Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

WIN

Having read through the following page I find that there is a bullying attitude towards an individual who is going by the name of WIN. Now, WIN does not seem to write in English very well, but he does back up his arguments and they do come accross quite intellegently to me. There are plenty of people around the world who's first language is not English, and this does not make them any less intellegent. I would think that using that against someone is a sign of both lack of intellegence and just plain lack of nobility. But don't take it personally old chaps, use this as sound advise and get on with your lives.

The problem with WIN isn't his English, although that doesn't win him any points, but rather that he uses the Talk pages of articles to debate theories, and never actually contributes to articles. Wikipedia isn't for chatting about whether a given theory is right or wrong, it's for creating articles that reflect scholarship. As far as I know, WIN has never cited an academic publication, he's just listed a couple of crank webpages (which he often reveals himself to have never even read completely). CRCulver 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

...And this seems to bother you considerably. He does seem a tad bit on the defence and yet through all of that and his lack of English language skills I can acertain some very well made points and observations. Perhaps, he does not contribute to the article because of his language capabilities and feels that he must communicate what he feels in the TALK page. Afterall, that is what this page is for. And when we read his points we can look some of it up and come up with our own conclusions and if we find them conclusive, contribute them ourselves in our own vernacular. Cheers old chap and don't lose any more sleep on this.

WIN has declared on several Talk pages that his goal is not to make the articles better, but rather to convince people on the Talk pages that the theory behind the articles is wrong. That violates WP:NOT, particularly WP:NOR. He's called people who contribute to Indo-Aryan migration racists, and said he won't stop until the article disappears. He's not a beneficial force to better the articles. He could care less about what's on the page, he just wants us to stop doing anything with a theory he finds odious. CRCulver 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In his recent writings on Indo-Aryan migration talk page Paul questioned about Indians as one unified race. Now, any person knowing about this theory and race knows that Indians are racially one and i.e.Cacausian.So, I have just opposed this race writings. And, supporters have accused me as Hindu Nationalist Chauvanist and many other bad words which is not wrong as per them. Why such a bias ?

Recently, they are continuously deleting my well ref. logics.( Refer History page of talk page ) They are accusing my citation as non-academic but they will not mention a single word for Michael Witzel controversy who has translated wrong - which when found he simply refused as as printing error. But this printing error occurs for 3 times in his 3 different books for the same verse !!! Then also Witzel will be called very acedemic person by my opposers because he totally supports this theory. But Elst or Kazanas who found this wrong translation in Witzel's translations are told as non-academic by my opposers. I have never said that what ever Ref. is cited or given as a link is not properly read. I have only said that I have not read age old supporting books which finds clear cut invasion by aryans in India. One should read recent developments about this theory. There is no point in reading those books which says the earth is flat and man kind developed on the earth some thousand years back. WIN 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

MAN YOU ARE WRITING ABOUT ME AND THEN ALSO CONTINUOUSLY DELETING MY WRITINGS. YOU DON'T BELEIVE IN EQUALITY OF VOICE.

Read http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html and article "Is There Evidencs for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India? by Vishal Agarwal ". Here you will find so many ref. and in depth about Witzel's mis-traslation of BSS verse to find some written proof from vast ancient Sanskrit scriptures.

WIN, web pages are not suitable references for an academic debate. You need to visit a university library and cite material published by academic presses. Actual books, printed on actual paper. CRCulver 13:22, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

    The article which I have refered above is full of Ref. of those books that you can find in an university library. WIN 11:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

no, Elst and Kazanas are quite quoteable. I don't put it beyond Witzel, who has published volumes of text, to have mistranslated some verse at one time. The IAM hypothesis hardly rests upon a translation of a BSS verse, however. If anyone should insert an argument based on an allegedly mistranslated verse, you are perfectly free to cite your references debunking the mistranslation, no problem at all. The BSS verse is a side issue (interesting in its own right): It is undisputed that there is no direct description of an immigration across the Hindukush. Neither is there a description of immigration to Greece in Ancient Greek texts, and still nobody doubts that the Greeks immigrated to Greece at some point between 2100 and 1600 BC. I am not excited about Witzel's BSS verse myself. You do not seem to realize that the Hindukush is a classical invasion route, people entered India by this route all the time, again and again, the Indo-Aryans are just the earliest quasi-historical example, but there is really nothing surprising about it at all. dab (ᛏ) 12:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic invasions of India like Saka,Hunas etc. were assimiliated in vast Indian culture. Even Islamic invasions which started in 800 could got hold of Delhi around 1200.Islamic Invasion & rule which were real invasions could not change language of India or even Persia ( Iran ).Situation of greece and India during 1500 BC can not be compared if you know the history. Your above greece example would have fitted before IVC excavation in 1920 , but not now in 2006. Aryan Invasion ( similar to Islamic Invasion ) is not accepted now, and it's migration which is proposed instead. But migration can not do what invasions couldn't. WIN 04:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Dravidian

Isnt it possible that due to the oral transmission of the Vedas in Sanskrit, that what we consider "Vedic Sanskrit" isnt the true form of Sanskrit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.16.149 (talk • contribs)

Vedic Sanskrit is the earliest form of Sanskrit (yet earlier forms would not be called Sanskrit but rather "Proto-Indo-Aryan". And yes, it already shows clear substratum influence, both in vocabulary and phonology (the 'cerebral' series), usually ascribed to Dravidian. We would expect that in Proto-Indo-Iranian, dating to ca. 2000 BC, such influence is absent (since it is also absent from Iranian), but this wouldn't be "true Sanskrit". Sanskrit is a "high" language as prescribed by the grammarians; Proto-Indo-Iranian would be a bunch of dialects predating Sanskrit by some 1000 years. The very oldest part of the Rigveda may have been composed in essentially Proto-Indo-Aryan, and would have been adapted to Sanskrit by oral transmission, that's true; this possibility would be assumed by people proposing Dasas in Tajikistan/BMAC around 1800, Sarasvati=Helmand. dab (ᛏ) 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Veda mention rivers which geologists have dated back to 3000 B.C. Please stop spreading lies. Sanskrit and Aryan do not go in the same phrase. This entire concept of aryans and the PIE is messed up thanks to Messrs. Mueller and British in India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.16.149 (talk • contribs)

says your guru? The guru of an anonymous IP on Wikipedia? Must be true then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ?? (talk • contribs)

Definitely, I also agree with this. The Vedas are written in poem form and not in prose form. So, similarly for English poem form and prose form writing style will be different. And, by that we are not saying that Peom English language and Prose English language are different. It's simply two forms of writing the same language. Vedas were composed in this poem form so that it will be easily remenbered compared to prose form. So, terming Vedic Sanskrit as different is mis-guiding.

And, I want to ask Dab that if you are right in any sense then why Avestan people are mentioning in Chapter I of Vendidad, that their earliest occupied areas were Hapta Handu ( Sapta Sindhu i.e. Punjab area ) and other two areas of ancient India. Then, what your Proto-Indo-Iranians are doing in ancient India ? MUST BE ON HOLIDAYS !!!

Changing of `S' to `H' ( as in Sapta changing Hapta which means Seven in English AND Sindhu changing to Handu ) is possible but reverse is not possible ( confirmed by linguists ). And, what happened to mightiest and mother river saying Saraswati river of Rig-Ved discussions ? Do not pretend to forget this and mis-guide the world. Also, findings of sub-merged city in Gulf of Cambay on Gujarat coast in Western India dating 7,500 BC waits for world's attention. Read http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php?p=1

Indians themselves have never called themselves as Hindu ( atleast before Persian Muslim Invasions ). Persians have coined the term as Hindu from Sindhu. This Hindu word as religion of majority Indians is also embedded during British times inheritating Muslim word notion.Indians have called as following Vedic or Sanatan Dharma ( Sanatan = Ever prevailing in Sanskrit ) and their land as Aryavarta since ancient times ( i.e Arya + Avart - land / abode of Aryans - which means land of civilized, virtueous, noble people )and they have never termed their Dharma ( which can not be equated with narrow meaning religion word of English ) as Hindu. If some so called Britishraj coined Aryans tribal / nomads had come to ancient India as per AMT then why they call India as their land/abode and not some steppe land where they must be residing in great numbers ( as per aryan theory ). And, how come any Aryan people are not mentioning their homeland or remembering as coming from out of India. They ( Brahmins ) were great in composing & remembering Sanskrit verses in thousands of numbers as verbally remembering tradition and they forgot only small point to remember that Aryans have come from out of India which will be very very big point for any people. I think , I have to forget any LOGIC then only I can understand this like Aryan theory supporters !!!

Even Ramayan & specially Mahabharat knows of people outside Hindukush ranges ( i.e. Central asians & beyond ) and they are termed in that sciptures as Sudra. Why some Steppe originated Aryan write around 1000- 500 BC in Ramayan & Mahabharat ( dates as proposed in AMT ) that their original brothers & sisters are Sudra and not Original Arya. Because there was never ever any so called Aryan Migration in India as per AMT. This Arya & Sudra termation in ancient Indian scriptures reveals human nature and work done in regular life. Otherwise how Rishi Valmiki who was originally some Sudra person and robber & murderer of travellers got Rishi status & became writer of Ramayan and Arya person, if this Sudra and Arya were some rigid caste of ancient Indians. Also refer http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kingdoms_of_Ancient_India for more insight details about ancient India. And, how come same Brahman, Kshtriya, Vaishya & Sudra notion got permeated in South Indians ( along with Vedic `Aryan' beliefs ) if this was some Aryan device to protect their identity and ward off from original ancient Indians. I am asking this to Aryan theory supporter because this Brahmin etc. castism is much louded by Aryan theory supporter as some superb Aryan stroke.

If Indra should stand accused of Distroying Cities of Dravid Indus Valley people ( as told by Wheeler ) then why same Dravid Hindu South Indian priests are reciting the Rig-Ved mantra ( famous `Swastinah Indroh .....mantra praising God Indra who is also God of Rain ) during any Hindu Wedding Ceremony. How come Dravid priest / persons can recite about the very same person who is held responsible for destroying their cities of Rig-Vedic verse ( as interpreted & told by Wheeler ) and pushing them down in South India !!!

