Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)/Archive 3

older entries

Not an expert with wikipedia editing, but why not simply combine all the different theories into one article along the lines of the "Origins of the People of the Indian Subcontinent"? There is a lot of misinformation going around, combined with a lot of different agendas, which is clearly clouding this debate. From the looks of it, this article continues to change on a periodic basis depending on the person editing it. If there are no proper studies conducted on this subject, than please mention it in the article, otherwise a user reading this article might miss out on information found in opposing theories.

---

Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization.

---

I think to truely bring a balance to this argument it needs this missing peice of information - the book is a source for the main article. Please help to incoporate a seperate page, perhaps just under the title of the book, which can have a link in the main Aryan Invasion page.David Frawelys views are important as a counter example to AIT theories. Readers should be able to read all sides of the controversy, in order to get a fuller understanding.- The Mystic

---

NOTE TO NATIONALISTS

I think it’s extremely important that any discussion on AIT/AMT does not get mixed up with Indian Nationalistic views. The problems Hindus have against the AIT/AMT is that it places the origin of their holy scriptures and hence what their culture is derived from, outside India. It also puts the teachings of the Vedas in a bad light because the Aryan invasion theory infers that 'Vedic culture' was used as a system of control of the indigenous people of ancient India and hence has/had no theological, philosophical, or metaphysical value. Ancient India is a bad term in itself because ancient India consists of what is today India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Iran.

For a Hindu to intellectually see the Vedas as valid holy scriptures it is necessary to disprove the Aryan Invasion Theory. And the truth is their is enough scientific evidence to disprove the hypothesis. However the problems here are that if this theory is proven wrong in the west it would change how many subjects are taught today from archaeology, linguistics to ancient history. Secondly any alternative hypothesis is currently purely speculation. Many Indian nationalists jump at this chance to prove how great India is and try to base the origins of language, science and religion in India. But the truth is we have hardly any credible information on ancient India because most of it has been lost.That is not what disproving the AIT should be about!!!

There was a reason the authors of the Vedas never prescribed their names to their work - it was because they believed that what they where writing was above and beyond ANY IDEA OF SELF- Swami Chimnayanda,Kindle Life. Nationalism is a socially conditioned Idea of self that is to say an egoistic idea, were relating to a country's grandure provides personal ego satisfaction.

So if any Hindu nationalists are trying to disprove the AIT for the sake of the validity of Indian Philosophical thought and to prove the Vedas came from India ,that was not what the Vedas stood for, it doesn’t need to be identified as Indian or anything else for it to still be valid - the creators intended it to be universal- in doing so you are not being a Hindu because a true Hindu can never be a nationalist ie to say a fundamentalist."The truth can be stated in a thousand different ways,yet each one can be true." - Swami Vivekananda]

All Hindu saints and mystics from the last century were against the caste system and while promoting the good in Indian culture would also pick out the bad. The very metaphysical interpretation of Vishnu, is that every Avatar came at a time when revolution was necassary to bring back a balance to humanity- for eg Buddha is seen by present day Hindus as an avatar of Vishnu,he came at a time when Hinduism had been overwhelmed by its own Dogmas. Also remember that Hindu culture today doesn’t truly represent 'Vedic culture’ of the Vedas. To use Aurobindo's words 'we are but anglicised Hindus'. - The Mystic

Perhaps you could explain how "if this theory is proven wrong in the west it would change how many subjects are taught today from archaeology, theology, philosophy, mathematics, and linguistics to ancient history." I can't think of any of these subjects - except ancient history - that would be affected, and even that would only be affected in a very minor way. Paul B 18:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In answer to your question :

Archeology - to date only 1% of India's archeological sites have been excavated. Archeology in the the developed world is almost saturated. Which means in the future as it is starting to now, archeological interest is moving away from the west. As and when more evidence of the people of Ancient India are discovered, it would change many current theories on movements of ancient people and cultural influences. Movement of Aryans in India have implications for movements of the Aryans all around the world.

Linguistics - in relation to the Proto Indo European Language and in Anthropology - the Proto Indo European Religion.Look into Mittani culture in Syria which had Vedic influences in 2500 BC, a thousand years before the proposed invasion.

Archeological artifacts of Shiva a vedic God , Lingam's, and 'Vedic Aryan' fire sacrifice sites found in the Indus Valley civilisation, shows Vedic influence in pre Aryan times. This would make one question how the Aryans could have in come into India just before the Rig Veda period, if aryan influences are seen in India before 1500 BC ? Only 12 dozen Indus Valley Civilisation sites were found on the river sindh, over 90 have been found on the dried beds of the controversial saraswati river. Max Muller himself express's his skepticism on the accurecy of the dates he theorized for the invasion.

Theology,Philosophy and Mathematics I cant prove,so I have removed from the top, I do apologize for that. But look into ancient Indo - Greek Relations for interesting overlaps of ideology, similar God's for example. The Aryan Invasion Theory contradicts Pan Asianism, the idea that Asian culture, values, morals, philosophies and tranditions are unique to Asia and interlinked. The Mystic - 03:56, 25th June 2006

OK, several of these points have nothing whatever to do with “Aryan Invasion Theory”, and simply indicate your total misunderstanding of what is meant by the concept. The first paragraph is simply a non sequitor.

1. You say archaeology in the developed world is “almost saturated”, so interest is “moving away from the west”. This isn’t really true, but even if it were it has no implications for any particular theory. The more archaeology is done in India the better, but doing archaeology does not in itself prove or disprove any theory. You have to link physical evidence to linguistic evidence to create a workable model. You have done nothing of the sort. Lingams do not exist in Vedic religion, so finding ‘lingams’ proves nothing. Anyway, what defines a “lingam”. Numerous cultures have phallic symbols or use talismanic stones. The “fire altars” in the IVC are interpreted as nothing more than…fires by many commentators. Every culture has fires, ovens etc. This is a matter of dispute. Max Muller’s doubts about dates are not challenges to “the theory” but proof that different time-scales for migration have been proposed over the years.

2. Your comments on linguistics are difficult to decipher. I know of no “Vedic” influences in Mitanni culture datable to 2500BC. Perhaps you can provide evidence of this

3. No-one disputes that there are links between Greek and Hindu gods. That’s what all proponents of the theory have always said! It’s the whole point of demonstrating links between Dyaus/Zeus/Jove etc. Influences of mathematical or any other ideas of Hindus on Greeks or of Greeks on Hindus in classical times has absolutely no relevance to understanding in which direction or when their distant ancestors migrated.

If it were discovered that PIE originated in the Indus valley this would have minimal influence on our understanding of history – as much as the discovery of the geographical origin of Semitic or of Afro-Asiatic as a whole would have. Knowing that A-A originated, say, in Ethiopia rather than, say, Arabia, wouldn’t affect our understanding of actual recorded history at all. It would only matter to nationalists and racists. Paul B 23:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

One have to be totally pseudo person or he may be a totally dumb person who can not understand clear & radical implications on the above mentioned subjects. Just open that subjects books and you will find that India is not credited for what it should be for. Indian civilization dates back to atleast 7,500 BC of submerged planned IVC towns of Gulf of Cambay.So,IVC dates are pushed back to 7500 BC. And, this gives the answer to the profound depth of India & her culture which definitely can not be shaken by some nomadic tribe from Central asia via simple migration. WIN 12:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

You are 100% correct; India never got credit which she deserved. I think that is changing now, till now we (Indians) believed whatever westerns said is true without questioning. It was known fact most of these theories either created to support their supremacy or give wide publicity to exploit to their benefits (like Hindu/ Muslim, North/South divide). But shortly they realize how foolish this theory is..

I am a Dravidian (in western sense) and from a rural village which have lot of local customs, not exposed to ‘Vedic’ culture, But still I can see lot of cultural commonalities/commonness if I meet a person from other part of India. There is some undercurrent (not only the faith). Why 10 million cannot live in one country in Europe, in spite of same religion. How could more then 1Billion people living peacefully with such a large cultural diversity? That shows inner strengths which no book ever recorded.

They should understand one thing, Though Muslim rulers ruled vast part the country for many centuries but they couldn't change culture totally or they couldn’t convert every one to Muslim, why? Why British/ missionaries /Europeans in 2 century could convert only 2% people to Christianity? with all the powers they had. But they did it in Africa/South America 100%, why not India? Because our culture/faith not alien to this land, totally originated/linked to people's life here. How could we believe bunch of people, aliens to this land can change culture of the whole country? Sure we believed these more than 100 years due to lack of evidence or inferior complex due to lack of education. But not any more, people are watching and aware. 65.96.134.32Niranjan Bukkapatna 01-July-2006

When AIT was proposed that time communication was not at all advance like today ( remember post cards and telegram ).Vivekananda & Aurobindo had opposed this theory. But in British India , their voice was not heard that loud. Also, there were not many developments to refuse this theory and that much deep widespread knowledge. And, remember this theory was slapped on Indians via McCaulay's education system after 1857's mutiny and refuting any logic. WIN 04:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion on Aryan Theory between supporter and opposer

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS FOUND IN /Archive 1 & /Archive 2

I dont think the Avesta mentioned Sapta Sindhu as their homeland. I'll have to read more about it for a better answer but I think it might have it was mentioned as a neighboring area. I might be wrong -Afghan Historian 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)(I changed it to full user name now. Hope I'm not "vague" anymore)

The Avesta says nothing about Sapta Sindhu. WIN is repeating speculation by Koenraad Elst. AFIK, it doesn't mention Afghanistan either, but that became a traditional Zoroastrian interpretation of the locale. Paul B 01:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, and what about River Saraswati point mentioned above ? Have you got anything to say on it ? Who is this vague " Afghan Historian" ?

220.224.43.119 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What's to say? You don't even have the grace to acknowledge the fact that mainstream 19th C writers did not envisage any mass "invasion". "Sarasvati" is a name historically identified with rivers in Afghanistan and Iran. There is no direct evidence that the G-H river was ever called that, but of course it's possible, or that more than one river is meant. On a migrationist model, the timeline for the Vedic expansion into the Indus varies, and may or may not overlap with the drying up of the G-H, the date of which event is not known with any certainty. I don't know who "Afghan Historian" is, but his moniker is no more vague than "WIN". Paul B 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, you are totally gulping previous AIT theory which was prevalent for last 150 years. Your `Aryan' terminology becoming Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranians is some what same. When `Aryan' word became taboo in western world due to Hitler then same world you AIT/AMT supporters modified to Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranians. But this Aryan word never had bad rememberings of World War II and jews killings in India. So, when Indians are still using `Aryan' world , you accuse us with Nazism. ( same way for Swastika sign ).

Previously Aryan Invasion Model was prevalent and now you are gulping that as if westerners never spoke of any invasion in the past and accusing me for any " grace". Previously it was thought in Western world that Rig-Ved was composed in Afghanistan area and not in India. ( How ridiculous ? When there are many evidences clearly available which screams that Rig-Ved geography corresponds to Sapta Sindu area which is naturally Punjab & Haryana of South Asia. Then also to find it's origin in Central asia or Afghanistan which is away from main India is surely not scholarly work. And, to term that as something very acedamic is biggest pseudo thing.) It's similar when River Saraswati is clearly identified in India and G-H river is totally seasonal monsoon water channel and not full fledge river flowing round the year.

And, why Afghan and Iran are also having Saraswati sounding river names ( Harahvaiti in Iran and Afghan )? Both these rivers do not meet ocean. This is same as Mahabharat time's Saraswati river's position. If Saraswati was never an Indian river then why Mahabharat mentions it ? Even, this is clear evidence that great River Saraswati was always associated with India and not Afghan, Iran or central asia. Then also there were many efforts to shift Rig-Ved in Afghan or Central Asia and was done to discredit India's past wholesomely by Western so called Indologists. How to fabricate the story is well known in Western world.

After Rig-Vedic time when two main confluencing rivers Satluj and Yamuna diverted it's path from Saraswati ( due to any geological reasons ), River Saraswati's water flow decreased. Also that time whether pattern in Rajasthan was changing which made Thar desert and less rain fall in that region. So, River Saraswati stopped flowing till ocean. The same is position during Mahabharat. And, Krishna was born in Mathura and spent childhood in Gokul, both on the banks of Yamuna. So, Yamuna diverting from Saraswati is older than Mahabharat time. ( Yamuna & Satluj were once meeting Saraswati is also mentioned in Rig-Ved and also now found by geologists ). So, Saraswati river's mother river saying vastness is during Rig-Ved time. Afterwards, when same river stopped meeting ocean, that time ( which is before & during Mahabharat time ), Indians who had moved to Western areas found similar non-ocean going rivers in Afghan & Iran and they termed them as Saraswati in memory of their original Indian Saraswati river.

That's why Rig-Ved time prominent gods like Agni,Usha,Varun etc. were not so prominent during Mahabharat time. Even, Krishna ( in His childhood time ) had told to stop worshipping Indra for rains.Refer Govardhan Mountain episode. This shows clear shifting of Vedic prominent gods' diminishing importance in Indian society.

Also, there are many points that are questioned in Archieve which says that "Several reasons why Migrations could not have happened after 3500-3000 BC " Have gone through it ? But seems that you can not comment on it's more than 15 points.

