Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations

Original Research

In one edit a cautious, precise, and generally applicable, introductory sentence was turned into a narrowly-defined factual statement. Indo-Aryan migration theories, the various scenarios for the dispersal of unattested ancestor languages, have been around in comparative and historical linguistics for over a century. See Masica, Colin P. (9 September 1993). "The Historical Context and Development of Indo-Aryan". The Indo-Aryan Languages. Cambridge University Press. pp. 32–60. ISBN 978-0-521-29944-2. Just because David Anthony has written a popular trade paperback, one such scenario doesn't overnight become the only theory. I'm afraid, I see original research being conducted on a large-scale in this and other linguistic reconstruction pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Original research? Hmm... Anyway, I've re-inserted that part of the old lead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:16, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Missing information

This page misses the critical information that if we accept the argument that the linguistic analysis of Indo-European languages establishes that the people of India and Europe are Aryans, then it also postulates that the Jewish people are not Aryans. It seems dishonest to leave out this information simply because Hitler too used the argument. From an academic viewpoint, it is important to address this point not merely as an abuse by Nazis but in a tone that advocates the point if the rest of the theory is treated as legitimate.

The other point that has been conveniently left out is that the story of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel were responsible for the formulation of the racial angle and linguistic angles of these theories. See publications by Tom Trautmann and Stefan Arviddson for an elaboration of these two angles.

The short version of the race angle is that all of us on earth are descendants of Noah and our ancestors dispersed from wherever his sons settled down. Since Noah cursed Ham that his progeny would be the slaves of the descendants of the other two sons Shem and Japhet, blacks became slaves of whites. The descendants of Shem are the Semitic race and the Japhetic race was renamed as Aryan race in the 19th century.

The short version of the linguistic angle is that the search for the original location of the language of Tower of Babel gave rise to the field of linguistics and the Aryan Invasion/Migration theory based on such analysis. See Tom Trautmann's works for the elaboration of this fact.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.0.199.121 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This page is about the Indo-Aryan migrations, not about Aryan mythologies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indo-Aryan migration theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304073824/http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf to https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Press_files/Fountain%20Ink%20-%20December%202013%20-%20Cover.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Race agenda

[Section Indo-Aryan migration theory#Racism says:]

"the origin of the theory was intertwined with the desire of many in the Western world to find the origin of a pure Aryan race, the division of castes by racial basis"

I have heard it said that Max Muller was trying to justify the colonization of India by the AMT. I have never heard it being linked to the Nordic race theories. I believe the statement needs to be more specific about who was developing it for a racial agenda, or it can be discarded- as in "who" not just "many in the western world". Also it has nothing to do with the "origin" of a pure aryan race. as they were foreigners. Max Muller was a contemporary of Blavatsky, who developed the Nordic race 50 years before Nazis. I don't think they had any common interests.
Also the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant). This is proved by genetics TODAY. I don't have the cited sources available to check, but am suspicious of them.71.161.203.168 (talk) 02:16, 3 May 2017 (UTC)John Dee

Several factual inaccuracies there, m8.

• "the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant)". No. Caste is a Portuguese word. India had Varna (Hinduism) and Jāti. Varna is what is today mostly associated with Caste, but it has no racial basis. Check out the wiki page Caste_system_in_India#Definitions_and_concepts for a detailed treatment. Also, caste in India doesn't mean pure race as you have alleged.
• "This is proved by genetics TODAY". On the contrary, recent genetic evidence show little to no difference between various 'castes', but minor variation only because of endogamy of a few centuries. See [Moorjani et al (2017), "Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India."].

References

Crawford88 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

User:71.161.203.168, I agree that the section should be expanded. Please feel free to do so, but based on what the cited sources say. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The source cited says that Vysya, for example, have had negligible gene flow from neighbours for 3000 years. Where's the "endogamy for a few centuries"? Megalophias (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

[Basu et al. (2016) write:]

"Analysis of ancestral haplotype blocks revealed that extant mainland populations(i) admixed widely irrespective of ancestry, although admixturesbetween populations was not always symmetric, and (ii) this prac-tice was rapidly replaced by endogamy about 70 generations ago,among upper castes and Indo-European speakers predominantly." .

References

The quote you cited from previous paper was describing outliers.