WIN 04:55, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to have a meaningful debate on this level. I suggest you read a few books on the topic, or join a web discussion forum, and come back when you have a basic grasp of the subject. You are just spouting half-understood half-truths mixed with religious indoctrination. I do not have to answer this: WP:NPOV and WP:CITE are for academic material, and while WP editors have to answer sourced criticism, they are not unpaid tutors who have to teach basics to anybody who finds the edit button. It is asking a lot to quote the piles of pseudo-academic works motivated by religious or nationalist agendas, but at least those authors are at least trying to imitate scholarship. dab (ᛏ) 11:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Then, why many western authors are also opposing AMT ? Do they are also spreading any religious or nationalist agendas and are they pseudo-academic ? As per you it seems that only AIT/AMT supporter authors are doing any sincere academic work without any agenda. Read from this given link which contains so many articles which exposes your cherished AMT supporters,with in depth proper details and references that you want.http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html

The half knowing person or pseudo person can not answer the above points which were not taken into considerations or not known by Western Indologists or deliberately overlooked. That's why you don't have any answer to above points. Max Muller had also simply discarded Astronomical datings in Rig-Vedic verses because that would yield very old dates to Rig-Ved and that would not fit his Aryan Invasion Theory in his favour. Now, same way all AIT/AMT against points are discarded which is not any way scholarly work by any half-knowledge person who are shaken by opponents points. Dear, you are writing about history of a country then you have to consider points of that countrymen in totality.It can not be one sided story which it was, when this theory was proposed. WIN 05:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

you link to a list of articles. while it would be possible to debate intelligently with at least some of the authors of the articles listed, my point is that it is not possible to debate with you. I can guess at your meaning, but your English makes up with bristling indignation for what it lacks in grammar. I doubt you have read more than the titles of the articles you are referring to. It is enough for you that they seem to support your preconceived truth. I am afraid this article will have to wait for a more eloquent champion, able to argue point by point, instead of gesturing at an url and wildly accusing people in broken English. We already have more than enough of that sort of contribution on Wikipedia, thank you. Or, surprise me with a well argued, closely referenced presentation of some selected point. dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Dab, for your kind info I have read each & every articles listed in above link.And, also Witzel & others many articles.Just read those articles from above link and then write any counter point here.Why you are not commenting on any points raised above. It seems that you can only resort in accusing opponents as you don't have anything to say about above raised points.For preconceived truth, I can tell for all previous AIT/AMT supporting Indologists of last 150 years as I am very much convinced about false spreading of AIT/AMT. Just read last points in this page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Aryan_invasion_theory and try to answer my raised points regarding Ancient Iran & Aryan migration there.

Since great ancient Saraswati river mentioned in Rig-Veda is found in India then why it's name is kept alive in these far places in Asia & Europe ?

-Harahvaiti and Harauvati in Iran and Afghanistan

-Hurravat and Hurrvuhe in Armenia and Georgia

-Horoouathos in Azova and the Black Sea

-Present day Croats Horvati and Hrvati along the Adriatic . Refer this article by Croatian author http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:46ToqSsCMC0J:www.hindunet.org/saraswati/croats1.PDF+Adriatic+Hrvati&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=22

Since only Indians were having great civilization on banks of Ancient Saraswati river of Rig-Ved time, that's why they carried this Saraswati name to far countries from India when ancient Indians moved out of India for which there are ample notes in Rig-Ved and Puranas. If original aryans came from central asia to Iran & Afghanistan then why they zealously preserved name of some small river of newly found areas of Iran & Afghanistan ? WIN 09:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WIN/IP, You are obviously what we refer to as a crank —ie. one who comes to Wikipedia thinking they can push their own or other relatively obscure theories as claims of fact ("findings of sub-merged city in Gulf of Cambay on Gujarat coast in Western India dating 7,500 BC waits for world's attention"), one who uses inane ridicule ("Then, what your Proto-Indo-Iranians are doing in ancient India ? MUST BE ON HOLIDAYS !!!"), and one who violates our policy of civility ("Please stop spreading lies"). Given your broken English, crude or otherwise difficult to understand reasoning, apparently rude manner, and otherwise apparent lack of sufficient knowledge on the subject, you should consider doing as Dab suggests and go read some more, rather than attempt to make what you read conform to your notions. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 18:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

or we could consider just blocking him. It is evident nothing useful will come from him. It's a borderline case, just below the threshold where I just act as a matter of course. If things get worse, and a few editors agree, I will block WIN for disruption and pointless ranting (WP:NOT). dab (ᛏ) 19:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You are not able to digest any logical points against this theory.That's why you are using such words.Regarding Cambay findings I have already sited the link as http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/BadrinaryanB1.php You want to hear only those words which suits your notion which built up from childhood through education books which mis-guide you. These books will never tell you about below written words by Lord McCauley which shows clear motive of degrading India.

I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation. -- Lord McCauley in his speech of Feb 2, 1835, British Parliament

You have to accept that there were vested interests of britishers of that time - in degrading India & Indian culture due to obvious reasons of conquering and converting. " One who stays in Glass house should not throw stones to others " WIN

WIN, this speech is a complete fabrication. The date given (Feb 2 1835) is that of Macaulay's famous "minute on education", the full text of which can be found here.[1] Nowhere are these words to be found. They are, of course, highly unlikely anyway. He's never seen a beggar or thief in India? Are we to really believe he would say this? Macaulay genuinely believed that modern Western civilisation was superior to what he calls "Oriental" culture. So he thought it would be sensible encourge English for the same reason that scholars were once taught Latin and Greek. For Macaulay English was one of the languages in which modern learning was most readily to be found. Call him a blinkered Eurocentrist or whatever you like, but since he really believed this he is not, in his own eyes, trying to oppress India. In fact he argues against those who say that western eduction sould be restricted in order prevent the rise of educated modernised Indian nationalists (precisely the opposite of the opinion he is made to express in the "quotation"). Depressingly, this made-up quotation currently graces our own Macaualy page. But it won't be there for long. Paul B 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered, how do you Hindu nationalists contrive to believe that the discovery of the British that they were actually related to the Indians was intended as a 'degradation' of India. We all know that the British during the Empire had a rather high opinion of themselves. Which, do you think, would have had more prestige in their eyes: An ancient nation that derived from the same source as they themselves, or a nation of 'savages' with no relation to the British from time immemorial. In the colonial mindset of the British, the "AIT" actually ennobled Indian culture rather than degrading them, so all your droning about it all being a British ruse to portray India as barbarian makes no sense whatsoever. That's the 19th century colonial picture. Of course today, a culture has not more or less prestige depending on whether it is derived from Indo-European roots: India today would have the exact same prestige if there had been no IAM; it just would be all-Dravidian instead of Indo-Aryan speaking. It's all in your mind, WIN. The world doesn't think better or worse of you if some of your ancestors 4000 years ago (200 generations!) lived in Usbekistan. They rather think worse of you because of your childish chauvinism. dab (ᛏ) 08:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You don't have that basic knowledge of History and you are advicing me that it was gratitude(err ennobling act) of britishers to link with Indians.This shows your Euro-centric nature.When britishers or their ancestors were savage and Uzbek people were nomadic that time India was having advanced & vast civilization which was biggest. That's the difference between history of Indians & Britishers or Uzbek central asia. Your portray of britishers ennobling Indian culture is really sic! Then, General Dyer of Jallianwala Bagh Massacre should be termed as the God sent angel in this world !!! You don't have knowledge in this matter and accusing me as Hindu nationalists or chauvanistic which I strongly oppose.I am not terming any bias as Christian.It is pride of being an Indian which McCauley wanted to crush as noted above. Refer http://www.boloji.com/history/019.htm and notes on top by David Frawley. WIN

Jesus H Christ, you didn't understand a word of what I said, did you. Are you sure you want to insist 'contributing' to the English language Wikipedia? Did I mention 'gratitude'? I said it was research: they found out that there was a relation between Greek and Sanskrit. Of course, we have more detailed knowledge now, and it is unhelpful to keep referring to 18th or 19th century results. You keep droning on about British colonialism in broken English for reasons only known to yourself. There is an article on British colonialism, but this is not it. dab (ᛏ) 11:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In above discussion, it's wrongly written as gratitude , it should be `ennobling act'. WIN 10:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

A SMALL PROOF FOR ALL SUPPROTERS , ABOUT MAX MULLER

1. Max Müller was a British agent, especially employed (in 1847) to write the translations of the Vedas in such a demeaning way so that the Hindus should lose faith in them. His personal letter to his wife dated December 9, 1867 reveals this fact.

2. He was highly paid for this job. According to the statistical information given on page 214 of the “English Education, 1798-1902” by John William Adamson, printed by Cambridge University Press in 1930, the revised scale of a male teacher was £90 per year and for a woman, £60 in 1853. The present salary of a teacher in London is £14,000 to £36,000 per year, which averages a minimum of at least 200 times increase in the last 146 years. Max Müller was paid £4 per sheet of his writing which comes to £800 of today (1999). This is an incredibly high price for only one sheet of writing. But it’s the general law of business, that the price of a commodity increases with its demand. The British were in such an imperative need to get someone to do this job and Max Müller was the right person, so they paid whatever Max Müller asked for. His enthusiastic letter to his mother dated April 15, 1847 reveals this fact.

3. Max Müller’s letters dated August 25, 1856 and December 16, 1868 reveal the fact that he was desperate to bring Christianity into India so that the religion of the Hindus should be doomed.

His letters also reveal that:

4. He lived in poverty before he was employed by the British, (5) his duplicity in translation was praised by his superiors, and (6) in London, where he lived, there were a lot of orientalists working for the British.

Letters of Max Müller. “The Life and Letters of Friedrich Max Müller.” First published in 1902 (London and N.Y.). Reprint in 1976 (USA).

1. TO HIS WIFE, OXFORD, December 9, 1867.

“…I feel convinced, though I shall not live to see it, that this edition of mine and the translation of the Veda will hereafter tell to a great extent on the fate of India, and on the growth of millions of souls in that country. It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it during the last 3,000 years.”