"By the 1840s the distribution-pattern of the languages had led several scholars to conclude that India was an unlikely origin-point, since it was at the easternmost extension of the languages. Statements made in the Iranian sacred texts about a northern homeland, along with descriptions of battles in the Rig-Veda, led scholars to conclude that the original Aryans must have migrated into India. This theory is most associated with the linguist Friedrich Max Müller" ----- This is written in the main article. Wow ! what a logic to discard India as origin-point as it's Eastern most point. And, in Avesta original homeland is mentioned as north of Sapta Sindhu area. But this Sapta Sindhu is forgot & North is highlighted. Why ? Otherwise it will imply that Avestan people had come from Sapta Sindhu.

This was notion which was prevailing among so called Western Indologists that they could not accept India as origin point. Now, if these mis-interpretations of Rig-Ved ( which says about Aryan & Dravidian wars ) is basis for Aryan Invasion / Migration Theory then you can understand that AIT/AMT's foundation base are proved to be wrong but still this theory is like scientific invention of sort that their supporters are keeping any logic & understanding behind and always prove them right with old assertions and neglecting any points or findings.

WIN 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aryan_invasion_theory/Archive_2"

Paul, this is for you.

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

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

This should make you aware about what misleading & wrong informations you are writing here. This is the case it always been for Western people. Same way in western world Ram as Arya and Ravan as Dravid is portrayed. But, western people who reads twisted or mis-guided info may not be knowing that in the same Sanskrit texts , Ravan's ancestors' details are also given which says he was a brahmin having knowledge of all 4 vedas.

So, how to twist some info or hide it or mis-represent it, is very well known to Aryan Invasion or Migration supporter from the time of Max Muller.

Infact, in Avesta there is not a single current Iran area mentioned. For Avesta, central geographical area is Afghanistan.

Western people should first brush up their knowlegde.

Now, if these Avestan people( Indo-Iranian people as per modern terminology ) were occupying BunEr (VarAna), PañjAb (Hapta HAndu), RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram ..... which are Initial Avestan areas mentioned. So, these clearly says that Avestan ( Indo - Iranian ) people started from Punjab and reached Afghan areas and then near Central asia areas till Bactria ,Sogdiana and Margiana which lies in or near North-East of present Afghanistan. So, it shows clearsly that how very clear thing is mis-represented by so called western Indologists. Then, it's obvious of them to mis-interpret some Rig-Vedic verses.

So, STOP MIS-GUIDING THE WORLD AND ACCEPT THE TRUTH. WIN 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

-Shut up Win. You are a Hindu Nationalist and a liar like Adolph Hitler who misunderstands history and theories and uses this half-baked knowledge to promote your own agendas!! It is the likes of you who misguide the world!!!! User: Afghan Historian

Afghan Historian, do not boil. You do not have any proof of my statements being wrong. It seems that you can only say it as Hindu Nationalist idea but it's written in Vendidad and it's not my agenda. I am just drawing attention to that point. Hitler was totally wrong about Aryan point and he took it to its negative extreme. I strongly oppose that Hitler's deeds and how Eupeans' Superior White Aryan idea made it's toll on Jews that I had mentioned in my some writing in talk page of Aryan Invasion theory or Indo Aryan Migration.

Terming my above Vendidad point wrong is biggest joke. For your kind information VenidAd was not written me but ancient Avestan people and they have mentioned those areas' name & other geographical things in early vesres of VendidAd and not by me. I am pointer of that knowledge which was deliberately not mentioned in Western World and History books.You do not have deep knowledge in this matter ( as told above ). Even pakhtoons as people are mentioned in Rig-Ved as Pakhta people of ancient NW India. This is total pseudo nature of the person who do not know deep about Aryan Invasion Theory or sees & believes in it through eyes of``so called' Western Indologists . Even, Paul who had mentioned above that Avestan Iranians never lived in Afghanistan is of similar case. But that's pittiness of their knowledge unknownness or pretendance who can not digest idea that there was never Aryan Invasion or Migration. It's like writing History about India without asking Indians or checking Indian records properly !!! WIN 05:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-WIN,the Vendidad never mentioned anything about Sapta Sindhu. It never even mentions eastern Afghanistan,(Gandhara). Where are you getting this idea about the Vendidad from? And, there is no evidence whatsoever of the Pakhta people of the Rig Veda as being identical to the Pashtuns. Western Afghanistan was an area of Iranian settlement and was possibly the birthplace of Zoroastrianism. Genetic proof itself exists for the Aryan Invasion. Indian genes show that people of North Indian or uppercaste backgrounds have a higher frequency of Eurasian genes than people of lower castes. South Indians also have a different genetic history from North Indians. Of course both are predominantly Caucasoid but South Indians do have stronger Australoid/Negrito admixture (Tamils) than North/Central Indians and Pakistanis. South Indians acknowledge themselves as distinct from the North Indians. The idea of Rishi Agastya creating the Dravidian tongues is a myth. As for Shivraj's genetic evidence about European origins in India, even if these genetics were true, they were from 20-40,000 years ago!! Way long before the development of language and language family roots. If it is true, the case probably is that humans from the subcontinent migrated to Europe, evolved there for several thousand years as a distinct nomadic people in the steppe region, developed their own tongue and went on the IE migration from there. They had no writing so they probably had no records or recollection of returning to an old homeland when they arrived in the subcontinent. And if the IE family did originate in the subcontinent, answer some questions: why is there not such a diversity of IE tongues there, why would they migrate out of such fertile areas as Ganges or Indus? Also, why do linguistic similarities in the IE tongues point to areas outside of the subcontinent or the Iranian plateau, word in IE tongues that point to objects not in those areas? Got to go now, but think over that stuff. I also posted something earlier (it's in one of the recent archives) about how the Aryan migration theory does not conflict with the idea of Indigenous Indian civilization. -[[Afghan Historian 19:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)]]

How many times do I have to mention that Afghan areas are mentioned in Chapter 1 of VendidAd.Read my above points very properly. Regarding Indian genes ( which is wrong point in today's situation but you are holding age old & discarded point string ) , read Oppenheimer's report which is also mentioned in this discussion. Remembering Rishi Agatsya as creator Tamil language by Tamils is myth ? Then, why so called Aryans are not remembering central asian homeland when their very own person is remembered by Tamils as their language developer. Even though this is remembered tradition but it is very ancient than advent of AIT. As per your points, south Indians must be silly to adopt Aryan culture,religion,very prominent naming of people etc.

And, Indian subcontinents population today is around 1.5 Billion where as Kazakhistan ( of Andronovo ) or full central asian's population is hardly 5-7 % of Indian subcontinent. India is always being source of knowledge for her neighbours country during historical period. So, these nomadic Aryans giving knowledge to already advanced & civilized Indians in the past is utter non-sense. Even, BBC has debunked AIT. Read below notes. Then, your age-old asertions has got no meaning or weightage. WIN 06:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

WIN, I have archived the discussion. This is not part of a plot to suppress your views. It is normal procedure when a page gets too long. However the length of the page was largely due to your epic posts that are not directed towards the improvement of the page itself. For this reason - and the fact that discussion with you is evidently useless - I will not reply to further posts of this sort. If you wish to saise points in future that will help to improve the article please do so. Paul B 10:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Paul, when you are proved to be wrong in your opinions about AIT/AMT or above Avestan VendidAd point then you are flying away from this discussion forum and you are telling me that it's useless to discuss with me ! You are defeated w.r.t. your support of AIT/AMT because you have only one point of asserting that linguistic similarity is evidence for AIT/AMT. But this linguistic similarity is due to Ancient Indians going out of India to far areas of NW & beyond for which ancient Indian scriptures shows plenty of clear evidences without mis-interpreting the actual scriptures.Also, other so many proved points ( like recent above VendidAd point ) says clearly that AIT/AMT is total baseless theory of pure speculation.

I URGE ALL READERS TO GO THROUGH MY LOGICAL / PROVED POINTS AND UNDERSTAND IT WITH OPEN MIND.

WIN 12:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Shivraj's additions

Shivraj has been repeatedly adding the following paragraph, which I have been repeatedly deleting:

Another view is that this theory was developed as a means to show the superiority of European Aryan race. Max Muller and other western scholars who studied Sanskrit were very impressed with it and wanted to develop a link of this brilliant language with there own race i.e Europeans. They found some roots common in german and sanskrit and invented AIT. There is no archaeological evidence for the invasion. In ancient times there were abundant contact between civilazation in India and Europe and European languages borrowed lot of words/roots from Sanskrit. Interesting fact is that modern non-Indians still cling to this theory even though it has no locus standi or a scientific basis. Genetic/Archaelogical evidence all point to the absurdity of this theory. The word Arya used in India has no connection with word Aryan used in Europe. Rig-Veda mentions Arya/Aryaputra which means people of noble descent i.e. kings, scholars, professors etc. India, many hundred years before Christ, had Universities at Taxila and Nalanda where medicine, surgery, mathematics, advanced grammar were taught. During this time Europe/Greece was still toying around with simple geometrical theorems which they had also borrowed from India, e.g. Pythagorean theorem.

My reasons for deleting it are as follows:

1. It is very badly written, full of poor English.

Go ahead and improve the english. I have got no problem with that.

I would if there were worthwhile content to it. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Learn to spell addditions first.

2. It is filled with inaccuracies, most notably the fantasy that European languages "borrowed lots of words" from Sanskrit, and that this borrowing explains the similarities between the I-E languages. No serious linguist accepts such utter nonsense. Such assertions should not be given room here.

Put down your right wing hat and figure out the reason why Max Muller invented AIT.

He "invented" it becase it fitted the evidence available to him. But the central point here is that you present pure speculation as fact. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

He invented it because he wanted to prove superiority of German Aryan race something which was later utilised by Hitler to massacre Jews.

3. These fringe views are asserted as fact - even to the extent of ascribing motives of jealousy - without any evidence provided.

Read "The Real Eve Modern Man's Journey Out of Africa: Stephen Oppenheimer Publisher: Carroll & Graf; (September 9, 2004) ISBN 0786713348" an english genetecist, whose program was featured on Science channel in the US has debunked this theory completely. Ofcourse you as a right winger would not understand this.

I am not a "right winger" and the book does not have any relevance to the theory at all, as has been explained at least twice on this very page. Read the writings of Spencer Wells to see how a geneticist uses the same evidence to support the theory, or look at Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. It's not even very meaningful to refer to Ice-Age South Asia as "India", since the whole geography of the land was different at that time. All these points about migration genetics are debatable, but should be debated with understanding of the actual issues. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Get your geography straight.

4. Assertion that the theory has "no scientific basis", despite the fact that the I-E language group is accepted by all serious linguists.

You are ascribing to much weight to linguists. This is an inexact science because languages are not a good source of history. You CANNOT draw a conclusion that two similar languages have a common source because some roots are common. This is the mistake Muller made and so are you.

Linguists are the specialists on linguistics, not you. We report on what experts say. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Languages are useless to figure out history. If some expert tells u that then he is lying and if you beleive him you need to enroll urself in a univ.

5. False assertion that "the word Arya used in India has no connection with word Aryan used in Europe." Of course it does.

Again you keep talking absurd junk. One more time word Arya of Veda HAS NOTHING TO WITH ARYAN as the word aryan is understood in the west. You can keep your head in the sand but that does not mean rest of the world should do the same.

I probably know a lot more about the history of the word Aryan in the west than you ever will, but let that pass. The word has developed multiple meanings in both east and west, which both overlap and diverge. Read the relevant articles here (Aryan, Aryan race, Arya, Indo-Aryan, Indo-Iranian). Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You do not know what Aryan means in India. So try and convince someone else.

6. False assertion that in the Rig-Veda the word Arya means means "people of noble descent i.e. kings, scholars, professors etc." Not even Elst or Talageri would say that. 7. Irrelevant claims about ancient Indian universities.

Who cares what Elst, whoever he is, says. Facts are facts. Are you disputing these universities existed in India before christ? Again do some research.

You say Elst "whoever he is" and then say "do some research". Jeez. You haven't even heard of one of the best-known polemicists on this topic and you tell me to research? As for whether universities existed, that depends how you define a "university". Yes, there were centres of learning, as there were elsewhere in the world. The point is that these "universities" are not relevant here. It's like arguing that the existence of Plato's Academy "before christ" proves that proto-Greek speakers never migrated into Greece. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Not relevant to a right winger/Aryan supremacist who is hell bent on pushing a POV that everything great originated from Aryans of Europe.

8. Irrelevant and highly POV assertions about alleged Greek borrowings from India. Paul B 03:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Read Donald Knuth's book on algorithms. He is a professor at Stanford, Palo Alto California and his credentials are far superior then yours.

On the topic of algorithms no doubt that's true, but the point is that it's irrelevant. There are many divergent views about the sources of ancient mathematical thinking, but they have no bearing on whether either or both ancient Greeks and ancient Indians migrated in their earlier history. Paul B 10:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Again head in the sand. If Knuth writes pythagorean theorem was known in India before pythagoras was born should I beleive him or you? And this is just one data point. There are more. Shivraj Singh 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have merely repeated what I said earlier. You just do not listen. Can't help that. Shivraj Singh 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

This revert war is getting tiresome. There's some procedure to be followed in such cases, isn't there? --Lukobe 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's very tiresome. I have added this page to WP:RFC. Paul B 09:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's tiresome for those who do not have any points in their support.