70 generations is around 2000 years. That is not "a few centuries". Megalophias (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• @71.161.203.168: The interpunction seems to have caused some confusion; I've replaced "," with ";"; I hope this helps. Expansion would be good indeed.
• @71.161.203.168 and Crawford88: to say that

"the Aryans DID have a racial caste system (caste means pure race, so the term is a little redundant). This is proved by genetics TODAY."

is probably too simple. The IVC already was a stratified society; the Indo-Aryans, who themselves no doubt also had a stratified society (it was the male elite of this society which came to India, as far as we can deduce), merged into the elite of the post-IVC population, introducing Indo-Aryan genes to the gene-pole. The strongest traces of this mixture can be found in the higher strata of Indian society ('a Brahman has a light skin'...). A long period of admixture spread this Indo-Aryan contribution to the gene-pool throughout India, until endogamy set in. This endogamy was based on, c.q. reinforced, already existing social divisions which also carried physical components.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

• Stephanie Jamison and Joel Brereton state, "there is no evidence in the Rigveda for an elaborate, much-subdivided and overarching caste system", and "the varna system seems to be embryonic in the Rigveda and, both then and later, a social ideal rather than a social reality". Jamison, Stephanie; et al. (2014). The Rigveda : the earliest religious poetry of India. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–58.
• The reason why there are Hindu myths about the destruction of Kshatriyas, is because they never existed in the first place. Varna is as mythological as Rama.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Update lead

Lead should be updated and expanded. There should summary of recent Genetic studies which changed the understanding of the theory in the lead. Currently lead says nothing about it.--Nizil (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Tricky stuff. The inclusion of recent genetical research is already debated, per WP:RECENTISM; to include it in the lead asks for a balanced summary. Do you have a suggestion? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it should go into the lead. It is still an active research area, and no firm conclusions can be reached. It is also hard to find secondary sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for too late reply. @Joshua Jonathan and Kautilya3:, please check out below Silva et al. 2017 and The Hindu article. Does it settle down the debate based on new genetic research? It also discusses past genetic research. Please update the article and lead if required.--Nizil (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Silva et al (2017)

Central Asian source pool for various R1a clads found in South Asia.

"Altogether, therefore, the recently refined Y-chromosome tree strongly suggests that R1a is indeed a highly plausible marker for the long-contested Bronze Age spread of Indo-Aryan speakers into South Asia, although dated aDNA evidence will be needed for a precise estimate of its arrival in various parts of the Subcontinent. aDNA will also be needed to test the hypothesis that there were several streams of Indo-Aryan immigration (each with a different pantheon), for example with the earliest arriving ~3.4 ka and those following the Rigveda several centuries later. Although they are closely related, suggesting they likely spread from a single Central Asian source pool, there do seem to be at least three and probably more R1a founder clades within the Subcontinent, consistent with multiple waves of arrival." Source: Marina Silva, Marisa Oliveira, Daniel Vieira et al (2017), A genetic chronology for the Indian Subcontinent points to heavily sex-biased dispersals

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilber8000 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The above paper and other papers are rewriting the debate. This article in The Hindu summaries it. Have a look. --Nizil (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wow! And Indian newspaper which admits that the IAmt is correct! Now that is news! The Hindu:

The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did.

@Florian Blaschke: come around and enjoy. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Yet, I don't think it should go into the lead (yet), but we do have to mention that the balance is swifting toward 'genetic confirmation' of the IAmt. The same tune is whistling quite loudly at eurogenes.blogspot: "Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent. I'll ponder over it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Please also checkout Silva et al reserach paper too. The paper is already mentioned in article.--Nizil (talk) 14:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, New rebuttal by Swaraj (though not considered as RS). Have a look.-Nizil (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It's clear that they don't like these recent papers; getting to close. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:55, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Extra apostrophe in picture caption should be removed

Hi! It doesn't look like an unregistered user can change this, so can someone please change the caption on the fourth picture down from "A 1910 depiction of Aryan's entering India from Hutchinson's History of the Nations." to "A 1910 depiction of Aryans entering India from Hutchinson's History of the Nations."

If I missed how to do this myself, my apologies!

 Fixed--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting perspective, Aryans coming from a textbook into India! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sintashta, Andronovo, BMAC, Indo-Iranians

The article says "Eastward emerged the Sintashta culture (2100–1800 BCE), from which developed the Andronovo culture (1800–1400 BCE). This culture interacted with the Bactria-Margiana Culture (2300–1700 BCE); out of this interaction developed the Indo-Iranians, which split around 1800 BCE into the Indo-Aryans and the Iranians."

This sentence seems to suggest Indo-Aryans are contemporary with Andronovo culture (1800 BCE). Then how could the Andronovo culture have interacted with BMAC to develop Indo-Iranians from whom the Indo-Aryans branched off in 1800 BCE? If "This culture" refers to Sintashta instead why bring up Andronovo? Also it looks like Sintashta and BMAC are pretty far apart to have had a common development. Overall, the whole sentence sounds pretty illogical unless the dates are updated.