2. TO HIS MOTHER, 5 NEWMAN'S ROW, LINCOLN'S INN FIELDS, April 15, 1847.

“I can yet hardly believe that I have at last got what I have struggled for so long… I am to hand over to the Company, ready for press, fifty sheets each year; for this I have asked £200 a year, £4 a sheet. They have been considering the matter since December, and it was only yesterday that it was officially settled.”

“…In fact, I spent a delightful time, and when I reached London yesterday I found all settled, and I could say and feel, Thank God! Now I must at once send my thanks, and set to work to earn the first £100.”

3. To Chevalier Bunsen. 55 St. John Street, Oxford, August 25, 1856.

“India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul. The rotten tree has for some time had artificial supports… For the good of this struggle I should like to lay down my life, or at least to lend my hand to bring about this struggle. Dhulip Singh is much at Court, and is evidently destined to play a political part in India.”

To the duke of Argyll. Oxford, December 16, 1868.

“India has been conquered once, but India must be conquered again, and that second conquest should be a conquest by education. Much has been done for education of late, but if the funds were tripled and quadrupled, that would hardly be enough… A new national literature may spring up, impregnated with western ideas, yet retaining its native spirit and character… A new national literature will bring with it a new national life, and new moral vigour. As to religion, that will take care of itself. The missionaries have done far more than they themselves seem to be aware of.”

“The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?”

4. (a) From the diary of Max Müller. Paris. April 10, 1845.

“I get up early, have breakfast, i.e. bread and butter, no coffee. I stay at home and work till seven, go out and have dinner, come back in an hour and stay at home and work till I go to bed. I must live most economically and avoid every expense not actually necessary. The free lodging is an immense help, for unless one lives in a perfect hole… I have not been to any theatre, except one evening, when I had to pay 2 francs for a cup of chocolate, I thought ‘Never again’.”

How is this relevant? Chaipau 15:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaipau, this is to make others understand that Max Muller who had (mis)-translated some Sanskrit Rig-Ved verses and was the promoter of Aryan Invasion Theory - had done on requirements of British kingdom.During his life time IVC was not excavated and he was the main promoter of theory that Superior & advanced Aryans invaded nomadic type Dravidian ancient India - based on his translations of Rig-Veda verses - and drove them to South India.From above mentioned letters to his mother & wife, it is clear that he was hugely paid by then British East India co.'s heads in London to falsely fabricate Indian scriptures and that way uproot the deepest faith of Hindus in their scriptures ( this is also told by McCauley in British Parliament as noted above ). So, one can understand that it was conspiracy of britishers to divide Hindus with Aryan & Dravidian , to uproot faith of Hindus from their religious back bone , to make Hindus think that their civilization is not that ancient & is based on winning documents of Aryans, to make them feel that Sanskrit for which hindus have high respect is not Indian language at all, Britishers are doing the same thing which Aryans have done earlier - invading India, to squeeze history of India and tell it to start after Aryans invasion of India around 1500 BC - because Rig-Veda is hailed as the oldest scriptures by Hindus, to loose faith in their religion and convert them faster by attcking their religious backbone - India is much riper for Christianity than Rome or Greece were at the time of St. Paul “The ancient religion of India is doomed, and if Christianity does not step in, whose fault will it be?”, hence possess India forever which was the most valuable jewel in British crown. WIN 08:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN, have you ever read a single book or essay written by Max Müller? Also, has it occurred to you that the English came to England as a result of an invasion/migration a long long time after the proposed Aryan migration into India, yet, strangly this lack of ancientness in comparison to India never seems to have "humiliated" the English of the time at all? Nor were they worried that English "was not a British language at all", but originated in north West Germany! (shocking isn't it?). There is no evidence whatever that Müller was "paid by then British East India co.'s heads in London to falsely fabricate Indian scriptures". He's simply writing to his mam to gratify her with the news that he's got a good job. If you knew anything at all about Müller you would be aware that he was not hand in hand with Macaulay. He strongly opposed Macaulay's plan to make English the language of learning in India, personally meeting him to plead for native Indian languages. He expresses his despair over Macaulay's intransigence in his autobiography. Paul B 11:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

From my reading, Max Mueller was the first person to establish the antiquity of the Sanskrit language. Further he was involved with the centrality of the Vedas in Hindu religion and was trying to establish the vedas as the backbone, not trying to break it. The Britishers did not need to divide the Hindus—they were already divided according to different castes and ethnicities. I find your claims outlandish. Chaipau 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

William Jones (1746-1794), judge at Calcutta in British India was first to find some similarity between Sanskrit & Greek-Latin.And Monier-Williams (1819-1899) Orientalist was professor of Sanskrit at Oxford in 1860 and also authored Sanskrit-English Dictionary.Please note Max Muller's above mentioned words written to his wife regarding Rig-Veda "It is the root of their religion, and to show them what that root is, I feel sure, the only way of uprooting all that has sprung from it" And, much before Max Muller's birth, Vedas were considered as backbone of their religion by Hindus. Please read above each words again. He wanted to show the root of Hinduism to Hindus and that way wanted to uproot Hindu thoughts. If Max Muller was not trying to break vedas, then how come such a knowledgable person in Sanskrit found Superior & Advanced type Aryans in Rig-Veda which are now considered as nomadic tribal type. He made Rig-Veda as some winning document of invading people ignoring deep knowledge in it ( Veda = Knowledge in Sanskrit)and promoted Aryan Invasion of India. India is like Europe in smaller land mass but more populus,where lives different linguistics & ethnic people.Even Europeans were divided with each other in 1700s-1800s during British occupation of India - they were fighting with each other and in 1900s Europeans fought two world wars also.Is this not greater divison among Europe than India.WIN 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Further, the Aryan Invasion Theory (which is not what we are discussing here), was sourced to someone other than Muller by Mortimer in 1946. That theory was discredited within 20 years. I do not see any reason to muddy the whole issue further, by pulling in Muller from the past and then continuing to spit venom against him today. Chaipau 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Even I don't want to go out track from this topic but it's because of addressing me as Hindu nationalist & Chauvinistic,I am forced to show that Christian, nationalistic , Chauvinistic ideas were the very base for aryan theory promoter Max Muller ( evident from his letters ) or McCaulay ( evident from his speech in British parliament ).Max Muller had done his work for money sake and also to fulfill his religious zeal.McCaulay was offical paid servant of British empire and his speech in British Parliament proclaims British empire's Christian, nationalistic , Chauvinistic ideas. I again tell that " One who stays in Glass House should not throw stones to others " WIN 11:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

At the time of IVC, Europeans were in primitive stage of living and ancient Indians were highly advanced ( That time England was hardly habituated.) So,there is no question of any civilization in England or full Europe that time.So,your comparision is highly non-relavant & illogical.Instead of Max Muller's letters as proof , do you expect to show some Max Muller's Invoice raised to British Kingdom as evidence !!! This shows your pretention of being `logical'. Imagine Greenland's some people coming to USA and changing cultural & linguistic scene of current US people. This is same as some fabricated `Aryan' people of central asia coming to India in 1500 BC and changing cultural & linguistic scene of Indian sub-continent. Current some US people can go to Greenland or Northern Canada & inhabit there and change linguistic & culture of scantly populated people there but the reverse is not at all possible.The Aryan Migration theory makes us to be believe in possibility of above reverse scenario. WIN 14:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN: you need to shut up, now. This is neither the Max Müller article, nor the Neolithic Europe article. Your stuff is 100% irrelevant. Yes, in 3000 BC, the IVC was more advanced than "Europe". Yes, Max Müller was a Christian and a colonialist,. It's granted (although I have my doubts you are being fair on MM, but that's beside the point). Now go and read WP:NOT and stop spamming this talkpage with your irrelevant nonsense. Wikipedia is not a bloody soapbox. It is not a discussion forum. You are contributing nothing to this topic. Go away. I encourage editors to revert any further offtopic rants. dab (ᛏ) 17:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN: can you cite a published source for the quotes from Max Müller's letters and diary?

"MM was a jerk, hence AIT is bogus" is a classical, no-brainer case of association fallacy, even if the premise was correct. There is simply no reason to discuss this here. dab (ᛏ) 19:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of the letter and diary material comes from The Life and Letters of the Right Honourable Friedrich Max Müller, written and compiled by his widow, Georgiana, published by Longmans in 1902. I've no idea why the diary entry about the price of hot-chocolate in Paris is considereed to be relevant to anything. The other letters have to be seen in context. One of them is actually devoted to pushing for more money to spread education in India. It includes these lines, omitted in the excerpt above: "by encouraging a study of their own ancient literature, as part of their education, a national feeling of pride and self-respect will be awakened among those who influence the large masses of the people." In the same letter MM states that religion "will take care of itself", which is a way of saying that the education should not promote Christianity. Other claims made here are simply silly. It's fatuous to state that MM was "especially employed (in 1847) to write the translations of the Vedas in such a demeaning way so that the Hindus should lose faith in them." For a start he was not commissioned in 1847 to "write translations" at all, but to produce an edition of the RV in Sanskrit with Sayana's commentary. The only English language component is the very short preface. It's difficult to see how this can possibly be "demeaning". Paul B 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem of WIN