WIN 06:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For Aryan supremacists

This is indeed funny. Germans/Westerners defending Aryan Invasion theory as if it is gospel. Anyone providing counterpoints is either a hindu nationalist or a clueless wiki editor. Though people pushing the AIT, eventhough it is debunked in all forms and shape, have no agenda and are following NPOV.

AIT was proposed by Muller on behest of Britishers in India for cultural imperialism of India. There are no two ways about it. Here is an excerpt from British Broadcasting corporation (BBC). Question is why are these modern day aryan supremacist supporters clinging to the authenticity of this theory?

The Aryan Invasion Theory

One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of :India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of :Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Why is the theory no longer accepted?

The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research has either discred

Aryan Invasion theory

- - - Though i am not a scholar not know much compared to the postings i have read ,i have reasons to believe with Mr.Shivraj about the theory. recent investigations do suggest no archeological or genetic evidence to support the theory . Additionally it can also be argued that civilization started in what is now the continent of africa ,but then aeons earlier this was one integrated land mass which split over time to what we now call as europe, asia, australia etc (there is evidence to support this ; there was a PBS program on this and researchers from madurai kamaraj university have also been involved ). hence due to geological climatic and other conditions differences emanated within the human race ,both visually and genetically. on a religious perspective the bhagavath gita quotes veda as "apour-shayam" meaning inconquearable or aptly no known origin/start ,hence i doubt the vedas having to do anything with regards to human civilizations/classes or way of life ,but merely talks about the rules of living and pursuing eternity. - - Thanks, - - Ranga--129.7.207.145 20:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

- - : Why would archeological or genetic evidence be needed to prove a linguistic theory? archeological culture does not equal genetics does not equal language. --Krsont 12:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Krsont - The linguistic theory, or to say the very assumptions the study of linguistic history is based on, revolves around the movement of ancient people( ie the proto Indo -Europeans from a central Asian homeland all around the world). Since these people are ancient to study them archeoligical evidence is necessary.The aryan invasion theory also states that the aryans were light skined, where as the dravidians (inhabitants of Ancient India at the time of AI) are dark skinned. Hence to study the validity of the said claim genetic evidence becomes necessary in this argument. The ~Mystic - 30th april

- - ==Ramayan==

- - I have been trying to leave a note on the great war decribed in the Ramayan on the main page of AIT. Please don't keep deleting it. It is an important piece that becomes obvious after one reads the whole Ramayan, which I recently did. --RYK 19:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - Dear Rehanyarkhan, - - I have above also written that Ravan was of Bramhin origin and this is also mentioned in Valmiki Ramayan along with his ancestor's details. Ravan was well known knower of all 4 vedas. Also, Ram had worshipped Shiva ( at present Rameshwar temple on Tamilnadu sea-shore where presently famous temple lies ) So, you are telling the same old Englishmen tought thing that Ravan was Dravidian & Demon etc. I want to ask you that which Ramayan have you read ? In Ramayan, Ravan is never told as Dravid. Dravid was termed for languages of South India and not for people. It was during 1850s, that Britishers started using Dravid ( which infect is pure Sanskrit word and never told by Indians themselves as people ) as Dravidian separate race than Aryan and all sort of mis-guidings to students of then Indian educational system developed by McCaulay.But now the world knows that there is no such Aryan or Dravidian race.

- - I urge that you only delete it from the main article which is totally misguiding to the whole world.

- - WIN 04:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

- - - Recently I saw in one TV programme ( in Discovery Travel & Living showing about Germany ) that East Germans ( of non-united Germany ) were shocked when they came to know about Hitler's mass killings of Jews & Gypsies and when they saw those photographs or visited former gas chambers. This info was totally erased from History books & news papers in that country. So , more than 1 generation was totally unaware of this which was very much known to rest of uncensored world.So, you can come to know about the political power in that country that people were shocked to know about Hitler's negative deeds.

- - Europeans dominance in world political arena during last 2-3 centuries and hence developed Eurocentric notion , everything about India's glorious ancient past is erased from world History. So, for nearly more than 150 years of gobbel's propaganda will naturally give shock when we speak against AIT / AMT. Previously , information was not freely available but this is e-age and due to internet you can read my points which was not possible for past Indians - who are also totally coloured with Britisher's education system. Today also ancient India's mathematicians , scientists are not at all known to Indian students as still today they learn about only European mathematics & scientists. Britishers have erased all these stuff from Educational system totally that Indians ( & rest of world ) were left to understand that there was nothing scientific in ancient India. And, still after more than 50 years after Independance students of India are learning nothing substancial about India's ancient mathematician or scientients. Just one example - Indians students are taught about Pythagorus's famous theorem but they are not taught that it was much before Pythagorus already mentioned in `Sulva Sutra'. And, any attempts were/are not made to modify it also due to Indian political reasons.

- - So, if Indian students are still kept under dark about `Sulva Sutra' then it's obvious that how can rest of the world would be freely knowing. This is also one kind of political censorship.

- - That's why anything against AIT/AMT should not be termed as Hindu nationalist views.

- - For more details visit http://india_resource.tripod.com/mathematics.htm

- - WIN 11:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

-

NOT rascist

- - AIT is NOT a rascist theory. Unfortunately for all parties concerned, the Nazis twisted and misused the Aryan theory for their own horrible purposes, and as a result anything concerning possible Aryan invasions has been met with distrust and rejection from many scholars and non-scholars. However, a theory stating that Indians and Europeans share common ancestry is not inherently anti-Indian or pro-European. Modern academics believe that the Proto-indo-european culture originated somewhere in the middle east, NOT in europe or in india. And it is impossible to deny the lingustic and mythological connections between the vedic culture and ancient western civilizations. It's not just a "few similar words". There are a HUGE number of cognates, similar grammar structures, etc. Not to mention that Hindu Mythology, especially the early vedic mythology fits the tripartite system of Indo-european mythology incredibly well. Not only are many of the gods similar, many of their names are also cognates. To say that all that widly accepted research and data is invalid is reactionary and closed-minded. However, this is NOT to say that Indians are in any way inferior to europeans or that indian culture is somehow "derived" from western culture. Simply that both stem from a common source. This should make perfect sense to everyone, since if you go back far enough all human cultures originate from the first homo-sapiens who lived in africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. We ALL stem from a common source. Celsiana 01:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Celsiana, yes many western mythology suggests some connections with Vedic one. One example - greek Ushos is Usha of Sanskrit Veds which means Early Morning Light of the Sun. But, you are forgetting many points raised by anti-AIT or AMT like Saraswati river's mention in Rig-Ved & Mahabharat and current findings for vast & big dried river in India - which exactly matches with ancient Sanskrit scriptures ; Avestan people saying about their early homelands as Hapta Handu ( Sapta Sindhu ) , RaNhA … between the KAbul and the Kurram, in the region where it seems likely the Vedic river RasA flowed, BunEr (VarAna) which are clearly Indian areas ( areas of current Pakistan and current India ) in Chapter I of Vendidad; Astronomical datings of Vedic Scriptures which gives dates much before 1500 BC. ; Indian verbal tradition about her Culture & Civilization ; Greek historians writing themselves around 350 BC who came with Alexander that Indian calender goes back to some 6000 years ( just check Pliny - Greek Historian's writings ) ..... etc. many points says that AIT proposed during 1850 was wrong( which is proved to be wrong totally but same supporters now saying about aryan migration instead of invasion ). Now, even BBC accepts this biggest mis-guide of 19-20 th century.

- - And, Indian scriptures have references of ancient Indians going out of India via North-West to other areas like Rig-Vedic Anu & Druhyu people , King Yayati's expelled 3 sons to North West and beyond ... but there is no single reference of any `Aryan' people coming to India with Sanskrit and gave language & culture to ancient Indians. You do not believe in those people about who's history you are writing or do not see any evidences or mis-interpret them ( just because Britishers were biggest political force during 1850s world over ) So, Europe's language & mythology similarity with India is due to Ancient Rig-Vedic people going out of India via central asia and not otherwise as proposed by Max Muller.

- - I do not deny about Oppenhemer's genology reports that present man kind came from Africa.Hindu tradition also says that it was first in the world in India that civilization & culture of very high standards were developed by great sages ( Rishis ) and then radiated the world over. The same values are depicted in Vedas,Upnishads,Ramayan, Mahabharat etc.So to reduce antiquity of these Sanskrit scriptures and attribute to have come from so called central asian Aryans is pure illogical when there are other evidences which do not fit into your Aryan theory at all.

- - WIN 07:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

THERE IS SOMEBODY WHO IS TRYING TO DELETE MY POINTS AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE TO THAT. IF YOU CAN NOT PROVIDE ANY POINT IN SUPPORT OF ARYAN THEORY OR GIVE COUNTER POINT TO MY VERY LOGICAL POINTS THEN DO NOT DELETE THEM SO AS TO HIDE IT FROM THE WORLD. WIN 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If Rig-Veda is some historical record and Ramayan & Mahabharat are just great epic stories then I have some doubts which I urge Aryan Theory supporters to solve,

If Rig-Ved is only some Aryan people's winning document over Dasyu ( allegedly told them as Dravidians of Indus Valley Civilization ) then why Rishi Wife Gargi who is composer of some verses in Rig-Ved is mentioned in Ramayan as meeting with Ram,Sita & Laxman ( after their exile from Ayodhya ) in their Ashram. Rishi Vashisth & Rishi Vishvamitra are composers of some Rig-Vedic hymns but same are finding great mention in Ramayan. Rishi Vashistha is dharma guru of King Dashrath in Ayodhya. How come some real person of Rig-Ved finds great mentions in some so called Epic story of Ramayan ?

It means that either Rig-Ved is not true in depicting some said past and it is some `imagined' & `fabricated' story & not real as told for Ramayan. OR Ramayan is not some imagined & fabricated story as told & taught in History books by the West but something true of India's past.

WIN 12:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Huxley

I just had a small comment on the way Huxley is referenced.

Huxley took the view that the "primitive Aryans" were of Nordic race, writing that "typical specimens have tall and massive frames, fair complexions, blue eyes, and yellow or reddish hair–that is to say, they are pronounced blonds." Huxley's view was shared by other writers such as Charles Morris in his 1888 book The Aryan Race, and Friedrich Nietszche in On the Genealogy of Morals (1887).

First of all, the link on Huxley leads to a disambiguation page and it is not clear which Huxley is being referred to?? (Aldous?) Secondly, the book is not cited. Can the original editor please look into these matters? --Rev.bayes 23:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Huxley text is called The Aryan Question (1890), and can be read in full online here.[1] Huxley is Thomas Huxley and certainly wikified as such originally. I hadn't spotted that someone had changed it. Paul B 21:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

good job.. --Rev.bayes 16:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Iranian and Zoroastrian perspective

Feel free to have a look at Airyanem Vaejah and add relevant info to this article or I might do that later, -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 19:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Aryan Migration theory in Iran

Aryan Migration theory in Iran from The Most Comprehensive & Scholarly Website about Ancient Iran and Iranian Peoples and some questions from it

Refer this webpage http://www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/History/prehistory/aryan_movement.htm which says about aryan migration. Read it carefully. Noted some points about Aryans from this article.

Could not access the web page mentioned. Is it still available?--UB 10:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

   I accessed just now. It's opening properly. WIN 10:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Could access it. thanks --UB 07:49, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

1) After coming of aryans in Iran, you can find proper agriculture, bricks , dark gray earthenware etc. in Iran which was not present before.

2) Development of trade based society which is patronised by early iranians (aryans ) with excavations of copper, iron & lapis lazuli. Ornamental gold & silverware & fabrics were traded.

3) It is written that Aryans moved from central asia due pressure from yellow skinned people,sudden drop of temperature ,drying of pastures etc.

4) Note the approx. period of 800 BC - 600 BC, for that time frame it is mentioned that "During such times the movement of the Aryan tribes within Iran had not been completed"

5) Iranians ( Aryans ) fought around the Caspian Sea, is also known as war with Turanians in Iranian Epic Shahnameh

I am raising some points with reference to above , point by point below.

1 & 2 ) Aryans are possessing qualities of comlex civilized society like developed agriculture, bricks, dark gray earthenware, knowledge of metal mining , lapis lazuli, gold - silver ornaments & silverware , fabrics and trade development. These whole points are hallmark of nearby Indus Valley civilization people. So, how come some pastoral nomad tribal people having the quality of complex cilivilized people that it shows in Iran immeditely after their coming from their native area central asia. But at that time in central asia , nothing of that sort is found which should be definitely present there, as aryans are called as native of that place.

3) Aryans movement is attributed to pressure from yellow skinned people then how come these WEAK aryans transformed whole of India's culture & language of most of India who had to come across vast population of Indus valley civilization's advanced civilized people. Drop in temperature is one point as told but that time in fact overall earth temp. was increasing & not dropping which was during last ice age and that happened many thousands of years before current aryan migration date. Aryan Pastoral people who were always on move to feed their animals & that way themselves , how they became suddenly sophiscticated like Indus Valley Civilization people.

