's equations" making up the "electromagnetic theory." As a result of this unreasonable modesty of our ancestors, we ended up with too few terms for the concepts we need. In the present day scientific terminology, "theory" means a hypothesis or a collection of hypotheses that are more or less firmly established. So, we have indeed been voting to decide whether the IAMt is firmly established or not. Equivalently, we have been voting to decide whether the rival "Indigenous Aryans theory" is a fringe theory that should be ignored or whether it a serious contender that undercuts IAMt from being a firmly established theory. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sharp reasoning; I appreciate that. The answers to your last statements are clear: the IAMt is firmly established, while the the IAt is completely rejected by the academic mainstream. See Witzel 2001 & 2005. It is completely obvious that the majority of scholars accepts the IAMt, that is, the migration of Indo-European out of the Pontic steppe into Europe, the Levant, south Asia and eastern Asia; the only other serious contender is the Anatolian hypothesis. Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

See also

• Benjamin W. Fortson, IV (2011), Indo-European Language and Culture: An Introduction, p.46;
• Elena Efimovna Kuzʹmina (2007), The Origin of the Indo-Iranians.
• Robert Stephen Paul Beekes (2011), Comparative Indo-European Linguistics: An Introduction
• David W. Anthony (2007), The Horse, the Wheel, and Language, Princeton University Press

Of these books, only Kuzʹmina mentions Talageri once, in the list with sources; for the rest, Elst, Frawley and Talegeri are not mentioned at all. Ergo: the IAt is completely irrelevant for the academics. Mainstream academics don't even bother to reject it, with the exception of Witzel; they simply ignore it completely.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 06:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section "Concurring views"

Maybe I´m reading this wrong, but shouldn´t that rather be dissenting/other views? Concur means to agree, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Alternative views"

I've merged "Alternative views" with "Controversion", adding an overview of the "Indigenists", and removing doublures. Given the concensus so far (Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact, Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory, etc.) it's clear that the "Indigenist" position shopuld not be presented as an equal theory, but rather as a "perspective". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Single source or origin

Resolved

Shouldn't the phrase "a single source or origin" link to Proto-Indo-European language or Proto-Indo-European Urheimat instead of Kurgan hypothesis specifically? The link implies to the reader than the Kurgan hypothesis was already thought up in the 18th century, immediately after the discovery of the relationship between Sanskrit and European languages. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, Florian. --Taivo (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I also agree. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Which option is preferrable? By "some common source", William Jones presumably meant an original language, not a geographic origin, so I take it linking to Proto-Indo-European language would be better, although it's hard to tell what the intention of the Wikipedia author was. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Languages. I've changed it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Category

Taivo, will you explain that how using the term has any relation with the category?[24] Or at least tell that how inserting the Category:Hindutva is actually legible? Main aim of this category is only to include those subjects that would describe any element of Hindutva. This theory says nothing about Hindutva. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed it pending clarification.--regentspark (comment) 13:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryans can reasonably be included in the category but I think this one's a bit of a stretch. Paul B (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Genetics data

If you browse online genetics bloggers/databases, like Eurogenes, Harappa project, you will learn something. Or continue to ignore it. People don't need Wikipedia anymore when they can pay $100-$200 to get their DNA tested and realize the narratives published in academia have no scientific legs to stand on. Wikipedia is meant to be Encyclopedic, not limited to condensing old world knowledge from 200 years ago. Get with the times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.221 (talk) 11:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You are correct http://archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/genetics-aryan-debate but unfortunately this is not an encyclopaedia. Wonkipedia does not incorporate or allow free presentation of facts that contravene their “Neutral Point Of View” bias of capitalistic, Eurocentric, Right-wing Conventionalism. Any attempt to correct the misleading theories on this (or any other) misinformation page will be promptly edited or reverted by a self-proclaimed 'expert' who is convinced that they know more about any particular controversy and therefore must be right.

Traditional knowledge is dismissed by Wonkipedia as 'anecdotal evidence', meaning it carries no weight as it isn't 'scientific'. Yet there is absolutely no genetic evidence in the mitochondrial DNA of Indians, Northern or Southern (suggesting that the 'Aryan Race' is merely hypothetical); nor is there any literary account of the imaginary migration in the Vedas (supposedly compiled by said 'Aryans'); nor is there necessarily a connection between langauge and race. We know that the pseudoscience behind the 19th century European attempt to discredit non-Christian cultures of other ethnic origin is blind religious exclusivism and xenophobic and has no place in a real encyclopaedia... which is, of course, why we find it here. Samsbanned (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)