I'd like to take WIN to Requests for Arbitration because of his use of talk pages as rambling discussion forums. However, I need two other signatures. Who would like to sign with me? CRCulver 17:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

me. Paul B 18:07, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

mee too. and remember to WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 18:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You want some serious discussion on this matter.But you are not ready to comment any point which seriously troubles your accepted notion of Aryan Migration. WIN 04:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN, your comment above is thankfully brief enough to comment on, so if I may: Your first statement "You want some serious discussion on this matter" shows your lack of English skill, which is too important to overlook when discussing "this matter." Your use of the word "matter" is misplaced as this topic is not one of pressing importance which can be dealt with in any immediate fashion. Your statement "But you are not ready to comment any point which seriously troubles your accepted notion of Aryan Migration" shows you cary an assumption that others here have any "accepted notion" with regards to any particular theory at all. To suggest so is quite rude, and one who treats others so rudely should not expect to gain their respect or cooperation. Regards, -Ste|vertigo 18:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to engage in "serious discussion". A prerequisite for this is an intelligent partner who is aware of the literature and not immersed in religious or chauvinistic preconceptions. I am afraid WIN does not seem to qualify, and I prefer to report on the academic debate I find in literature. Much of the outrage displayed by the "anti-invasion" crowd consists of shooting strawmen. It is evident that the Indo-Aryan languages came to India in the course of the 2nd millennium, there can hardly be any serious debate about that. There is a lot of room for discussion about how and when this happened exactly. Current models assume demic diffusion and amalgamation with autochthonous cultures, not warlike invasion, so denouncing fantasies of warlike Aryans burning Dasa (IVC) forts as unrealistic is completely beside the point. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Since invasion is ruled out then how any aryans tribal people coming from out of India can be so effective so as to replace language & culture of already highly advanced Indian people for which there is no single mention in any Sanskrit or even in Tamil scriptures or in memory. Even Shaka who were invaders ( not migrators ) from central asia were assimilated in India without leaving any traces.Do you know anything about Sanskrit language and it's very high level grammer, which is indebted to those Aryans ? How come the supposed diffusion & amalgamation of tribal Aryans with ancient Indians was so successful that these advanced civilization accepted their language & culture overwhelmingly ? Ancient India's Indus Valley Civilization was having full knowledge of metalurgy,dance,small yogic postures statues,precise weight measurement systems with vast trade networks,navigation etc. as known today from excavations. Then, how come for all these things we find only Sanskrit names in India. And, how nomadic tribes of Aryans were so successful that they simply replaced wordings from vast Indian population with Sanskrit words ( without retaining any memory for previus words ). But Aryans were so so so effective that they even made South Indians to preserve by memory earliest Aryan Sanskrit scriptures of Rig-Veda & others. Then, those small nomadic Aryans tribes will be the unique in whole world as there are no parallels in the whole world for such a great great great achievements by any tribal nomadic people over more advanced civilized people !

Even in Iran sign of IVC type civilized people are found after 1900 BC ( approx. date of drying of Saraswati river of Rig-Ved ) about which I have raised questions in Aryan Invasion Theory's discussion page but no supporter is turning up to comment on it because it is a set back to Aryan theory.And, instead they are commenting on my English ( sic ! ) If you are right in any way then why this theory is changing. How can you rely on the very basis of this theory proposing persons who had `discovered' Superior civilized Aryans from Rig-Ved verses - as invading inferior aborginial type Indians, then after IVC excavation - nomadic type aryans over advanced civilized Indians and now -nomadic aryans migrating peacefully & diffusing with Indians. If this theory proposing western Sanskrit scholars were wrong in their interpretation of Rig-Ved which they have to do from written Sanskrit books then how can one accept about their speculations of non-indian aryan people - who were only linguists and not specialized in any other subjects. WIN

I dont think you read or understood what Dab wrote. Conquests are but a small fraction of what counts within the totality of the "assimilation" concept. Life and culture are messy and complicated, and its ridiculous to argue from any held point of view, Western, Indian, or otherwise. Whats left is a methodical and rudimetary interpretation of material findings. I agree there is a systemic bias within the sciences with regard to exonyms, terminology, nomenclature, attributions, cultural bias, and selective interpretations (for sake of writing papers, of course). But with that said, this subject gives numerous people, including yourself, lots of fun things to to talk about. (What else were you going to do today?) What we suggest is simply that we forget about the flaws of scientific and rational discourse (ie. Western rules for methodically whitewashing and reattributing the cultures and achievements of brown people to less brown people), forget about finding fault with those who hold "flawed"[sic] views, and simply focus on WP:NPOV. Is that fair enough? Thanks, -Ste|vertigo 20:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Vertigo, since I am writing here;don't misunderstand about my day to day work. This shows your nature.For your kind info, I have many other important things to do as a head of ltd. co. It's because of my deep interest & knowledge about India that I am writing here.It's not some fun for me to write here. But definetely, it's funny thing that you are writing such totally out of track things here ( instead of commenting on any proper writings - may be due to lack of knowledge ).

Note some examples, English attempts to remove Welsh language from Welsh for centuaries. Still Welsh language has not died as mother tongue and infact reviving currently. Arabs invasion of persia ( Iran ) which made religious conversions and was not able to change language of Iranian people which is Persian or Farsi.Muslim rules in India from 12th century could not replace language of people. Roman church is not able to change language of people of Europe. So, how can you expect to change linguistic & cultural landscape of vast Indian subcontinent by some `Aryans' from central asia. As now said that Hinduism evolved from strong IVC substrate after Aryans came to India, then how & why each & every term of Hindu scriptures became Sanskritic. Yoga for which we find different Yoga postures small statues from IVC, then how & why full basic nomenclature of Yoga changed to Sanskrit ( even Yoga is Sanskrit word ). In spiritual matter if Aryans had to accept more than to give ; then how come all Hindu scriptures were in Sanskrit. WIN

Your example that the Aryan languages could not have wiped out the extant languages is true. The extant languages have lived on in the Dravidian and the Austro-Asiatic languages of India. Further these languages have had an influence on Sanskrit itself (increased use of retroflex in Sanskrit) and accounts for much of the difference between Vedic and Classical Sanskrit. The extant languages had a larger impact of the Pakrits, from which the modern Indian languages (MILS) have evolved. You will find the evidence in the MILS. Chaipau 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN is not interested in evidence. Why, he could just consult the literature for that. WP:DFTT. dab (ᛏ) 19:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not `evidence' as told by Dab.To term this speculation as `evidence' is not proper. Similarly, many speculations for this theory which were held as some `evidences' is a great blunder today. It seems that the whole meaning of cultural asimiliation is reversed only for India. Chaipau is again describing scenario of invasion of IVC which is ruled out.I have mentioned above that even severe invasions in Iran or India could not replace the language of people. And, don't forget that Prakrit Languages are direct descendant of Sanskrit.These Prakrits were already people's languages during Buddha & Mahavir's time.Prakrits are just degraded forms of Sanskrit with no typical deep grammer of Sanskrit.If retroflex is of Dravidian origin then why earliest Sanskrit scriptures like Rig-Ved also contains these retroflex words and remember that correct reciting of all Sanskrit verses was deeply stressed to prevent any degradation.Indian languages contain 56 sound words letters, where as non-Indian languages have around half of it.If correct Sanskrit verses reciting was so much stressed then why any Aryan people will accept any change in their language.It clearly seems that above written speculations were without deep understanding in this matter or due to motivation of clearly mis-guiding people. I am saying this because previous Western Sanskrit scholars had `found' invasion in aryan Rig-Ved and speculated dravidians in South as some invasion `evidence'- a clear misguide. WIN

I forgot all about taking him to RfA, but please, someone just ban him straightaway if that is possible. He's never made a single well-sourced, productive edit with idiomatic, correct English. Underneath all the show of making an argument, it's really just vandalism. CRCulver 06:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I just missed one point to tell you about Retroflex in Sanskrit. If retroflex in Sanskrit is due to Dravidian influence then why in Avesta - which is called as written in Avestan language and composed by Iranians also contains similar retroflex words. Now, if you have read any Avesta verses and if you know Sanskrit then you will immediately come to know that Avesta is also written in language which is very similar to Sanskrit. But it also shows Sanskrit Apabransh type words and it's grammer is very similar to Sanskrit.Avesta's verses are also made in similar style of Rig-Veda. Check out http://www.avesta.org where you can find original Avesta in Roman script.So,how come this Iranian Avesta contains retroflex which is predominant Dravidian as per Aryan theory supporters ? WIN

Avestan has no retroflexes, as you would be aware if you spent more time reading and less time ranting. dab (ᛏ) 15:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In Avesta, Yasna 53 mentions Vahishta which is Sanskrit Vashishta ( also found in Rig-Ved as creator of many hymns & in Ramayan ) and in this Sanskrit name `sh' is a retroflex. Changing of Sanskrit `s' to Avestan `h' is very well known.So, there is retroflex in Avestan. Also, Russian & Polish which are Indo-European languages have retroflexs. Then, should we understand that South Indian dravidians influenced & lived in Russia & Poland also ? Read more for croatia & Horovathos http://www.hr/darko/etf/et01.html#origins WIN 08:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is okay with the community here, I will simply start reverting all of WIN's diatribe-like additions to this Talk page. However, I think a more satisfactory solution would be his banning. CRCulver 12:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Do it. But banning him won't stop him. It will only make him spout off from new IPs and give him some sense of martyrdom that I think he would relish.--Hraefen 14:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be more in favor of "banning" you two instead, as your calls for "reverting" and outright "banning" show a lack of civility, and an ignorance of our dispute resolution process. If you were paying attention, WIN's has simmered down enough to state his points in a more coherent way. These points are answerable directly. As with any philosophical idea, DNFTT has a balancing opposite, namely WP:BITE, and WP:NICE. There are limits, but this didnt appear to be one of those cases, and in no case will we tolerate an incivil circumvention of DR. PS: There is of course a great irony in criticising someone for their poor English, with regard to a topic about Indic languages which few (if any) of us masters of English speak natively. -Ste|vertigo 18:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC) -Ste|vertigo 18:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

um, what? It is ironic to complain about broken English on an English language encyclopedia? It's not like we have a habit of spamming hi: in broken Hindi, after all. Furthermore, regardless of DNFTT and BITE, this is a simple case of WP:NOT. Point the misguided but bona fide newbie to this page, politely. If they contine their aggressive ranting, we don't have to put up with them. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to babysit or entertain the choleric and logorrhoetic. dab (ᛏ) 21:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

You are free to get back to work Dr. Bachmann. I was simply correcting the manners of two other individuals. -Ste|vertigo 01:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Until WIN realizes that we are not here to settle for once and for all the truthfulness of the Indo-Aryan migration section, but rather to reflect the findings of reputable scholars, I will continue to revert his diatribes, because they are simple vandalism. I urge all other conscientious editors to do the same. If WIN made a comment here that actually served the purpose of Wikipedia---polishing the article into a true reflection of scholarly opinion (which does not come from citing amateur websites)---then I would not revert it. Time will only tell if he wises up. CRCulver 07:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks like he's blocked for good. Thank goodness. Should we edit out all his diatribes from this page? CRCulver 09:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He (WIN) made some fairly good points, but for you all its "diatribe". This sounds like Witzel all over again. He provided evidence from Ramayan and Vedas, but of course, those are rants. Look at it objectively.Bakaman%% 03:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Astronomical evidence must be presented in a neutral tone

Paul,

I am sorry but I can’t let your edit stand in its current form. It must be modified to remove all anti-indian bias from it and make it neutral, factual and objective.