4) As told in that article ,around 800 BC - 600 BC, aryans had not covered Iran then how come their same brothers & sisters could move all over India which is much much larger than Iran and transformed India's cultural & linguistic map. Because during Buddha & Mahavir's time of around 600-500 BC , Sanskrit was already in decline and was no more language of common people as people were speaking Prakrit languages like Pali , Ardhamagdhi in regions of current Bihar & Nepal.And, hence they have given their teachings in common man's language and not in Sanskrit which was considered language of learnt people.So, time frame is not at all matching with Aryan migration theory.

5) If Aryans had come from Caspian sea area of central asia as per current Aryan theory then why they will fight with those Turanians of caspian sea which will be their native people and not some outsiders.

Then, note that we do not have archiological proof of movement of people from central asia to Iran. It is only in Aryan theory in words and imagination.

Is there any body to comment on this ? WIN 06:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

POV

Currently the article seems to be focused on Indians with the word India and Indian being mentioned 60 times while the word Iran is mentioned 4 times. Serious POV fixing is needed! --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

"Aryan Invasion Theory" is a polemical term used exclusively to refer to the theory that Indo-European speakers migrated to India from Iran/Afghanistan. No-one in Iran, as far as I'm aware, objects to the idea that the Iranian people actually came to Iran from outside in ancient times. In India many people are obsessed this, which they see as somehow an attack on India. The article Indo-Aryan migration discusses Iran as do other articles. Paul B 12:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I see, I must have made a mistake then. This is differnet to the theory which describes Aryan invasion in the groups of Indo (Indo-Aryan Indo-Iranian) branch, and the European (obvious) branch? --K a s h ^{Talk | email} 14:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Avesta speaks about outside homeland but not a single Sanskrit scriptures say about outside homeland of Indians which is Indo-European language.Now, invasion theory is abolished by all Western Indologists and they speak about Aryans Migration instead of invasion. If Indians & western AIT opponents had not questioned about newer findings in many subjects then same Indologists would have been spreading this invasion idea for another two centuries atleast.So, this same so called "obsession " has made to tell that invasion theory is wrong. And, this invasion theory was based on so many `so called' scientific & acedemaic findings. So, what happened to that very very acedemic findings of last 2 centuries. There are many many points raised by Aryan theory opponents ( Indian or Western ) which has made Migration theory supporters speechless in that points but very good abusers by words. WIN 05:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

If you ever actually bother to read any works by Max Mueller, or say, Charles Morris's book, you will see that the distinction between migration and invasion is pretty-much non existent. Mueller does not talk about invasion at all. Any acquainance with actual ancient history should tell you that the cultures in question expanded in a way that way that probably combined both peaceful and warlike aspects. Contributors interested in the early history of Iran don't, for example, try to create absurd arguments that there was never any difference between Aryans and Hurrians. But you aren't interested in any real discussion, just smearing this page with half-digested self-contradictory cut-n-paste webtrawls. Paul B 08:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Invasion was the theory whether you accept or not.And, instead why don't you comment on above ancient Iranian point.Because as per you REAL discussion seems lying only in nodding one's head in favour of this Aryan theory. I have raised many points, but you or other supporters have just taken the path away from REAL discussion because logic & understanding is not your cup of tea. If you give counter point then that is discussion ,but you will mis-guide people by your half-truth & half-hide or sometimes simply wrong words as I have already noted in previous discussions with you like Avesta's non-Afghan mention point said by you,never told about invasion of Aryans during last 150 years etc.which are showing your lack of knowledge or mostly pre-conceived notion.Then, why this article is named here & contents of this articles were in history books as Aryan Invasion Theory and not Aryan Acculturisation Theory ? If you want to write then instead of diverting people's mind in other smaller points write something substantial for above written Ancient Iran sub-heading point. And, by the way Iran and Hurrians of ancient mesopotamia ( current Iraq ) were historically two different countries. Do not take the matter to other track by your misguide. Inspite of asking so many times to you why you are not commenting on ancient Saraswati findings which was always associated with ancient India. But it is your nature not to speak on that matter which majorly hurts your Aryan theory support.And, instead you are switching on to some other non-relavant track.

Paul, have you read any ancient Sanskrit scriptures which are indebted to Aryans of central asia as per this theory ? Because if you know Sanskrit then only you can read this books otherwise you have to rely on English translations by any person who will understand it differently or hide some matter or mis-interpret some points. And, then you will believe in those mis-represented translations as some real truth. WIN 11:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

WIN, Good job proving right points. I am not a historian but a common Indian. I am a south Indian, when I was in school I was taught India was invaded by Aryans from north and they brought our language and culture. I read your lot of logical points/proven facts which dispute original theory, no one answered to all points. May be that theory was accepted earlier during absence of the evidence, now we have to revisit and accept the truth. Now I convinced and can tell my children our civilization, language and culture is our own and home grown. I also know lot of people/tribes (Sakas, Huns, Gujjars etc) all along the history migrated to India and blended in Indian subcontinent, instead of changing Indian culture they them self changed assimilated in subcontinent. It looks like great melting pot of the ancient world much like modern USA.

I also want to make personal point, some of the AIT/AMT writings pointed Dravidians (south Indians) are dark skinned and upper cast Hindus/North Indians are fair hence they are from outside India. Most of us (99%) are dark skinned though we are in upper cast (Vysys). Infact, many of the low cast people have far fair skin then us. So theory based on color is incorrect .65.96.134.32Niranjan Bukkapatna 29 june 2006

Frawley

I am certainly prepared to refer to David Frawley in the article. He is the prototypical "anti-AIT" polemicist. He is of course a well-versed scholar of Hinduism, but he is, of course, completely discredited in matters of historical linguistics, ancient history or archaeology. If stating something to that effect will buy us peace, so be it. For the record (for those of us who only read talkpages, not articles): No "Sanskrit scripture" is theorized to have been composed in Central Asia, by anybody. The Vedas are, of course, Indian texts, no dispute about that. The Indo-Aryans still had to get to India somehow, most likely a couple of centuries prior to the early Rigveda. dab (ᛏ) 13:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of the views of Frawley, Rajaram et al is of course legitimate, but posting entire articles by any of them - or by anyone else - is not.Paul B 13:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

obviously :) dab (ᛏ) 13:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Then why was I reverted simply because I cited Frawley as a source? Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

That was because you footnoted Frawley as an authority on ancient history, which is almost like footnoting Erich von Däniken. Frawley's theories could certainly be discussed here, since they are popular with anti-AIT polemicists, but that would include the criticisms. Paul B 11:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle

I am fed up with the false dichotomy of "AIT vs. autochthonous Vedic culture".

Before: Aryans, Dravidians, no Vedic culture (yet)

After: Aryans+Dravidians results in autochthonous, Indian Vedic culture

The Aryans didn't "bring" Vedic culture. They brought 'Proto Indo-Aryan culture'. Vedic culture developed later, as the result of syncretism and innovation. Any questions? dab (ᛏ) 01:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hindutva theory remains completely left out although it too has some sources... Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kash, defenitions are important in this argument. Ancient India included what is today India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and parts of Iran. Thus, Ancient India is not a good term to use. 'Vedic culture' requires a defenition. Most Historians agree that the Vedas had long oral traditions centurys before they were written down. Archeological evidence also shows Vedic influences long before any proposed invasion. So if 'Vedic culture' refers to the period after the proposed invasion ie 2000-1500 BC, the definition would be incorrect, because there are 'vedic' influences in India centurys before the dates for the invasion. To finish up my point if the Aryans brought 'Proto Indo-Aryan culture' which evoloved into 'Vedic culture', how could there possibly be Vedic Influences in 'Ancient India' long before the invasion. .The Mystic14:28, 19th July 2006.

I'm not sure what "the Hindutva theory" is. The Hindutva movement generally prefers to emphasise indigenousness, but I don't think it has a definite theory as such. I don't quite know what it means to say that "ancient India included what is today India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and parts of Iran". This seems to be an oft-repeated mantra these days. When in "ancient" history was this? What cultures identified all these areas as part of "India"? The alleged archeological evidence of Vedic culture in the IVC is highly disputed, and has usually been identified by people who have a religious reason for wanting to find it. So there is certainly no widely accepted evidence of "Vedic influences in India centuries before the dates for the invasion". Paul B 02:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

addendum: the term "Vedic influences" is potentially misleading, since it implies that any features that seem Vedic in character must have been influenced by a pre-existing Vedic culture rather than influences on the development of that very culture. In this context "Vedic culture" means the culture of the authors of the Vedas. Paul B 02:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Look into History of India, Mahajanapadas, Indo-Greek Kingdom to understand ancient Indian cultural influences in South Asia, I'm not doing your research for you. Try reading the articles on Lingam,Yoni,Hindu mythology, Prajapati and Kali to get a simple idea of what I mean by 'vedic influences'.

Visit http://www.archaeologyonline.net/index.html for some interesting published information on Archeology in India, in particular Tom Housden's BBC News Online report. The problem with defining 'Vedic culture' as the culture of the authors of the Vedas, is that the Vedas describe history, philosphies and events of a time posterior to the predominant Vedic culture of the authors.Everyone agrees, that the Vedas have a long oral tradition predating the time they were writtern down collectively. For you Paul, try reading Aurobindo , Secret of the Vedas, to try and understand the problems in decephering complex philisophical schools of Indian thought, and understanding what Vedic culture means. Are you a Sanskrit scholar, to fully understand what 'Vedic culture'is? Have you even been to India? The Mystic - 01:45, 21st August 2006.

The way this article works

My first major edit to this article was reverted completely because one line was deemed inaccurate. My second was also reverted completely for the same reason. Can't you guys go to some effort and do partial reverts instead of reverting the entire edit? The way this article is set out seems to lay no doubt as to the fact that this migration occured, when it is a point of heavy debate and is disputable. So please allow WP:NPOV to seep in alright...So I'm suggesting a couple of things here, firstly, the way the Early History and Recent Developments are set out gives the reader the view that the AIT is true and undisputable but there are a few people that think otherwise. Assuming they read the article properly, if they skim-read, they'll have no doubt as to the validity of the theory. So please allow WP:NPOV. I see you've had disputes above as well but nothing has been done to improve this article. I'm listing this as a Disputed Page on WP:INWNB. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

How about creating a section, something like Opposing Views which details the Hindutva way of looking at it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Opposing views are discussed. Most of the "discussion" on this page offers little or nothing by way of useful debate on the content of the article. Perhaps this is not unique on Wikipedia, but it is certainly unique in my experience. First one has to ask what exactly is being "disputed". Is it the claim that IA speakers entered India at some point? Is it the date that is disputed? Are opponents of "AIT" asserting that IE originated in India? Are they saying that IE does not exist at all, but that all Indian languages are related to one another? Are they objecting to the long-gone claim that the invaders were blond Nordic supermen? There are so many different objections that it is difficult to clearly characterise the "opposition" to the theory. The article as it it is does state that the theory played a role in the British Raj, though the nature of that role is difficult clearly to define. If you read a book such as E.B. Havell's The History of Aryan Rule in India you get a very different idea of the the influence of the theory than you get from Elst, who is so regularly quoted in the current article. The fact is that the "British" did not create the theory, so it can't be explained as imperial ideology, even though it played a role in such ideology. The notion of "dravidian" identity is not created by it, but arose independently. Yes, the Aryan/Dravidian division became established as a simple and dramatic model of invasion/migration, and the article states this. It could be expanded to include Tamil polemicists and western authors who use thre model (John Masters wrote a wonderfully entertaining novel called The Venus of Konpara about Aryan Invasion). Paul B 01:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is being disputed by Hindutva-supporters is the idea that the Indus Valley Civilization was invaded by an external culture. They debate that the spread of Indo-European languages was due to cultural and possibly military expansion by the Aryans who originated in India. No-one debates the differences between South Indian and North Indian languages though. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do "debate the differences between South Indian and North Indian languages" see our friend WIN's comments passim. Early models of Aryan expansion have, of course, nothing to do with invading the IVC and some, like Tilak's, ascribe extreme ancientness to the "Aryans" outside of India. Paul B 07:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I was trying to say - I was arguing that there is no single "theory" and no single set of objections. There have been many specific arguments put forward over the years and many different objections raised to these specific points. The "chariot riding" argument only emerges and becomes important in certain forms of the theory, and the “Nordic invader” model – which was always contested – has quite a brief shelf-life. Likewise the objections come in many distinct varieties. There is the OIT argument that IE languages actually originate in India; then there is the quite different argument that that they entered India earlier that is customarily stated. There is the ultra-nationalistic argument as represented by WIN here that Indians have been a unified “race” since ancient times and that Indian languages are also all related to each-other. There is Frawley with his ancient sunken cities proving India to be the Fount of Civilisation. Then there is Talageri who argues that the RV describes a westward movement from the Ganges to the Indus, and there’s Elst who thinks the IAs were ensconsed in the Indus. Paul B 15:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Do any serious linguists accept either the OIT argument that the Indo-European languages originated in India, or WIN's argument that there's no such thing as Indo-European languages? Both of these seem like incredibly fringe ideas. john k 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I have never said that there is nothing like Indo-European languages. I say that there is nothing like PIE which is hypothecial language. Finding some hundred word similarities in different IE languages prompted make up of IE language family. But Sanskrit which is considered as IA language contains some 60 words for mother and around 100 for rain. For all this Sanskrit words , you don't find any words in IE languages. So, how come there are not so many words for mother or rain in IE languages. Mother or Rain is just one example for reference. It shows that similarity for each & every Sanskrit word is not found in IE group which should be there if it has Central Asian roots in it. Sanskrit was always considered as language in which one can express all technical, scientific things better like today's English.So, currently how English words are finding place in vernacular vocabe same way Sanskrit words which were carried by ancient Indians to far areas beyond Indian Sub-continent. Hence you find some words in IE languages as they carried Sanskrit language with them. And, hence for mother or rain you will find some commonly spoken Sanskrit terms in IE and not every Sanskrit words.Try to think it with open mind and without any prejudice. WIN 11:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

extremely fringy. no serious linguist would support an OIT, and the debate that there may have never been a single PIE language center on subtleties of the definition of 'language' (it may have been a bundle of dialects instead). This stuff can be safely ignored, and I suppose we should begin rolling back the OR rants again. dab (ᛏ) 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"opposing views" of mainstream scholarship belong here. "Opposing views" of "Hindutva" are a politicization of the debate, and not scholarship. These have a section ("History", should maybe be "Socio-political impact"), and a main article, "Aryan invasion theory". We get it that Hindutva doesn't like the concept, ok? It is certainly part of the debate to consider whether the IAs had contact with the mature IVC, or came only after its decline. So yes, there is room for the argument that the IVC was never invaded. It declined for some reason or other, and into the power-vacuum pushed the IAs. This is a perfectly normal process known to have occurred in history over and over again. This can all be discussed regardless of "Hindutva". "Hindutva" is a modern nationalist movement, not a scholarly school of thought, and is as such completely offtopic here. I am simply not interested in modern Indian politics, and there is no reason why I should have to put up with it here, on an article on ancient history. dab (ᛏ) 08:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