Regarding the first statement, i.e. “As an example, they argue that positions of stars they allege are described in the Vedas point to the 3rd millennium BC or even earlier.” The word allege will have to go. What people claim is what they claim. They never ‘allege’ while making claims. So the first statement should be written as

As an example, they argue/claim that positions of stars as described in the Vedas point to the 3rd millennium BC or even earlier.

Coming to the second statement i.e. “Such dating claims based on archaeoastronomy are widely rejected as pseudoscience”, since it is a contested statement, sources must be provided for this statement. You can’t make a sweeping statement that “such claims are widely rejected” when a significant chunk of world population hotly contests it. Moreover, such statement also violates Wikipedia policy against weasel words [2]. I suggest that you read the policy page regarding weasel words and educate yourself about how such statement can compromise the neutrality of an article in subtle ways.

Therefore the second statement will be acceptable in the following format:-

Such dating claims based on archaeoastronomy are rejected by so and so persons and/or organizations as pseudoscience. {references' links here}

Please consider these points before attempting any more reverts.

Sisodia 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

---

no. there are two claims: (a) positions of stars are described in the vedas, and (b) these positions point to a particular date. If we merely say "people claim that the positions described point to such and such a date", we only present (b) as a claim while taking (a) for granted. The "alleged" leaves room for (a) being a claim rather than a fact. More detail (what is disputed, what is commonly accepted) can only be discussed for a particular example. Archaeoastronomy is not a method in good standing. We should properly remove the entire section until people come forward with more specific information. At Hindu astronomy I discussed one specific case. The upshot is that there is no gain of information to be derived from this stuff (other cases lie similar). Archaeoastronomy can be used to show that the Vedas were composed at some point during the past 8000 years, but hey, we already knew that. It is unfair of you to ask to specify who denounces 'such claims' without specifying the precise claims first. dab (ᛏ) 08:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

furthermore, the archaeoastronomy stuff, dodgy as it is, is also useless for arguing about migration. Take for example the Pleiades argument I've taken the trouble to examine at Hindu astronomy. Even if it is accepted that the statement preserves a memory of the 29th century (a rather big if), the Pleiades rose in the East in 2900 BC at the Oxus just as much as at the Indus. Nothing is gained in terms of proving or disproving migration. Of course it is ridiculous to argue for a 2900 date based on a mention of "east" in the SB in the first place, but even as a ridiculous argument, it is not pertinent here. dab (ᛏ) 09:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Calling all objections to archeoastronomy "anti-India" is not correct. The Indian Astrophysicist, Rajesh Kochhar has clearly mentioned that the astronomical data is not reliable ("The Vedic People: Their History and Geography", Sangam Books, Delhi, 2000). Chaipau 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

if people wouldn't break things down in "pro/anti-Indian" terms all the time, I would honestly not know whether endorsing IAM as a reasonably well established hypothesis should be considered 'pro' or 'anti' Indian. We shouldn't even have to talk about this (but this is Wikipedia). The only 'anti' alignment I have is anti shoddy scholarship, which certainly applies to this astronomy cruft. dab (ᛏ) 13:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

This article is unreadable. If I want to read about Indo-Aryan migration, I should be able to read about it without running into refutations at each and every sentence. This point has been made earlier. I suggest that objections to this "theory" be moved to a separate section or another article. Chaipau 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If only. You throw the sand against the wind, but the wind blows it back again. Paul B 19:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Has this been tried before? If we collectively vote for it, then we may be able to do it. Else, it amounts to vandalism. Chaipau 15:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, good old censorship would maybe be the more appropriate word. Wikipedia is neither the mouthpiece of Witzel nor of Kalyanaraman. The theory is neither proven nor disproven, regardless of what Witzel or Kalyanaraman would like you to believe, and censoring one part of the debate won't change this fact.

However, because the article is quite long, a lot of text could be moved to sub-articles, like linguistics of the AMT. --Rayfield 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Indo-Aryan migration is a lot more than Witzel vs Kalyanaraman. And that is what I want to read in this article. This has nothing to do with censorship. There should in fact be a section on "Hindutva objections". I am more interested in finding out which aspects of our present knowledge demand an Indo-Aryan migration, and which don't. No matter how hard I try, I find this article unreadable. Chaipau 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make strawman arguments for me. I didn't say it was a Witzel vs Kalyanaraman issue, I said it was a Witzel and Kalyanaraman issue. Both scholars have been accused, rightly or wrongly, of ignoring evidence that is contrary to their theory or of dismissing it without valid reasons. If we would follow your argument, the article would soon read either as a handout of Witzel or Kalyanaraman, with theories represented as fact, and no rational, neutral or balanced treatment of the topic. But on wikipedia WP:NPOV rules apply. (I'm exaggerating a bit, of course, but this seems to be standard on this/these talkpages.)

If you find the article unreadable, then change the wording. But this is not a excuse to censor all information from one side, as you seem to imply. You couldn't have more clearly revealed your biases by saying that all critical information should go to the "Hindutva objections" section. This is the equivalent as if WIN demanded that all pro-AMT text be moved to the european racist section. You surely are not thinking that scholars like Mallory, Possehl, Kenoyer, Sethna, Erdosy, Brentjes and so on should be quoted in a "hindutva" section?

Because this is such a large topic, all of it can hardly be treated in a single article, and ideally this article should only link to subarticles that are more detailled. This could also make the article more readable.

You said: "I am more interested in finding out which aspects of our present knowledge demand an Indo-Aryan migration, and which don't." This is a valid argument, but I don't see how this can be done by deleting one side of the debate. I recommend to you to read a recent book on the topic. I just read some pages of Mallory's Encyclopedia of Indo-Iranian culture, and the sections on Indo-Aryans were treated scientifically, i.e. objections to many of these theories were also mentioned. I hope you're not going to accuse him for also writing about "refutations" or "objections". --Rayfield 19:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Before you accuse me of bias, please read what I am suggesting. I have read some books on this issue, and there are perfectly critical examinations of the issues involved here. And that is what I want this article to sound and read like. I have tried reading some critiques from the Indian nationalists too, and some non-Indian writers who take their out-of-India positions. They sound too partisan, which is my chief problem. I do not want this article to sound like it is an internet debate between Witzel and Talegeri, for instance. But I want their critique to be given their due places in the article too. Sometimes these critiques are not at all relevant. For instance the tirade on Max Muller, or Mortimer or Macaulay. Yet I think it is important that they find a place in this article in a different section. This criticism is not relevant to the article at hand, but in the bigger picture, it is. Because it represents a political movement in a broader context, and it is important for people to read what it has to say on the subject. So do not just shoot from the hip and accuse others of bias.

And yes, I shall be editing bits and pieces myself, when I get the time.

Chaipau 19:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I have misunderstood you, sorry about that. Maybe you should be a bit more specific and not make sweeping statements about the whole article. --Rayfield 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I would like to extend that sweeping comment to many other articles that have been touched by this blight. In these articles, nearly every sentence seeks to negate the previous one. I am holding my head after reading them. I see that all these articles have something to do with the Aryan Migration Theory. Every sentence in this encyclopedia that somehow hints at this migration is being attacked, using positions of well known scholars, besides cranks. My suggestion is, please separate out these criticisms from each other to make the articles readable. If there are different theories for the same evidence, put them in separate sections. If individual sentences need to be rebutted, please do it in a following section "Critique of the above blah blah". etc. This will make the theories as well as the criticisms more coherent. Chaipau 00:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to Aryan migration theory (AMT)

I suggest this move, it is more accurate. While a google search is not always appropriate, the search ""indo-aryan migration" -wikipedia" and ""aryan migration theory" -wikipedia" have almost the same results, with AMT having slightly more results.

Otherwise, the intro in the article is false. There were of course also other indo-aryan migrations, then the migration of the AMT. --Rayfield 19:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The distinction between "AIT" and "AMT" is a largely artificial one promoted by the likes of WIN into something far more significant than it is. There was never any widespread belief in a "blitzkrieg" invasion, indeed Müller's model was always placed more stress on migration than invasion, and numerous 19th century writers envisaged a long process of diffusion and acculturation. The opposition between "Aryan Invasion Theory" and "Aryan Migration Theory" is one created by the opponents of the standard model. We should not institutionalise it here by having the two articles named as if to justify the nationalist version of history. In any case, the term "Indo-Aryan" is more accurate than the ambiguous "Aryan". Paul B 12:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The terms which include "migration" (both Aryan migration theory and Indo-Aryan migration) are the terms currently used by scholars who favor the "AMT model". For example on listserv.linguistlist.org, such scholars also use the term "Aryan migration theory". But you're right that the distinction between invasion or migration is not easy to define, and there is some confusion about the definitions. (It is also the "migrationists" who make this distinction into AIT vs. AMT, to distinguish the AMT model from the "Mortimer Wheeler" invasions, while some of the critics of the AMT say that there is no real distinction between AIT and AMT.)