People interested in Hindutva can have different interpretations of it. For example, some consider it representative of the majority Hindus in India, while others consider it a fascist ideology promoting communal violence. Nobleeagle (Talk) 02:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The people sitting & writing about this historical aspects here don't know that this Hindutva is not some modern aspect.Hindustva means `being Hindu'. And, Hinduism is the most ancient religion in the world. This Hindustva was known to Western world after they started opposing AIT during 1850s. Any opposition will be known to the attacker after their attack on that particular people. So,this Hindutva was known to Western World during 1850s when AIT was proposed. Moors physical attack on Europe was answered by ` being Christian' feelings as holy crusade. So, can we say that `being Christian' feeling is as old as Moors ( Islamic ) attack on Europe. Simply No. So why Hindutva is modern ? And, this so called "modern Indian politics" for this theory is as old as AIT proposals because it affected Indian history. So, when Max Muller's contribution to AIT is not considered as Chrisitan & political motives of British Raj by `supporters' ( due to obvious reasons of negatation - despite his motives being known through his letters to his wife & mother. Read http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max Muller, Vol. 1 & 2 ) then why opposing Indians should be considered as Hindu opponents. If you term opposition from India as something Hindu then one should not oppose terming this theory as Christian motives of British Raj.

And, Indians are of one "race" is proven fact. i.e. Caucasian race. Paul's above statements about "race" is disgusting.Smells of previous Aryan & Dravid Racist theory of Robert Caldwell who was Christain missonary and made separate Dravid theory in 1856. So, same way Eupore should be divided into different "race", based on Finno-Ugric languages group which is different than IE group languages. That way even, Spain & France's pre-IE language speakers of Basque should be considered as different "race" as told by Paul. One should not see India specific points as different but it should be viewed against Europe also and then such statements should be made. But it is very selectively done when it suits `supporting' idea and never otherwise. Above `power vacuum' gives Invasion scenario which is ruled out. I have raised Ancient Saraswati river's point to supporters here and that point should be reflected in the article page. WIN 05:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

WIN, are you, in fact, a bot? You certainly fail the Turing Test. dab (ᛏ) 20:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your abusing words !!! WIN 05:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This article's scope

Just a reminder: this article discusses the religio-socio-political debate in modern India. I.e., we can document the emotionality invested in the matter, no matter how ludicrously backed up in an academic sense. This is not the page to discuss the actual scenarios of an Indo-Aryan migration. I propose we move this page to Aryan invasion controversy to make it clearer. Discuss the (non-academic) controversy here. This is a topic of sociology, not of ancient history. dab (ᛏ) 18:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? I thought it was intended to discuss both the history and the "religio-socio-polical debate in modern India". Admittedly that's a problematic conjuction of briefs. In practice even in its current form it has to include some discussion of modern scholarly theories, just as the IAM article includes some history and some politics. If we move the page to the proposed new title the history section will become problematic. Of course we could also have an article on the history of the theory/theories. And even if we got rid of the title "Aryan invasion theory" the redirect would still presumably point somewhere! Paul B 00:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, we need to think this all over, the situation at present is not really satisfactory. Maybe make this a dab page, one link pointing to "AIT in Indian sociology" or something, and the other to the AIM article. I don't know. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Dab, Aryan invasion controversy would be a good title for the page. The Mystic

Link to sabha.info

Those who believe that the sabha.info site is 'worthless' will kindly check the links to legit documentation dated back to the era when the AIT was founded by Mueller, pointing out his deliberate Proto-Nazi racist motivations behind the fabrication (Netaji 00:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Any website that writes this clearly is worthless. Anyone who considers Müller to be "proto-Nazi" clearly knows nothing whatever about him. Read the Max Müller page here, or better still, read some of his books. There is no "fabrication". Paul B 09:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Paul should be always right !!! Linking to that website which contains photocopies from Max Muller's Life & Letters Vol. I & II ( published around 1910 in USA after death of Max Muller ) should be really "worthless" than Paul's writings about Max Muller on this Wikipedia. How dare you to tell that Max Muller's own letters are less authenicate proof than Paul's writings about Muller  !!! WIN 09:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The use of the photocopies is on the quoted site is absurd. They refer to an essay in which Müller is discussing the possible use of Indo-European words in Genesis, as though this is evidence of the usual Hindutva fantasy that he was trying to fit AIT into the Biblical narrative of the Flood. The opposite is the case. He is addressing the question of contacts between IE peoples and the ancient Israelites at the time the bible was written. He is discussing the biblical ethnonyms that might suggest contact with IE peoples. Müller's letter's are entirely consistent with what he said in public in interviews and in his writings. He looked forward to a Christianization of Hinduism on the lines pioneeered by Ram Mohun Roy, which in his view would see the extension of Christian ethics allied to Vedantic philosophy. His letter to his mother merely states the he has got a good job producing his edition of the RV. It says nothing about fabricating anything, nor would it if you knew anything about the circumstances of Müller's commission. His other letters are written to his wife and other conventional Christians and are designed to assure them that his work is not contrary to Christianity. He was a Lutheran and he remained so, but the fact is that he failed to get the Boden Professorship at Oxford because he was too pro-Hindu. There is no dispute about that. His views contain the typical paradoxes of the era, comparable to those of Ruskin and other theological liberals of the time. But of course I don't expect you to have ever read any of Müller's books. I have repeatedly asked you if you have ever read anything by him in full and you have never anwered. All you do is trawl Indian Nationalist websites for anything to support your preconceived ideas. Paul B 10:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

chariots

OK lets discuss the following passage:

However, this concept of the usage of chariots and horses to overthrow the pre-Aryan civilization residing in the Indus Valley is heavily disputed. Excavation around the Indus Valley has revealed the use of iron weapons and possibly chariots prior to the time of the suggested Aryan invasion. It is also suggested that chariots would not be suitable for nomads originating in Central Asia and invading South Asia, as this would mean they would have to cross both mountains and deserts, both unsuitable for chariot. S.R. Rao, Lothal and the Indus Valley Civilization, Asia Publishing House, Bombay, India, 1973, p. 37, 140 & 141.

Firstly, this has nothing to do with the "racialisation of the theory" unless only some races can use chariots. Secondly it is full of non-sequiturs. The last sentence seems to be addressing the straw man argument that "Aryans" got on their chariots in Central Asia and rode all the way non-stop into the Indus. This scenario is completely ridiculous, so to argue against it is nonsensical. The importance of the chariot is simply that its associations with steppe peoples allows the argument that its development gave some I-E speakers an advantage which may explain their dramatic expansion over many generations. This has hardly ever been envisaged as a single "blizkrieg" or even as a series of campaigns under some military leader comparable to Alexander the Great (on a side note, it is an historical fact that Alexander entered India with chariots, so the anti-chariot argument is already falsified). The highly disputable presence of "iron weapons" in the IVC has nothing whatever to do with chariots, but is, I guess, related to a completely different point - the claim that the RV could have been written during the heyday of the IVC. However, I suspect that your reference to Rao is simply copied from Frawley's website, which makes a number of spurious claims, such as the assertion that "AIT" proponents insist that the Aryans "came out of Central Asia with their horse-drawn chariots and iron weapons and overthrew the cities of the more advanced Indus valley culture, with their superior battle tactics." If so the reference to iron is simply a mistake. No-one asserts any such thing, and very few people ever have. Even Mortimer Wheeler never said this. Read his book The Indus Valley Civilisation. The Vedic peoples of the RV were, for a start, essentially a bronze age culture, so "iron weapons" are neither here nor there. Chariots are in any case no use for siege warfare, so why would anyone ever argue that chariots helped to "overthow the cities"? And of course the IVC was not even discovered until the 1920s, so adding this passage to a section about late 19th century theorists is arguing against a position that they never held and could not have held. They assumed that the IEs were expanding into small-scale rural communities.

As for the claims about chariots in the IVC, is the "evidence" the seal with "spoked wheel" on it, or something else? Do you know that evidence is being claimed? Paul B 09:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is all a heroic effort, Paul and dab, but it seems incredibly pointless. Isn't there some way we can avoid having to fight the same battles over and over and over and over again? We can spend all day pointing out how ridiculous WIN's arguments are, and how ignorant he is, but it doesn't really accomplish anything, because he's immune to persuasion. I'm not sure if it's fair to say he's acting in "bad faith," but it seems to me that when an editor proves themselves immne to rational argument for months on end, and continues to repeat the same old fringe POV-pushing garbage, we should be able to get rid of them. What in the world does WIN contribute to the project that justifies our tolerating him here? john k 13:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

WIN has already been blocked once for his diatribes, and I've contacted the administrators who blocked him to alert him to WIN's continuing behavior. Hopefully we'll see a longer block soon. CRCulver 13:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

we do not have to repeat ourselves. There is no point in replying to WIN, or to WIN's clone that will stumble in here keyboard blazing in another week. There is a reason WP has a policy, and it's a clear case WP:NOT. dab

Hmmm. all this sounds like censorship. I think WIN is putting together some very well researched and structured arguments and statements that possibly don't come across well because English is not his native language.

I have yet to see any of the three of you give a sufficient rebuttal to his points. Rather I am seeing that you are simply labeling it Hindutva. I have doubts of the Aryan Invasion Theory myself as one who comes from a background of Linguistics (I am by profession a Psychologist who specializes in Psycholinguistics and Cognition) and I do not believe in anything called Hindutva, and that is for the record.

So I am rather ashamed of your communal behaviours and attitudes and it is rather startling to see this on the pages of Wikipedia. Please calm down and find something better to do with your time. Thank you.

We do not have to give a rebuttal to his points. Wikipedia is not a place for debate. WIN is treating this place like a discussion forum or chat room, and that's simply not the purpose of Talk pages. You praise him for making arguments, but arguments don't belong here. Please refer to WP:NOT and WP:NOR. Thanks. CRCulver 04:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:NPOV, if you don't include arguments from both sides of the debate then this page will not conform to that policy. Also, it is only OR when the edits are unsourced by an academic, but the fact that it is your POV that an academic does not have much knowledge on the subject (or is a fringe-POV) is WP:OR. So be mindful of that... Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle, I have no problem with including all viewpoints in the article. In fact, I really wish that opponents of the theory could cite some more academic publications here (all we ever get are a few links to webpages). However, WIN doesn't do anything to the article, he just rants on Talk pages. He has declared in many places that his goal is not to make a better article, but to convince people here on Talk pages that the theories are wrong. We're not a forum for debate in that sense. Trying to prove a theory wrong on Wikipedia is OR. CRCulver 05:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

NE, it seems you need to look at WP:NPOV rather than just linking it. Did you ever read it, or are you just imitating people who have told you to go look at the page? I think you should especially look at WP:NPOV#A_vital_component:_good_research and WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. There are not "two sides" to a debate, there are many scholarly opinions. Now tell us again how this bears any relation to WIN? dab (ᛏ) 10:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Please engage in constructive discussion

Please engage in constructive discussion instead of discouraging other editors

Anyone who reads the archives of this article’s talk page can figure out that a coterie of self styled custodians of wikipedia have ganged up against a single editor – WIN, and wasting away any contribution he/she is making in this article. All this revert warring is taking place because these editors with ostrich-like mindset are not being able to answer a few well thought out doubts raised by WIN. Instead of running up to administrators to get any dissenter who questions their soothing theories banned, why can’t they, for a change, keep an open mind and realize that whatever this person is saying has definite merit, surely worthy of a few bytes in wikipedia. Burying your head in the sand will not make the conspicuous discrepancies in your theories go away.

And I find throwing smart-ass jibes at somebody’s language skills [2] totally loser-like and cheap. Persons who have learned English as a foreign language will naturally make occasional grammatical slips and any mature editor will rectify such errors of a fellow editor without much fuss. And lastly, do refrain from ‘encouraging’ ppl to 'move on', because wikipdia welcomes everybody and every POV, And everybody has an equal right to be here. So if you can’t take the heat, then get out of…well this debate at the very least. Sisodia 08:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not just anyone here. WIN's behaviour was found unacceptable by an outsider, the admin who blocked him for 20 hours. What part of WP:NOR do you not understand? Furthermore, why do you say WIN's contibuting to the article? He doesn't. He only rants on Talk pages about how we're all racists. CRCulver 08:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

also, what part of English language Wikipedia don't you understand? A tone of 'smart-assed jibes' may be marginally acceptable on talkpages, but we want encyclopedic tone in article namespace; if you cannot provide this, don't expect people to clean up after you. There are 150 language editions of Wikipedia, and I am sure WIN can find one where he is able to contribute fluently (not that he seems much into contributing at all, of course). Far from 'ganging up' against any 'single editor', Wikipedia depends on us 'ganging up' against anybody adding crap. Tons of crap are added and removed each day, and WIN is just a very minor example of the process. People stooping to this sort of cleanup-work are indeed the 'self-styled custodians' of Wikipedia, may it and they long prosper. dab (ᛏ) 10:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

and I also want to go there. 'cause I am blah blah.

Genetic Studies...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dravidian_people A sub-article in that thread says that the DNA studies reveal non-difference of aryans and dravidians

So the title of the topic should be changed to 'Aryan Migration ' than Aryan Invasion theory..

01:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is for the historic theory, no longer espoused by mainstream scholars. There is an article Indo-Aryan Migration for modern views. CRCulver 02:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Paleolithic Continuity Theory

The whole debate about AIT/AMT is about the contradiction arising out of:

• Linguistic similarity of Indo-European Languages, and
• Evidence showing origin of Rig Vedic in India prior to 2000 BC.

Paleolithic Continuity Theory seem to seem to resolve this conflict! --UB 10:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the outdated theory of invasion. If certain scholarship has happened in, say, the last half-century, it should go in Indo-Aryan migration instead. Certainly there's a place for mention of PCT over there, though Wikipedia policy does say that minority theories should get lesser mention that the mainstream. PCT is certainly a fringe theory right now among IE linguists. The reason is that, while it does seem to resolve the conflict you mentioned, it introduces the huge problem of explaining why the IE languages remained so similar to each other for tens of thousands of years, when linguists know that the comparative method only works back a few thousand years because at greater time depths genetic relationship is no more probable than mere coincidence. CRCulver 08:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The PCT is rather fringy, and, for once, really Eurocentric: it alleges PIE for the European Paleolithic. This is just as silly as alleging Sanskrit for the Indian Paleolithic. There is no evidence of "Rig Vedic in India prior to 2000 BC", the circumstances described in the RV fit perfectly into the 2nd millennium. dab (ᛏ) 08:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

dab try visiting Visit http://www.archaeologyonline.net/index.html for some interesting published information on Archeology in India, in particular Tom Housden's BBC News Online report. The Mystic 24th oct 2006

Dravidian Indra lovers

WIN has added the following:

But, some Indian critics mention that if the Aryan war-god Indra were behind the destruction of IVC, then Dravidian or any Hindus would not recite the Sanskrit verse " Swasti na Indroh ..." praising Indra during Hindu wedding.

Firstly, who are these "Indian critics"? The citation mentions none. Secondly, this is a rather odd argument. South American native peoples were massacred by the Spanish in the name of Christianity, but they are now overwhelmingly Catholic, and so regularly recite many Christian verses. The same is true of many countries that were forcibly converted to Islam. Even outside of religion the same can be true. Britain was invaded by the Romans in 43 amid much carnage. When the Roman army left in 410, the British sent them a desperate letter begging them to come back! All this happened over a few centuries, not millenia. So even the obsolete extreme "Aryans versus Dravidians" invasion model can easily accommodate this non-problem. Paul B 12:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Another classic of hair-raisingly naive 'argumentation' we are so familiar with by now :) But remember that this is the article about the topic's propagandistic impact, so this might conceivably be listed as an exhibit illustrating the level of the 'debate' dab (ᛏ) 18:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that's why I'm asking if WIN has a citation for the argument, or whether this is WIN's OR. Paul B 21:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

While writing above, you are forgetting one major point that Spanish & Islamic were invasions & forceful conversions with cruel massacres. No such type of massacres are found in any Indian texts or traditions. Invasion of Aryans on India (like Islamic Invasions) is totally ruled out that you should remember and write accordingly. But, it is clear that you are playing with invasion theme under migration mask. Britishers calling back Romans is example of civilizing savage.

Wheel was totally wrong in his statement which is still highly valued by supporters that it finds great mention in this article. Such statements from Wheeler, Director of Archeology in India between 1944 to 1948 gives indication that how can such high level posted person make such statements when there was no evidence of invasionist destruction of IVC cities. WIN 05:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, so I take it that you have no citation for this argument. You just made it up yourself? I am not "forgetting" the point you mention. It was central to your argument. You don't seem to grasp the point that it you cannot reply that we can "totally rule out" the concept of an invasion if your very point depends on supposing for the sake of argument that there was one ("if the Aryan war god Indra were behind the destruction" then why....? etc) Paul B 08:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Read The Indus Civilisation by Wheeler and you will see his detailed discussion of the evidence as it presented itself to him at that time. Archaeologists make deductions based on the evidence they have. Wheeler constantly emphasises that his conclusions are provisional. Paul B 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If Wheeler says that his conclusions are provisional in 1940s then why his conclusion finds such a high emphasis in current article in 2006 ? Infact, there is no reason to mention his conclusion at all in this article. And, if at all it's mentioned then why it's not mentioned that his conclusions were utterly wrong. WIN 10:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

His conclusions are described because this article is about the history of the theory. Hence the fact that Huxley and others with now-obsolete theories about Nordic PIEs are also mentioned. I take it then that this argument that Dravidians wouldn't praise Indra if he was responsible for killing their ancestors is your own invention? Paul B 10:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I take the absence of a reply as a tacit admission that this passage is OR, so I am removing it Paul B 08:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

move?

I think the title of this article is too similar to "Indo-Aryan migration", so that people (including me) keep confusing them. I suggest we move it to a clearer title, like "Aryan Invasion controversy". dab (ᛏ) 08:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like the title myself, but it is the most common title, and WP:Naming conventions says: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." AIT is the most common name, and it's not wikipedias job to find better names for a subject than the ones normally used. The title "AI controversy" could also limit the scope of the article, because the article should also include a history of the theory.

Here are some google results, sorted by number of results:

• "aryan invasion theory" -wikipedia ~85000 results
• "aryan migration theory" -wikipedia ~1000 results
• "indo-aryan migration" -wikipedia ~700 results
• "aryan migration debate" -wikipedia ~400 results
• "indo-aryan migration debate" -wikipedia ~350 results
• "aryan invasion debate" -wikipedia ~200 results
• "aryan invasion controversy" -wikipedia ~10 results

So I agree that the title is not perfect. But it is undoubtedly the most common name. --RF 10:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We have divided the topic into Indo-Aryan migration, discussing scholarly opinion, and this article, discussing socio-political background. "AIT" in your 85,000 hits is used (mostly disparagingly) to refer to what we discuss under IAM (the more accurate term). This article is about the socio-political debate. "AIT" is a term used in this debate, it is not the term for the debate itself, hence my suggestion to make the scope clear by using "controversy" or "debate" in the title. dab (ᛏ) 10:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But the article should also discuss the history of the theory during the 19th and 20th century. Paul said above: "If we move the page to the proposed new title the history section will become problematic. Of course we could also have an article on the history of the theory/theories." As I said, I'm not much opposed to a move, but think that when in doubt the most common title should be preferred. Probably the "move" tag should be used for such moves.

Come to speak about moves, I think a better title for Indo-Aryan migration would be Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis or Indo-Aryan migration debate/theory. Note that wikipedia also has article titles like Kurgan hypothesis, Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory. --RF 11:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem is the fact that the term AIT does not properly represent 19th-mid 20th C views, which were dominantly migrationist in the beginning, but became more invasionist later. Many indian writers simply use the term "AIT" to mean any version of the theory that Aryans entered India in the bronze age. Others have constructed a model in which the difference between AIT and AMT is perceived as important - even though both versions usually involve warfare of some sort accompanying the expansion of Vedic culture, and the longer-scale process of "Aryanisation" (or Vedicisation) in India was always acknowledged as essentially a cultural integration rather than a series of military victories. I can't really see a way round having the history and the controversy together. Without the history we can't see the controversy in context and without the controversy the history is just a collection of obsolete theories. Paul B 12:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess we could retitle it somethig like Aryan Invasion theory (history and controversies) Paul B 12:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

clumsy but unambiguous, why not. regarding "IAM hypothesis", the point is that it is undisputed that the I-As migrated somewhere, at some point in time. The debate surrounds questions of date, scale and direction. Therefore IAM is not so much a hypothesis as a field containing various hypotheses. dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

suggestion

suggestion, for clarity: make this a disambiguation page, along these lines:

The term "Aryan Invasion Theory" may refer to

• invasionist scenarios of the historical Indo-Aryan migration
• a topic of socio-political controversy in colonial and contemporary India, see Aryan Invasion theory (history and controversies) [this article]

dab (ᛏ) 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Paul B 13:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to such a move. --RF 16:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well put .The Mystic - 15:59, 20th August 2006

OIT

I created Out of India Theory as a separate article TO link to a reference in the I-A M article a few days ago. Now Out of India theory has also been created as a redirect and dab has added a section on OIT here. We can merge, or expand the former as a separate article linked to a sub-section of this one. Paul B 14:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, I hadn't seen that. I started out with Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory, which is apparently a blog product imitating the (itself cranky) Paleolithic Continuity Theory. dab (ᛏ) 14:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Something I found

I don't have time to add it today...but I still think I should ask you guys whether you consider this source reliable. No point me adding stuff just to get it reverted, so better discuss first. Nobleeagle (Talk) 09:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

we can certainly link to it; it is essentially a (biased) reiteration of the points in this article. Of course it is not "reliable" in an academic sense, and rife with misstatements, but it coherently illustrates, as far it goes, the "anti-AIT" position (Vedic archaeoastronomy, Mature Harappan horse, Sarasvati, submerged city 'prove' I-A IVC). In general, any article that claims IAM is "demised" or "obsolete" or "refuted" is propaganda: it is possible to reasonably propose theories of Mature Harappan Indo-Aryans as "alternative views" or "new approaches", but to claim that these have replaced dominant IAM views in academia is simply a conscious misstatement (aka lie). If someone on top of that claims the Indus script has been deciphered, they can be safely filed under "kookery". dab (ᛏ) 11:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't going to say that these views are now dominant. I just thought I'd include something like opposers of the AIT sometimes claim that an Aryan Invasion was impossible because blahblahblah. I hope that's alright... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

notability of external links

[3] may be hosted on FOSA, but it is excerpts of The Argumentative Indian: Writings on Indian History, Culture and Identity (Farrar Straus and Giroux, 2005) by Amartya Sen, and as such it doesn't matter where it is hosted, and is immensely more notable than another one of our stark raving radical Hindu blogs and 'tribute' websites. If anything, we should do away with links such as this (a rambling anonymous writeup on some religious site): we can keep these around, of course, since they serve as excellently as real-life illustrations of Sen's points. dab (ᛏ) 16:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I am a late entrant to this family of articles(Indus/Aryan/AIT/OIT/AMT etc etc). What I see in these articles is an ad hoc, hotch potch sewing together of theories, facts, hypotheses, criticisms etc., all in the same line/same paragraph/same article ... As a result, the articles(not just this one) seem to have ended up making sense to only those who have been taking part in the long winded debates/fights/arguments/flames on the talk pages of these articles.

What I suggest is a complete rewrite of the article on the following principles.

• Introduction
• Theories involved/existing
• Theory x

• Most notable proponents of the theory
• History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
• Description of the theory
• Criticism of the theory

• Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments

• Theory y

• Most notable proponents of the theory
• History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
• Description of the theory
• Criticism of the theory

• Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments

• Theory z

• Most notable proponents of the theory
• History of the theory(who proposed it the first time and when etc.,)
• Description of the theory
• Criticism of the theory

• Most vociferous/notable opponents of the theory and their arguments

And then just leave it at that. I dont see why such heated debates should be taking place on the talk pages. Is there a wikipedia policy for editing controversial articles or articles where more than one notable opinions/theories exist?

And then ofcourse, we can have seperate articles for each of those theories where we can go into all the arguments and counter arguments of scholars pertaining to that theory in detail.

Seriously, the article(and all other related articles) the way it stands seriously tests comprehension skills of lesser mortals like me, especially those who havent a clue to all the debates and arguments that have taken place on the talk pages.