The problem with the article title is that there were of course also other Indo-Aryan migrations in history (eg the migrations of Ghandari/ Niya Prakrit, Parya and Dumaki speakers), and the article (including the intro) almost exclusively talks about the migration of the AMT. Also, the AMT is a theory and hypothesis, and it may be more accurate and neutral to call the article Aryan migration theory or Indo-Aryan migration theory. But maybe these are minor points that can be resolved in the article. --Rayfield 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

the scope of this article is any migration of early Indo-Aryans, including that of the Mitanni. Therefore, this article does not cover a particular 'theory', but the spectrum of scholarly opinions on where and when then Indo-Aryans separated from the Proto-Iranians, and how they got to India. The "Invasion theory" is a polemical distortion of "blitzkrieg" scenarios, purposedly formulated so as to make it sound improbable. The scope of the article does not extend to later migrations of Indo-Aryans, such as the Roma, because these are sub-branches of Indo-Aryan, that can be better identified as "Roma migration", "Gandhari migration" or whatever. But any description of BCE migrations of Indo-Aryans should fall within its scope. All we know for certain is that the IA language reached India at some point in the early 2nd millennium. There are various scenarios of how this may have come to pass, and they can all be discussed here. dab (ᛏ) 05:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Andronovo

The article has two images about Andronovo. The Andronovo pictures would rather belong to the Indo-Iranian migration or Indo-Iranian origins article. (These articles should be created.) The Andronovo model has also its critics, and its relation to I-I and especially I-A is controversial. Therefore, one Andronovo image might be enough for this article. Also, the Andronovo is not the only model used to explain the migration of I-I and I-A. There are also other models within the AMT paradigma, but the Andronovo model is almost the only one discussed, but the other models should also be mentioned (such as Nichols Sogdiana model). Then the image caption says: "archaeological cultures associated with Indo-Iranian expansion (after EIEC).". I think the image caption should be rewritten a bit, because it sounds like this the source endorses these hypotheses, while in fact it only describes them and also lists some objections to these theories. (The original image caption in the book uses expressions like "have often been seen", "which some argue", which "may reflect either" or "candidates include".) --Rayfield 19:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

the relation of the Andronovo horizon to I-I is virtually undisputed. Its relation to I-A in particular is less certain, but has been suggested by e.g. Parpola. I will try to give a more informative image caption, but the EIEC obviously endorses the universal association of Andronovo with I-I (which is all the caption claims, not necessarily I-A). Obviously, the I-As didn't realize when they turned from I-Is into I-As, that is a matter of separation from the Iranians, and obviously if you point to the origin of the I-Is, you automatically are pointing to the ultimate origin of the I-As. The image does not only show Andronovo: Yaz is associated with Iranians, not I-As, while the cultures in India are, obviously and universally, identified with I-As (except for Cemetary H, which may be an intermediate stage of I-A-Dravidian contact) dab (ᛏ) 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

btw, I appreciate your effort at shortening the article, Rayfield. I removed the "hastin" though, because there is no "hastin in the Rigveda", just ibha. The argument was exceedingly far-fetched anyway, and this article doesn't lose by not repeating it. dab

(ᛏ) 20:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Dab, in RV 1.64.7 and RV 4.16.14 Mrga Hastin occurs. Many scholars have translated this as elephant. Ibha is only used in the Samhitas and especially in the Rig Veda, and some scholars also translate ibha as elephant. And Varana is also in the RV and also translated by some as elephant. --Rayfield 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. 4.16.14(!) and 1.64.7 certainly do refer to wild elephants. This is interesting, and I was not aware of it (nor was it in the section you removed). 3.36.7 and 9.80.5 are examples of the same word still meaning "with hands". dab (ᛏ) 21:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The image description needed to be a bit more detailled, IMO. I changed the wording of the Andronovo image a bit, based on the image description in the EIIC. --Rayfield 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

thanks, your caption is fine. dab (ᛏ) 13:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones and Sanskrit

It is true that Jones in 1782 already assumed a "common source, now lost" of Greek and Sanskrit. However, Jones was not the first European scholar to compare the two languages, and even after Jones, the archaic nature of Sanskrit was rather over-estimated for many decades. Even the "PIE" of Schleicher's fable (1868) reads almost like Sanskrit. So yes, people immediately realized that Sanskrit is not equal to PIE, but the preconception that Sanskrit is exceptionally close to PIE persisted until the later 19th century, which is the point we should be making here. (today, it is assumed that Vedic Sanskrit is a typical language of the mid-2nd-millennium in terms of archaicity, which is -duh- part of why the Rigveda is dated to the mid-2nd-millennium; if we had a "European Rigveda" dated to 1500 BC, its grammar would be similarly archaic (but it's phonology unsatemized); but since we don't have such a European text, this is a matter of (albeit rather confident) reconstruction, of course) dab (ᛏ) 13:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jones and Babel

I think the early idea that Sanskrit and Avestan were close to PIE is indicated. I've added a bit about the early speculation about a link to the Japhetites already added in predictably distorted form by User:Ganga Hare. The notion that Jones proposed IE "to show the correctness of the Biblical, Tower of Babel theory" is of course nonsense, but he does assume the accuracy of Genesis, and attempt to fit Hindu mythology into the events it describes,

We have, therefore, determined another interesting epoch, by fixing the age of Crishna near the three thousandth year from the present time; and, as the three first Avatàrs, or descents of Vishnu, relate no less clearly to an Universal Deluge, in which eight persons only were saved, than the fourth and the fifth do to the punishment of impiety and the humiliation of the proud, we may for the present assume, that the second, or silver, age of the Hindus was subsequent to the dispersion from Babel; so that we have only a dark interval of about a thousand years, which were employed in the settlement of nations, the foundation of states or empires, and the cultivation of civil society.

This does fit with early claims concerning the antiquity of Sanskrit, since Iran/Indus/Bactria would be assumed to be an early place of settlement for the Japhetites, from which they could then expand into Europe - OIT indeed! Jones even suggests that the figure of Odin derives from the Buddha. Paul B 12:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

well, yes, but make sure to separate the history of the hypothesis from the hypothesis itself. It may well be that some Brits back then brought biblical literalism into play, but you would of course be laughed out of any conference if you did that today; the 1800 BC date is based on archaeology, not on the Bible. It is sad that this needs to be emphasized, but with the kind of input we are getting here all the time, nothing seems to be too obvious to be mentioned. If you ask me, the history of the hypothesis should be treated over at Aryan Invasion Theory. dab (ᛏ) 15:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That's why I moved the discussion from the lead to the history section and reduced it to a sentence. The AIT article did have a longer discussion of this point, but I'm not sure if I can bear to look to see if it's still there. I find it painful to read that article these days. Paul B 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Gange Hare. If you are going to refer to Trautmann then it you will need a proper reference, rather than just "says Trautmann". This is a complex issue, partly because there was a lot of debate about the relationship between the Babel dispersal and natural differentiation of tongues (which was of course known to occur because of the evolution of Latin into the Romance languages long after Babel was supposed to have occurred). There was also specific debate about differentiation of "Japhetic" tongues independently of and possibly prior to Babel (see confusion of tongues). This is a highly complex historical issue, but is only of marginal relevance here, and of course modern IE theory has long ago left such debates behind. I moved this discussion into the history section, which is where it should go. Detailed discussion of Jones's influences should go in William Jones (philologist). Paul B 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to Ganga Hare, I wil revert no more today, and neither should you if you are not to break the WP:3RR rule. Paul B 10:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added the book details from which the quote was taken. Ganga Hare 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

strawmen arguments

we keep getting edits that attack strawmen, i.e. try to disprove things that aren't even claimed, the most popular being

• "military invasion"; there can easily be a paragraph on this option, presenting arguments, the upshot will be that a sudden invasion is far less likely than a gradual intrusion. The observation that the I-As are unlikely to have crossed the Hindukush in their chariots can safely be left out, because nobody in their right mind would make such a suggestion, you might as well argue that they are unlikely to have carried their fire altars without the flame going out.
• "genocide / Indians are of Central Asian origin": similarly, arguments dealing with the probable size of the population movement can be presented. The upshot from genetic studies, as well as from comparison with similar events, will probably be that the "Central Asian" intrusive element in modern Indian genomes will make up some 20-30% at most.
• "the Aryans overthrew the IVC" While there have been serious suggestions that they were instrumental, I think the mainstream will be that it is more likely that the newcomers simply profited from the weakness following the fall of the IVC.

in short, it should be made perfectly clear that the mainstream scenario of IAM does NOT claim a military invasion, does NOT claim that the I-As overthrew the IVC, and does NOT claim that most, or even many, of the ancestors of modern Indians lived outside India in 2000 BC.

A useful comparison would maybe be Peru: From 1960 to 1990, use of indigenous languages fell from 40% to 30%: Only some 15% of Peruvians are of Spanish ancestry, but 70% of Peruvians speak Spanish natively. This is the situation 500 years after the invasion (and it was a clear 'invasion' in this case); extrapolate from this how the language distribution might look after another 1000 years. The point is that a slim population influx (10%) can completely overturn the linguistic landscape in a matter of a couple of centuries. Religion is even clearer: 80% of Peruvians are Roman Catholics (vs. 15% of European ancestry). Although there is a lot of syncretism: "Peruvian Catholicism" retains elements aboriginal Peruvian religion. This is what happens every time in such situations, and it is exactly what is expected in the case of India 1500-500 BC: Vedic religion was Indo-Iranian religion syncretized with post-IVC religion. dab (ᛏ) 18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Some Points which suspects concept of central asian aryans

1. Then how come Rig-Veda mentions greatness & vastness of Saraswati river & mentions as flowing from Mountains to Ocean.As found by Geologists that Saraswati river ( present Ghaggar-Hakra small water channels flowing on same route of this mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu river ) which dried from Indian subcontinent before 2600 BC or totally vanished atleast before 1900 BC, should not be known to some Indo-Aryans. And, then they should not be able to make towns ( sanskrit vedic pur ) on her banks and base their life on their mother river as said in Rig-Veda.

2. USA was occupied by Europeans by invasion route then also USA's biggest rivers Mississippi and Missouri's names are original native american. So, how come every Indian rivers names changed based on some Central Asian tribal people's Sanskrit language. Even South India's biggest rivers names ( Godavari river, Krishna river , Kaveri river )changed based on some central asian tribal language. Then, those central asian tribal aryans must be very great people that they could do what their same native central asian Saka & Hunas invaders could not do.