Please share your comments. Tell me I am wrong. Thanks. Sarvagnya 23:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to a rewrite, but monitoring articles such as this is extradorinarily dispiriting because of the chaos they slip into. This article is supposed to be about the history of the theory of "Aryan invasion". One of its problems is that the term seems to mean "any claim that IE originated outside India" to some, "indo-Aryan migration" to others, "attack of the blond Nordics" to others and "overthrow of the IVC" to yet others. These different arguments emerged at different times evolved from eachother and were related and differentiated in complex ways. It's not always easy to separate "theory X" from "theory Y" in a clear-cut way. Paul B 16:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

you do realize that this article deals with issues of Indian politics and religious supremacism as well as with obsolete theories? It's not like there are theories x, y, z, all of them published in academic journals, and that's that. This is the easiest part and could be covered in a breeze if it were not for the constant disruption on the part of the propagandists. What we want to document here are notable opinions on the socio-religious propaganda that is being handed around in India. The topic of this article is wound up with Hindu nationalism, and it is impossible to write an encyclopedic article about nationalism if the nationalists are trying to write a nationalist article at the same time. But I wish you all the best cleaning up this mess, of course. dab (ᛏ) 16:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

There is always, in every country, a disconnect between what the layman thinks of history and what the scholar researches. In the academy, which Wikipedia relies upon, AMT is now favoured and AIT considered quaint. It's not the scholar's fault if the average man, or layman working for the CIA, can't follow contemporary publications. What exactly is your point here? The point of Wikipedia is to reflect scholarship, that's why AMT is called an ascendent theory and AIT is passe. It is not to mirror the thoughts of the man in the street, so your complaint that the public still believes in a bloody quasi-racist invasion is irrelevant. And please, sign your comments here. CRCulver 20:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You criticised some of my debate a few months ago, and picked at it unnecessarly in a patronising tone. Yet you havent replied to my rebuttals. Is there a reason Paul? You've had enough time to research.I just find it funny that you tell others, if they dont reply to ur points of view, that you have the right to delete their arguments? So I can do the same to your arguments yes?The Mystic 24th oct 2006

Wikipedia is not a debate forum. We are under no obligation to answer your "rebuttals", and you shouldn't even be making such arguments unless you have specific formal publications you wish to integrate into the article. No, you cannot delete the remarks of others, and if you begin to do so I will bring it to the administrators' attention. CRCulver 18:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have the right to delete content added to articles if it does not conform to Wikipedia policy, as do all editors. Rep-lying to your comments seemed to be pointless becuse responding to so many basic misconceptions would have been very very tedious. However, since you are keen I will repond below your comments above. Paul B 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

199.43.48.130 chimes in

This article is a big fraud by people like Paul B and Dab, these same people (westerners and christians) were once (and most still are) fervent supporters of violent AIT (basically whites coming down and subjugating and 'uplifting' blacks). Now with a barrage of evidence against AIT, it has been craftly morphed into AMT. This article has been modified by such people to present a picture that AIT was never a serious theory (phrases like 'polemic construct'..), however, in reality, AIT was and still is officially accepted & supported all over west & sometimes in India as well (due to leftist dominance in this field). I am not providing any links to supports this, as it is very obvious.. see Indian-history pages on websites of all major western organisations viz.CIA, US Dept. of state, discovery's history channel and so on.. In all of these cases, Aryan invasion, Dravidan subjugation and IVC distruction is mentioned as history. Basically, the trend is, if they can get away with mentioning AIT as fact, they will do so. If pressed with hard evidence (or on sites like wikipedia where there is room for protest), AMT will be mentioned as an alternative, or AIT will be toned down to 'Invasion when IVC was already declining' or 'Invasion + other reasons caused the fall of IVC'.199.43.48.130 17:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

warning, reality is a big fraud by the universe, avoid exposure or endanger your prejudices: reality is almost always more complicated than you thought. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the CIA, MI5 and Mossad pay me to write this stuff. How did you know? Rogue elements of the former KGB have also been known to chip in. As part of their cunning plan they have even printed old-looking books by invented European writers who seem to know nothing about this "AIT" concept, but clearly describe what they envisage as migrations, so that this "crafty morphing" to AMT can appear never to have occured! Paul B 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok so what do we have here -- a sarcastic nerd. Jokes apart, I'm not prejudiced against AMT, in fact I might even agree to some of its aspects, my problem here is with the hypocrisy of you guys. You claim that Mass Invasion was never supported by people of your ilk. In reality the theory of mass aryan invasion had, and still has widest acceptance in west. If you refute this, please explain why all major western organisations support violent AIT as fact(see CIA factsheet,US Dept.of State, History channel and any major western site on India, esp. Christian sites). My point is that all these sites are not for historians but for general public. Hence, support for AIT here suggests an attempt by you guys to mislead majority of people who do not have sufficient knowledge of India's history. It is only on serious History related sites that AMT or other alternates are given any credence. Likewise, school textbooks in US blindly present AIT as fact. In light of all this, its sickening to see you claiming that AIT has always been a fringe theory, and western historians 'always knew' of AMT i.e. there was no attempt by mainstream western historians to enshrine AIT and implicitly 'white supremacy' as history.199.43.48.129 17:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, when I mentioned CIA, It was not in the sense of Mossad, KGB and all james bond stuff... I mentioned it basically as an example of 'a major source of credible info for common western public'. But, of course, you knew this already, the real reason behind your sarcastic comment was to skirt the issue I am raising.199.43.48.129 17:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea what "CIA factsheet" you are referring to or what issue I am supposed to be "skirting". The history of the argument is complex. The article tries to cover that complex history. Early writers assumed migration, not invasion - that includes most writers from Jones through to and including Max Muller (who has a Renfrew-like model of expanding farmers). The theory becomes strongly racialised from about 1880 onwards, which is when you get the strongest emphasis on whites versus dark-skinned aboriginals. But even writers like Morris, who believe hat PIEs were Nordic, think that by the time IE speakers reached India they were no longer "blond types", having intermingled with other peoples en route. With the discovery of the IVC this theory morphs into a more emphatically invasionist model in which the Aryans have to crush powerful enemies - like the Goths overthrowing Rome - but this also "equalises" the portrayal of the two groups, so that the "Dravidians" are less likely to be seen as primitive, but more likely as victims of barbarian invaders. After WW2 this morphs again into a portrayal of Aryan invaders as Nazi-like "bad guys", as evidenced in the 1960 novel The Venus of Konpara and Dravidianist writers such as Periyar Ramasami and others. Archaeology and other evidence moves against the mass migration argument in all areas of ancient history in recent decades. The same arguments exist conccerning the extent of Anglo-Saxon migration to England, and the degree to which migration can be called invasion. So migration and invasion have always both been part of the history of the idea. Sometimes one was emphasised, sometimes the other. Paul B 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thats excactly the kind of hypocrisy I was talking about, you say that "..migration and invasion have always both been part of the history of the idea..", however, to common public AIT has always been presented as the RIGHT VERSION. e.g. see the history section of India's entry on History channel: http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=212623

I dont know whether its legal to quote the text from there, but its typical western propoganda "..Dravidian India was subjected to the first of a sustained series of invasions by tribes of the Indo-European linguistic stock. These tribes, of uncertain racial origin but usually referred to as Indo-Aryans, entered the subcontinent through the mountain passes along the northwestern frontier and gradually occupied most of the territory north of the Vindhya Range and west of the Yamuna River. Many Dravidians fled to the north and into the Indian Peninsula, regions where the Dravidian linguistic stock .."199.43.48.129 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no idea why you call it hypocricy. I simply described the history of the theory. I'm not part of some unified 'western' viewpoiint which makes me somehow responsible for what the History Channel and some CIA website say. History as presented in popular media is always going to be simplified. Do you have any specific criticisms of the article. Paul B 19:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a considerable difference between 'simplified' and 'blatant lie for the purpose of propoganda'. I dont deem you personaly responsible for anything. But I do accuse western historians in general of hypocrisy. To hide this hypocrisy, You now refer to official positions of History channel, CIA factbook, US dept. of State on AIT as 'some CIA website'. There is no 'some CIA website', it represents the official position of US and its mainstream historians (I assume top US govt. organisations to be competent enough to have the best western historians provide them with information for public dissemination). The information propogated here has a wide audience. If one looks at various such sources (summarised Indian history from a western source meant for common public), it invariably supports a violent version of AIT. Why is that so? How does this compares to your claim that both AIT and its alternates had & have comparable credence in west.

And what propaganda would that be? How exactly is "Western" propaganda assisted by the assertion that ancient "invasions by tribes of the Indo-European linguistic stock" took place? Does this advance American interests in some way? There is no "official position of the US", and yes, you vastly underestimate the mediocrity of government institutions. The difference between AIT and AMT is like the difference between "Anglo-Saxon invasion theory" (ASIT) and "Anglo-Saxon migration theory" (ASMT). It's true that the Saxons migrated and its also true that that they engaged in warfare and territorial expansion. The extent to which their expansion was military, migratory, or cultural/elite influence is debated, but there are not two distinct theories, just a range of positions on a continuum. If you want to find out what mainstream historians believe, try reading their books. Paul B 23:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you dont mind me interfering, it appears the ip is trying to push the truth. In other words its called POV. Wikipedia isnt a soapbox (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not). If the notable sources (see Wikipedia:Notability) say something then that is what the article is going to say. We are not here to do original research and try to uncover conspiricies of mass missinformation of the western public. - Tutmosis 23:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

it is not even clear what he wants. I don't even have an opinon on how violent exactly this "invasion" or "migration" might have been. I am very much open to discuss the silliness and chauvinism that may be found in 18th and 19th century scholarly mainstream, in fact, I even delight in reviewing the more bizarre instances. I still don't see, after all this time, how the notion of an prehistoric invasion of the Indian subcontinent (on top of the dozen or so known historical invasions along the same route) would in any way bolster or further chauvinist, colonialist, racist or Eurocentric views. Seriously, I don't. I can see how the idea may be welcome to Dravidian or Dalit campaigners, but I simply don't see any stakes in the debate from the pov of a colonialist agenda. The British didn't need an invasion theory to justify their colonies in Africa or America. In fact, justification of British colonialism would have suffered from the realization that, in an "Aryan chauvinist" worldview, they were not ruling some unrelated "savage" population but a population with which they shared historical ties, so if any considerations of this sort had been involved, the British would have had to dishonestly disendorse AIT. 193.43 appears to just have felt like dropping a few provocative comments on a Wikipedia talkpage. In any case I do not see any suggestion for improvement of the article. dab (ᛏ) 19:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

There is something very wrong with the above comment by this German guy, at one point he implicitly assumes that colonized peoples were 'savages'. This guy pretends to be oblivious to the obvious. The pretentious arguments he provides are so lame and superficial that they dont need any countering199.43.48.130 16:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of link

User:Crculver has twice removed the link to hinduwisdom, saying it was linkspam. I remarked that "it was a legitimate link, please look at the site hinduwisdom.info/index.htm (formerly atributetohindusim".

What the anonymous user did was replacing the atributetohinduism site with the hinduwisdom site, presumbably because the website has moved to that new address. It can easily be verified by visiting the hinduwisdom.info site. He was only updating a link.--RF 18:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone cares about HinduWisdom links that much, he's probably affiliated with the site. According to external links guidelines, it is forbidden to link to one's own sites. Therefore, the link must go. CRCulver 18:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The atributetohinduism site was on this page for ages. I'm sure there are many users that find the link useful. It's basically a big page with quotations. Some of these quotes are interesting to read, hence the page is interesting IMO. I don't understand on what basis you removed it. He may have spammed it on other pages, but here it is useful. --RF 18:56, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

SOP is to remove all mass-added links even if they seem useful. The only way to communicate with linkspammers is to roll back everything. CRCulver 19:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Well cr, attribute is HinduWisdom, under a new avatar. The spammer got it right. Please look at WP:AGF and perhaps WP:POINT. Bakaman _Bakatalk 01:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your article has errors......