3. Greek historian Pliny ( Elder one ) mentions in 360 BC that Indians are having kings list & calender going back to some 6000 years.i.e. these ancient Indians ( Dravidians as per this theory ) were maintaining calender from such a long time. Then, how come each & every Astronomy based terms in India is Sanskrit ( so called Central Asian tribal people's language ). Check Pliny the Elder's `The Natural History' 6.21 and it's link http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137&query=head%3D%23253 and his writings from the link " From the time of Father Liber to that of Alexander the Great, one hundred and fifty-three kings of India are reckoned, extending over a period of six thousand four hundred and fifty-one years and three months". When Pliny finds India and Indian population to be very vast which they have never seen alike in any country then how come some so called central asian tribal aryans were so so so able as told ?

4. From IVC , it's found some teeth being drilled to do dental treatment and this dental treatment drilling is found by European excavators. i.e. IVC people were having developed Dental surgerical knowledge and knowledge about human health and well being. Which is exactly Ayurveda as known to Indians today. Ayurveda's foundations are considered in vedas like Atharvaveda. Refer the articles http://archaeology.about.com/od/inventions/qt/dentistry.htm and New York Times report http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/07/science/07teeth.html?ex=1152417600&en=501d7993d9a79d1a&ei=5070 . Why IVC Indian people will change each & every terminology of human health to some Central Asian tribal people's language ? Dental word is derived from Sanskrit word Dant = Teeth. Since ancient Indians were having good dental surgical knowledge then why they will change teeth's name to Sanskrit Dant. Ayurveda is full science of human health whose roots are found in other vedas. Then how central asian aryans were able to make such in depth knowledge about Indian plants & it's medicinal values, effects of seasons on human health etc. within some hundreds of years which their so called non-Indian brothers & sisters could not do still today.

5. Yoga postures are found from IVC excavations as small terracota statues. Why anybody will change each & every Yoga postures' names to some central asian tribal people's language ?

6. During Indus Valley Civilization ancient Indians were very advanced with number system and decimal system as evident from weight measurement stones used.They are found over entire IVC ancient India. They had uniform bricks in perfect ratio of 1 : 2 : 4 which is still best ratio for brick and still used. This shows that time's advanced mathematical knowledge permeated down to common man and over extremely vast civilized area. Then, why ancient Indians will accept names of 1,2,3,... etc. very basic thing from some central asian nomads via Sanskrit ?

All these means that Sanskrit having highly advanced technical grammer and words can be a native language of India and not of some tribal people of central asia. WIN 12:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

MY WRITINGS HERE ARE NOT ANY DIATRIBES AS TOLD BY MY OPPOSERS. IT CONTAINS VERY LOGICAL POINTS ABOVE FOR WHICH YOU DON'T REQUIRE ANY REFERENCE MATERIAL AS IT'S COMMONLY KNOWN POINTS. DELETING MY POINTS MEANS THAT YOU WANT TO ADHERE TO " NEGATION " OF ANY ANY POINT WHICH SLIGHTLY GOES OUT OF THE FAVOUR OF THIS THEORY MODEL. YOU WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW ONLY YOUR POV LIKE ABOVE PERU WRITINGS BUT YOU WANT TO DELETE ANY RATIONALIZING POINTS. IT IS EVIDENT FROM YOUR DELETIONS WRITTEN BY noble/eagle WHO HAD WRITTEN SOME POINTS SITING FRAWLEY. BUT YOU ARE NEGATING ANY VALID POINTS WHICH TRIES TO RATIONALIZE YOUR SIDE OF POV. WIN 05:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

the quote "MY WRITINGS HERE ARE NOT ANY DITRIBES AS TOLD BY MY OPPOSERS." may be an all-time Wikipedia classic :) dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of spelling errors pay attention to main contents and it's logic. WIN 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I WAS REFERRING TO THE ALLCAPS (although the spelling adds to the quaint flavour, of course) dab (ᛏ) 12:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

DO NOT delete arguments which may be unpalatable to you.

What in the world is going on here? First of all these opponents of WIN do a robot like delete of all of his article edits. Now, getting emboldened by the fact is WIN is alone on the other side, they think that they can get away with anything. Now they are deleting some well constructed (and in fairly comprehensible English to boot) arguments by him from the talk pages too! This is pure undisguised vandalism and will not be accepted by other like minded editors.

If you can't answer his questions at least let them stand in talk pages unanswered. Future editors of this article will have some background knowledge of the issues that came up during the development of this article. If nothing else a full archive of talk pages will prevent such disputes from re-erupting because it will show futures editors that these issues have already been argued and left inconclusive.

Crculver, I am refraining from reporting you to admins notice board this time. Next time you will have it if you still engage in such idiotic behavior.

Sisodia 03:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Crculver, I just saw your message [3] on my user talk page. Apparently you deleted WIN’s edit from the article talk page because as per your understanding of wikipedia policies, it violates violates WP:NOR. I would like to quote from the same WP:NOR policy page that you have put forth so earnestly in support of your vandalism.

Quote

Like most Wikipedia policies, No original research applies to articles, not to talk pages or project pages, although it is regarded as poor taste to discuss personal theories on talk pages.

Unquote

And this is the Wikipedia position even presuming that WIN is propagating an original research, which I can most certainly assure you that he is not. What WIN is arguing is a very popular alternate view of origin of Aryans. Anybody who has a basic understanding of the ideological currents in modern India can vouch for this fact. So even if you find WIN’s arguments in poor taste, I would advice you to let them be. Let the wikipedia readers decide whose position is closer to truth.

Sisodia 04:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Talk pages are only for defending or critiquing edits to the article, they are not chat rooms. WIN never makes any edits to the article, he only posts on Talk pages. This is inappropriate. WIN has stated that he will not stop posting on the Talk pages until we other editors remove the mainstream scholarly view from the article and replace it with his points. That is where OR comes in. CRCulver 14:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the admin who blocked WIN gave permission to delete any statements which do not directly relate to changes made to the article. You should read his points. CRCulver 14:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Crculver, if you find me as propogating some original research idea then why History of Greece mentions that Indo-European was a myth ? And, for your kind info that's not my "original research idea". Then, you should be able to answer my above mentioned central asia aryan suspecting sub-heading points which refutes this myth. WIN 05:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

it is easily possible to answer your naive 'refutations', but it is impossible to convince you, because you have no interest in actual dialectic argument. We are not here to give you basic education in linguistics or historical method, and it would be wasted time anyway (if some day you want such education, you should try spending a few years at university, this often helps). Either stick to quoting expert opinions, or find another forum to air your views. You have been told so repeatedly, and if you do not finally respect Wikipedia policy, I am afraid you will end up being blocked from editing. Sisodia is perfectly right in stating that WIN is advancing "popular alternate view of origin of Aryans" common in certain "ideological currents" in India. This is perfectly notable on articles on Indian sociology, and notably on the Hindutva article. It has no place here, since Wikipedia is supposed to give an overview of mainstream scholarship. For the same reason, we do not discuss Xenu or the Teutonic race on Neolithic Europe, or Epsilonism on Ancient Greece. These examples show that examples of propagandistic pseudohistory may get their own articles if notable in their own right, but they have obviously no place in discussions of mainstream topics. This is why we are asking for citations: If WIN cites a source that is undisputedly academic, there will be no problem in keeping it. As long as he doesn't, he will be rolled back. That's simply the rules of Wikipedia, Sisodia, and you should know them by now. dab (ᛏ) 10:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out the nonsense on History of Greece though. A kindred spirit of yours must have been at work there, I'll look at the article in greater detail. Feel free to ask for citations yourself if you find such ridiculous stuff. dab (ᛏ) 10:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it is necessary to answer you because otherwise other editors will get the impression that your "logical points" are as unanswerable as you think. But there is no point in discussing these issues with you because you simply refuse to acknowledge arguments against your position or to build consenus. Sadly, it's true there are Greek nationalists who have views that would be virtually indistinguishable from yours if the word "Sanskrit" were replaced by "Greek". I have met two myself at conferences. They believe that Greek is a perfect language that could not conceivably have been introduced by "primitive barbarians". Greece is the fount of civilisation. Similarities to Greek in other I-E languages are due to the diffusion of Greek concepts and the prestige of Greek culture, leading to the adoption of Greek words and gramatical forms, etc etc.... Paul B 10:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I am expecting some sensible & logical answers for suspects of central asian aryan heading. For citing above points, you require understanding of the subject and not assertions about `mainstream acedamics'.

Your current very much "mainstream" acedamic M.Witzel is found to mis-translate BSS verse to find some `into India' migration from Sanskrit scriptures. I have already cited links to this problem earlier where you will find all ref. if you READ. Otherwise, without reading & understanding recent developments you will always refer old matters in this thoery. If anybody says that vedas were composed by some "primitive barbarians" then that means he/she is totally ignoring deep thinking & science ( astronomical , mathematical, life science, language science etc. etc. ) in it - which can not be conceptualized by "primitive barbarians". Any logical person knowing history knows that Ancient Greece point can not be equated with Ancient India. WIN 12:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Crculver, you are DELETING above central asian aryan points. Now, if you delete again then I will report to admin notice board. Your continuous deletion shows pure vandalism in this subject which will not be tolerated. Instead keep it here unanswered to read others or answer to it logically ( if you can ). WIN 05:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

we will not 'answer' your home-spun 'points', per WP:NOT, as was patiently pointed out to you several times. Cite journal articles, and you'll be fine. Continue repeating yourself on talk, and you'll be reverted. dab (ᛏ) 11:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by `home spun points'? Indians know more & deeper than you and that's why this logical points. If you can not answer or understand them then it's perfectly allright with me. WIN 11:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

"logical points"

The following has been added and is disputed:

There is a complete absence of Harappan sites along the present courses of the Yamuna and the Sutlej. Had these two rivers been flowing in their present channels during the Harappan times, the Harappan people would have certainly established their settlements along their banks. On the contrary, there are many sites of the later Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, dated 1000-600 B.C., along the banks of these rivers.

Saraswati has been eulogized in many hymns of the Rig Veda as a mighty, perennial and sacred river, flowing from the mountains into the Arabian Sea. In the later epics Mahabharata and Ramayana this river is described as having disappeared underground. Critics point out that the Vedic Saraswati could have been river Helmand in Afghanistan and since there are many rivers with name Saraswati in India, the name could have been transported from Afghanistan. However, B B Lal states that according to Rig Veda:

• Saraswati lay between the Yamuna and Sutlej - imam me Gange Yamune Sarasvati Sutudri stotam sachata Parusnya (RV 10.75.5).
• Drishadvati and Apaya were its tributaries - Drishadvatyam manusa Apayam Sarasvatyam revadagne didihi (RV 3.23.4).
• The Saraswati flowed all the way from the mountains to the sea - ekachetat Sarasvati nadinam suchir yati giribhya a samudrat (RV 7.95.2).

In Afghanistan there are no rivers by the name of Yamuna and Sutlej, nor are there Drishadvati and Apaya. Further, there is no sea in Afghanistan.

I don't understand the purport of this text, which fails to clarify what bits of "fact" are related to what argument. It is not clear what the opening para is intended to argue. If the yamuna and sultej were not running they couldn't have been mentioned in a "Harappan" RV. I don't know of any mention of the "Arabian sea" in the RV. The issue about flowing to the "sea" is a translation dispute. This is discussed far more coherently in the current Sarasvati River article. Paul B 11:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

the text is inaccurate (the Rigveda mentions Sarasvati once as flowing into samudra, not "many times as flowing to the Arabian sea", and repeats some points that are documented in the Sarasvati article as if they were pertinent to IAM while they are not. Remember that this is the IAM article, not an article on the Harappan civilization. The Yamuna-Sutlej point is from the Nadistuti sukta, in RV 10, dating to after 1200, if not after 1000 BC, many centuries after the IAM, so that while it is certainly worth discussing on Sarasvati River, it is of very little relevance here. dab (ᛏ) 12:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Saraswati's nearby rivers are Yamuna & Sutlej as mentioned in Rig-Veda. And, there are no rivers named Yamuna or Sutlej (Shatudri) in present Afghanistan. This is very basic and logical understanding which indicates that Saraswati has to be an Indian river & not Afghani. But then also, so called Indologists had refuted this basic fact and tried to associte Helmund with Rig-Vedic Saraswati river. That's why I always say that if this is the level of undestanding ( or clear negation of clear facts ) then what's the use in reading those age old books that equate Helmund = Rig-Vedic Saraswati.

I had mentioned this very basic understanding in previous writings on talk pages of Aryan Migration or Aryan Invasion Theory. My suspects for central asian aryans are of similar case where you require undestanding (and not negation of very basic facts).

Saraswati river's geography in Rig-Ved and other Sanskrit scriptures like Mahabharat etc. points that it has to meet Arabian sea and not Bay of Bengal. That time Arabian sea which is modern name will not be there , but by Arabic sea it mentions geographicy as currently known.

Samundra = pond was deduced to equate Helmund = Rig-Vedic Saraswati,which was false fabrication of always known meaning of Samundra = sea /ocean in Sanskrit or Indian languages. In all Indian languages ( even in South Indian Dravidian languages ) samundra = sea /ocean and never ever = pond. But it seems that writing about this basic understanding is considered as off-topic rants because it is against supporters' views or without ref. WIN 12:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

we understand this is your opinion, but we aren't interested in your opinion. Go to a library and look at books. 130.60.142.151 15:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Samudra is ocean in Indic languages. And IP address, personal attacks can get you banned.Bakaman%% 03:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't get banned for editing with an IP, especially one that redirects to your log-in ID. The translation of samudra in this passage is disputed. See [4]. WIN's spectacular obtuseness is evident in his response as usual. He simply does not get that there is a debate here. He seems to think that all words in all Hindu "scripture" from the RV to the Mahabarata must always mean the same thing. His opening comments indicate that he hasn't even read our Sarasvati River page, let alone any relevant books such as Bryant's, for example. 03:26, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Samudra could have changed, I don't disagree.But river won't change to ocean ok? People look at a river and see the other bank. When they look at the ocean however, its infinite. A pandit well-versed in Sanskrit can easily show this. But dab and his crew only think that Witzel is an authority on Hinduism. They downplay Indian scholars and Pandits who are much more qualified to analyze Sanskrit than Witzel and the Indology crew.Bakaman%% 22:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not true at all. It's like saying that only people who hold American passports should be able to edit articles here on American history, even if they have actual qualifications in history, while foreigners with university degrees in American history should keep out. Many Indian scholars and pundits simply ignore all of the advances in historical linguistics made over the last two centuries. The amateur websites that WIN has linked to here show no knowledge whatsoever of the comparative method or internal reconstruction. I'm not saying that Witzel et al. are automatically right, and indeed the pundits might be able to provide a useful critical perspective on his work. I take issue only with your assertion that only Indians, by mere virtue of their birth and religious training (which doesn't necessarily involve rigorous comparative linguistics), are capable of working in this field. CRCulver 22:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But Pundits ( who are brahmins & who have preserved Sanskrit scriptures before advent of modern Printing Press )and who are held as Indo-Aryan people from central asia by so called Indologists are infact opposing this theory most. So called Indologists have never consulted them about their own opinions about their origins. But so called Western scholars have used their own speculations to write this theory which was by-product of British Raj's divide & rule policy and notion of European white superiority. It's not brahmnin pundits at all, but Max Mullerians who are saying that brahmins were from central asia.One who are said to have brought Sanskrit language from central asia and one who have preserved all Sanskrit scriptures for thousands of years ( which is unparallel in World History ) are told to have forgot within some 200-400 years of coming to India that they ( brahmins ) have come from central asia. When, they can compose & preserve thousands of Sanskrit verses perfectly for thousands of years ; how can they fail to remember that they are not native of India ( like Iranians `so called' brothers are mentioning in Avesta that they are not native of Iran ).

American history is not old than 500 years and well documented.So, Americans and graduate in american history from non-american universities have single version for American history.But for Indian history which is more than 5,000 years old and not a single Indian scripture says about some central asian aryans. Even , brahmin pundits are not saying about any AIT/AMT. So,my dear , obviously their thousands of years old version is more authentic than version of 150 years old american university versions( written by non-Indians ). WIN 07:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Existence of River Saraswati gives rise to the following logical steps.

• River Saraswati existed prior to 1700 BC.
• It drier up prior to 1700 BC.
• There is reference to River Saraswati in Rig Veda.

Therefore, Rig Veda must have been written in India before 1700 BC and it was written at the same time when IVC was flourishing.

What is the disagreement about? Is it that:

• River Saraswati did not exist.
• It did not dry up before 1700 BC.
• Rig Veda does not have reference to it.

Precisely, there is disagreement on each of those matters. FWIW, the Saraswati River argument is not clear-cut enough to work in favour of the anti-migration crowd. You'd do much better leaving the Saraswati river off Indo-Aryan migration, except for a link to the SR article, and instead bringing into play arguments that aren't so controversial. CRCulver 10:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the Sarasvati River article. The discussion may be relevant there, certainly not here. I am tired to spend my time pointing out what can be read in the article, and in the sources provided. Basically, Sarasvati is a name, and may historically refer to various rivers, including a "mythical river" (like Rasā). So obviously the "existence of a Sarasvati river" is undisputed (since there are two rivers known to have been called by this name). But your "logical steps" presuppose only a single river was ever called "Sarasvati". Please leave the arguing to the experts, Wikipedia is not a forum for amateur philology. dab (ᛏ) 10:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Nobody says that Saraswati river name is only related to India alone. But Rig-vedic mightiest of all Sapta Sindhu river ,Saraswati river which was not meeting sea during Mahabharat time is certainly Indian. Afghani Saraswati ( Helmund ) is small river not meeting ocean , is case of transfering name of Mahabharat time's Saraswati river's name to similar non-ocean ending small river in Afghanistan. In USA, you find so many places names like New York, Florence in North West pacific , New England etc. which were taken from old habituated place. These USA place names were given due to remembering old lived place and/or finding similar looking old area / town. So, this is similar case of transfering name of non-ocean ending Mahabharat times' river name to similar Afghani river. And, reverse what you are saying can not be true due to above reasons. Also, changing of `S' to `H' is possible but not the reverse.

If Rig-Vedic Saraswati is some Afghani small river then why it's name will be carried till Croatia (Hrvti).

Suppose, if Ganga river dries in future then it will be remembered due to it's importance. Same way IVC Saraswati river is remembered still today by Indians. Why Indians will remember some small Afghani river ?

If Rig-Vedic Saraswati is first some Afghani small river then why it's name will be carried till Croatia (Hrvti). I think that one will have to be utterly illogical like you so as not to undestand this. WIN 10:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

place name similarity

Why some Israel place names are Sanskrit and associating Mahabharat like Palmahim, Kishon and Caesarea. Kishon is kishan ( or Krishna's apbhransh similar in Hindi ) . Caesarea means Kesaria ( which is also very sanskrit ) and this name is also related with Krishna as Kesaria for Krishna. Kesar = Saffron in English. Palmahim is word in Sanskrit and used specially for Kings. This word is used like ` My Lord ' used for Judge in Courts.

Word movement is indeed very old process. WIN 10:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Golly. And "Christianity" was originally Krishna-neeti, and "Islam" is a corruption of the Sanskrit term "Ishalayam".[5] Paul B 10:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying this but above Israel place names are exactly similar to Sanskrit. In Russia, there is a big city named Novosibirsk. Now, Novosibir is exactly same pronounced in Bengali for Sanskrit word, Navashibir. Novo = new and sibir = camp. And, adding `sk' after is russian trademark. In Siberia , there is a city named Omsk ( near to Novosibirsk ) which is Om = very famous Hindu sanskrit word. WIN 11:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Spelling of Rig Veda

Can we have a common spelling of Rig Veda across the article? Should it be:

• Rigveda
• Rig Veda
• Rig-Veda

--UB 11:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know, there is no dominant normative English spelling, but the article on the RV is currently called "Rigveda", so that would seem to be the one to go for. Paul B 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)