Eg. You stated, "Nazis, who adopted the swastika design from Indian culture as an "Aryan" badge..." Hitler selected swastika is anti-clockwise. The auscipious swastika of India is Clockwise. Please note this very clearly. -DG

Please note that you are talking baloney. See swastika and sauwastika. Paul B 23:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, for a person whose knowledge of the facts is entirely from third party studies, you are certainly very emphatic, and very politely so, in fact. The swastika is drawn both ways. It is used by Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, and a number of other cultures. However, the *traditional* swastika that is used as an auspicious symbol daily, in thousands of temples, coins and other current symbolism the swastika is nearly always drawn clockwise. You would do well to pull your nose out of whatever latest book you're getting your information from and to actually make a trip to India and *record* the occurances of both types of swastikas, and count the relative frequency of the two. It is stupid to point to a couple of wikipedia pages as a refutation -- a circular logic of sorts. It is also in very poor taste to be impolite while spewing nonsense. -BR

What exactly are "third party studies"? You are making very little sense. I might even say you are "spewing nonsense". I merely pointed to those pages because they document the subject in some detail, with extensive references. Have you bothered to read them? If you have you see that the standard Nazi swastika has the same orientation as the most common Indian form - demonstrating that "DG" was indeed talking baloney. Paul B 01:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

www.sabha.info

WIN, if you actually read what Muller says in the passages that "www.sabia.info" reproduces you will see how thoroughly dishonest the author of the webpage is. He even includes pages in which Muller is summarising arguments that he is disagreeing with, as though the summaries represent Muller's own views! There is certainly good reason to believe that Muller looked forward to the Christianisation of India, but no reason at all to believe that the idea that "Aryans" originated outside India was in any way connected to that aspiration. It was a commonplace view, even argued by F. Schlegel's brother A.W. Schlegel, well before Muller. There is no evidence that any of the writers who thought this at this time would have made any assumption that models of ancient migrations would somehow encourage Christian belief. The idea that religious culture is a product of history - and not "eternal" - can be connected to the claim that this makes the notion of transformation, and hence conversion, more acceptable, but don't forget that Christian missionaries had happily done without such notions for centuries, and that the historicising of religion applied at least as much to Christianity itself. Paul B 15:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

fwiiw, propaganda was never compatible with honesty, and this article is about propaganda, and sabha.info would be a perfect example. We can discuss propaganda on Wikipedia, we just have to avoid from propaganda being smuggled into the discussion, which is of course what WIN is here for. dab (𒁳) 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

http://www.sabha.info/research/aif.html contains scanned pages of Max Muller's letters that were published in a book form in 1910 after his death. Telling author of webpage as dishonest is misguiding as it contains scanned copies and not any writeup by webpage author. Then, you should call book publisher as dishonest as webpage author is honest in giving scanned copies with highlight.

You people should stop ill portraying every single person who finds any objection in AIT/AMT. That's Ostrich behaviour. WIN 11:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

this is the very article to discuss the fact that many many people object to the notion on political grounds. This is the place to discuss propaganda, and not the place to discuss scholarly viability. Due weight discussion of the academic debate belongs on Indo-Aryan migration. As has been pointed out again and again. dab (𒁳) 13:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WIN, shall I show you exactly how the website author distorts Muller, or shall you actually read it for yourself - not just the passages he hightlights and the titles he gives, but the whole pages that are there? The whole thing is trying to prove that Muller was motivated by literal belief in the Bible, when he actually clearly says the opposite. Here are just two examples; the author has the following headings to passages he has scanned from Muller's book The Science of Language, Vol. 2:

"4000 years ago is very early period in history of the world!"

"I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens"

"Best method is to look for Jewish tradition

"Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition

"Greek Mythology is dimmed version of Jewish tradition (contd.)

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (or Sanskrit is dimmed version of Jewish tradition)"

"Sanskrit, Greek have common origin (contd.)"

The last two are rather bizarre, since obviously MM does believe that Sanskrit and Greek have a common origin! This has nothing to do with dimmed memmories of "Jewish tradition".

Let's look at the section entitled "I belong to School of interpreting through Biblical lens". In fact this is a chapter called "Biblical interpretation". There is no "I belong to..." in Muller's text. This is a chapter in which Muller is summarising the views of Biblical literalists who "imagined they could recognise in Saturn the features of Noah and in his three sons, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, the three sons of Noah, Ham, Japhet and Shem". The author highlights in yellow the statement about the sons, while cutting off the word "imagined" and trying to suppress the obviously satirical tone of Muller's words - which form part of an unambiguous rejection of such methods. The section entitled "Pagans make unmistakable reference to Garden of Eden!" is even more duplicitous. Here we have a highlighted passage in which Muller appears to say "it is impossible to doubt that here [the Greek myth of Hesperides] we have a tradition of the garden of Eden"[4]. However, the author accidentally includes evidence of his own duplicity, by elsewhere including a scan of the previous pages [5] [6] which make it clear that Muller is quoting one F.A.Paley, specifically for the purpose of summarising the mistaken approach of "Biblical interpretation". I could go on...and on. Paul B 13:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

as they say on the internet, lol. dab (𒁳) 14:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

As suggested by Paul B, I would like to express my opinion on AIT. As I have already mentioned earlier, AIT is taught in schools all over India. I too have grown up on AIT being taught at my school. Thus, I re-iterate again that there is nothing political about it.

Just like the controversial String Theory or Einstein's antagonistic views on Uncertainty Principle, sure AIT is accepted by many and criticzed (or rejected) by many others, but to label it as I quote, "...a controversial polemical term used in Indian politics in the context of discussions of South Asian prehistory, ......" is not correct, and distortion of a fact. Indian Air Force (IAF)

Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda)

In my opinion, using such redirects as Aryan Invasion Theory (propaganda) is not neutral.

from the introduction:

As a polemical term, it is pitted against its opposite, the "Indigenous Aryan Theory".

This reads like it is only and everywhere a polemical term.

The term as used in polemical debate typically refers to an invasion model that had backing in the early 20th century

Why is the focus on polemical debate? This is not accurate or neutral. I've also changed the title "examples of Hindu sites "debunking Aryan Invasion" in the External links to a more neutral formulation. --RF 00:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the relationship between polemics and history. It is surely accurate to say that "AIT" is a polemical term, mainly because it tends to conflate different aspects of an essentially unexceptional theory - that a language entered a geographical area at some point in ancient history. Yes, versions of this model have been used to justify nationalism and racism, but so have many other essentially unproblematic theories. I think there is good evidence that that the theory justifies anti-racism as least as much as racism. What's wrong with the word "debunking"? Paul B 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is, that the terms AIT and Aryan Invasion can be used in polemics, but is not always used that way in the history of the term. The introduction makes it look like it's only used in polemics. I believe that the word "debunking" is not often used in encyclopedias (try searching it on MSN Encarta), and that the most neutral formulation should be preferred. I could be wrong about the exact meaning of the word, but the forumulation is still pov (like using the word with " " signs). So the other version reads more neutral. Sites can also be critical but still not claiming to debunk something. --RF 11:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms "Aryan Invasion Theory" and "AIT" are, as far as I know, exclusively used in polemics with specific reference to India. No-one talks about the "Aryan Invasion Theory" of ancient Italian or Greek origins for example - though there are isolated ultra-Nationalist Greeks who deny that the wondrously perfect Greek language could have evolved from some "barbarians". Nineyteenth century writers speak of "Aryan invasion and migrations along with many other migrations and invasions. Paul B 13:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about the history of a theory, not (or less) about the history of a term. Like the article fascism is more about fascism, and not about the history of the term itself. Secondly, that the theory existed, and that its history still is studied, is I think clear. This is not always done by using the term AIT, but synomys are used, like the abbreviation "Aryan Invasion" or the myth or model of the Aryan invaders. But it refers to the same theory, and the article is about the theory, and less about the term itself. (Aryan invasion redirects to AIT). Thirdly, saying that it is used exclusively in polemics is Wikipedia:No original research, if it is not cited.

Here are some examples that use the exact phrase "Aryan Invasion Theory", and there are many more:

• Aryans, Jews, Brahmins, Dorothy M. Figueira Page 155 The Aryan invasion theory was contrived to support brahmin superiority,
• Lonely Planet. India, p.22, history section.
• Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective By Sugirtharajah, Sharada Sugirtharajah
• A Study of Qualitative Non-pluralism By Christopher Etter. the Aryan Invasion Theory states that the Vedas were a product of the Aryan invaders and that they .
• Race And The Third Reich: Linguistics, Racial Anthropology And Genetics in The Dialectic Of Volk By Christopher M. Hutton. the con-temporary relevance of Aryan invasion theory was outlined p.86 --RF 14:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the phrase is used am I? I am saying that the formulation "Aryan Invasion Theory" and especially its acromym "AIT" (or "the AIT") are used almost exclusively in the context of polemical version of Indian history but not in scholarly study of ancient culture or in reference to any other Indo-European or Indo-Iranian culture. We never hear of the "Aryan Invasion Theory" of Iranian history do we? As a phrase with a specific modern use it is essentially polemical in function. No doubt you can find stray examples of this combination of words in other contexts, but all the ones you have given appear to be either polemical or populist, though the context of the last one is not entirely clear. When used with a polemical meaning the intention - as with Elst - is usually to blur the issue of IE migrations with material about Nazism, Imperialism, race-theory etc. It's not surprising that the phrase apppears in texts devoted to "post colonial theory" and such like because, as you say, it is widely circulated. Paul B 07:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said, the article is not (or less) about the history of term, but about the history of the theory, which has many names, like the abbreviation "Aryan Invasion", AIT, the model or myth of the Aryan invaders. This is the article to discuss the theory of Aryan Invasions, and Aryan Invasion redirects here. You still didn't give a source for your claim that it is exclusively used in polemics, and I must assume then that it is Original research. I don't know if the exact phrase is also used for other invasions of the Aryans elsewhere, but it was also argued that the Aryans/I-E invaded or conquered other parts in the world. I can not find a larger quote of the last book on the Internet than this:

• Page 86, The con-temporary relevance of Aryan invasion theory was outlined by Madison Grant (1916: 64-5), who made a direct parallel between ancient India and the .. --RF 13:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The Aryan race article does also not say anything in the introduction about polemics. I agree that one sentence could be used in the intro about polemics, but it shouldn't dominate the introduction. --RF 18:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

sigh, this is an article on political propaganda from beginning to end. Everybody agrees the term is used as propaganda. This doesn't preclude it has been used in scholarly contexts in the past, this is why Aryan Invasion Theory is a disambiguation page. The term "Aryan" isn't even used in bona fide discussions any more, you need to say up front whether you mean Indo-Aryan or Indo-Iranian, which is not the same. The Hindutva crowd allege the term is British/colonial propaganda, which may be partly true, but is essentially setting up a caricature strawman of the actual theory that is that is then shot down with bells and whistles in a bout of even more propaganda. The very reason it is impossible to have a reasonable discussion about the topic in India is that it is steeped in propaganda beginning to end, from left and right: it isn't just the "right" that uses this to set up their "evil Christians tried to look down on us noble Aryans" shtick, the "left" is just as eager to abuse refutations of the strawman as a straman as yet more propaganda. This neurotic trait of Indian politics is the topic of this article. Discussions of what may have happened in the Bronze Age is not the topic of this article. dab (𒁳) 10:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Some earlier versions seemed to be formulated more neutrally (and some more pov).

from the introduction

The term as used in polemical debate typically refers to an invasion model that had backing in the early 20th century, and which was associated with Nordicist ideology (the belief that the Aryans were a master race of Northern European origin).

The earlier version read: It is typically used to refer to an invasion model that had backing in the early 20th century, and which was associated with Nordicist ideology (the belief that the Aryans were a master race of Northern European origin).

This sentence refers to the theory or model itself, not to any political debate about it. It is not needed to introduce every reference to the theory itself with the word "polemical". --RF 22:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting this article?

Dbachmann has suggested that the article should be either split, or be a concise WP:SS article, and that "A decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism") would reduce it to about half its present size; the "Political and religious issues" could be merged here, while "Early history of the theory" could be summarized in the IAM article."

I'm not against Summary styles articles (as long as the article doesn't become ridicously short), but I'm not for splitting the article and making a disambiguation page of it. AIT is the most common name for this topic, much more common than Indigenous Aryan Theory which is not common at all. And by policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most commonly used name in English should be used.

And what is meant by a "decent cleanout of offtopic observations on Nazis, imperialism and 19th century Romanticism just used to add spin ("Role in Imperialism and Nazism")"? Should this simply be deleted, so that there is more room for "Hindu nazism" claims? I'm not against putting it in a separate article, but I don't think that the article is too long. --Rayfield 20:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Split? Split this into what article/s? Are we merely talking of content/POV forks here? If so, that would be against wiki laws. Please clarify. Sarvagnya 21:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose splitting of article – AIT has been around for longest time, this is most common name for this topic. This name is easily recognized by a casual reader and conveys the topic. Indigenous Aryan Theory (IAT) on other hand is very confusing name. The editors who created that name are not sure what it means. AIT name doesn’t tell a casual reader what the article is about. There is very little material of value on IAT page. I recommend moving any relevant material from IAT to AIT page.Sbhushan 23:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I noticed on the talk page above that Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) is a former featured article. . Obviously lot of editors hard work went to make it happen. Why would we want to split a good article for no reason.Sbhushan 14:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - splitting of the AIT article. WIN 10:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose any further splitting. The various splinter articles that survive AfD should be pruned and then hopefully could be merged. Also per Sarvagnya, replacing this main article with disambig page wouldn't constitute an improvement. Addhoc 14:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No mention of similarities between Hinduism and Zoroastrianism

This article tries to paint those who believe the upper caste north Indians migrated to India long ago as nothing better than Nazis. This is not true. There is considerable evidence for the belief that the north Indians arrived from elsewhere and this is a respectable academic opinion. One piece of evidence which has always influenced this debate is the similarity between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. This similarity is difficult to explain without positing an external origin for the north Indians. I think the similarity between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism and its influence on this debate should be mentioned. The Zoroastrian story of creation claims that the Persians once lived far too the north and had to move southward due to a winter which never ended. Many consider this a reference to the last Ice Age. Zoroastrianism also speaks of a time when all water was fresh, and then the demons created salt water. Some, admittedly not many, people believe this is a reference to the Black Sea turning from fresh to salty several thousand years ago. I think that the belief in the external origin of north Indians should not be so consistently demonized. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.196.57 (talk) 02:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC).