Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 9

BBC View

Can someone add this BBC published link at 'External Links' section. I don't have autharization to add this link. Niranjan B 12 March 2007

You mean [1]. Page 4 is essentially a disclaimer, "dear Indian patriots, ~we know you don't like it, please don't fry us". dab (𒁳) 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
But what is the problem in adding this to "External Links" . If you are 'concerned' about India bias in Page 4 [2] then you can add page 1[[3] also. I know you don't like to add whole article in this topic. You want us to believe your outdate '1848' theories. When we question then we become Indian Patriots!. This is not the patriots Vs hater, it is discovering truth, not accepting blindly whatever some western scholars said 150 years ago (We did that long time). BBC is widely browsed website visitor should know BBC’s views on this topic. For common visitors it is better than other external links. Niranjan B 12 Mar 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
not at all, there is no problem with linking this (preferably to page 1). It used to be linked, and I hadn't noticed it was gone. dab (𒁳) 09:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I prefer Page 4 [4]as this is directly linked this topic, Page 1 gives only brief history of early history. So Page 4 is more relevent here. Niranjan B 14 March 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Can some one add this (BBC) external link? I don't have autharization. Niranjan B 26Mar2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Deletions by Dab

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

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

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

Domesticated horses in IVC or Neolithic India was a big hoax, WIN. Didn't you read about it? Don't accuse dab of bad faith. deeptrivia (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
WIN just copied some passages from Kazanas. As if Kazanas' "research" were worth anything. And now we have someone else taking up cudgels for a slew of "references" that neither of them have checked. A significant omission, btw, is the pair of articles from South Asian Studies 1997 (Bokonyi, and the comment on that by Meadow and Patel.) Of course, they could put the passage in quotes and prefix it with "According to Kazanas", but that would defeat their purpose. Tsk, tsk. rudra 03:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
indeed. It has long transpired that Kazanas is Subhash Kak's meatpuppet. If he was at least an expert in anything we could cite him regardless of this, but so far we only know that he runs a Yoga institute in Greece and allegedly has a M.A. in something. dab (𒁳) 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, first read the additions properly. B.B.Lal & Basham books' ref. with page no. is already written. B.B.Lal & Basham are well known archeologists related with IVC excavations. B.B.Lal's paper's weblink itself should be sufficient, otherwise it will be your zeal to delete spiked wheel point from the section for pushing your POV. WIN 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This is getting more and more pathetic. Our friend WIN insists on offering a webpage with no references and a PDF with no bibliography (What is Kazanas(1993)? What is Basham(1954)?) If Basham is the Basham of The Wonder that was India -- a historian, not an archaeologist -- then guess what, p.21 has no such statement as WIN's guru Kazanas claims. That's right, Kazanas pulled a fast one. Even worse, BB Lal's "lecture" doesn't even mention spindle whorls, let alone discuss them. So much for his archaeology, too. The worst part is that WIN and his ilk simply will not do their homework. They think that they can dump random garbage off the web, or demand that some single book be accepted as the Gospel Truth and the Last Word rolled into one in spades, and it's for others to "refute" their efforts. They refuse to grasp the difference between references and name-dropping. This is abuse, and it really has to stop. rudra 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you guys clarify the issue here? Horse bones are an archeologist issue. Kazanas has quoted various archeologists with page numbers. Are you saying that the archeologist quoted have not written those statements? OR Are you saying that only archeologist can quote other archeologist? The link above about "horseplay" is specific to Farmer/Witzel/Rajaram controversy (none of them are archeologist); it has nothing to do with BB Lal. Bokonyi when alive was acknowledged as an expert in the field. In controversy with Meadow, Bokonyi and Meadow agreed to disagree (Meadow 1997:315). Bokonyi died before he could respond to Meadow. Other archeologist quoted by Kazanas are Allchin and Joshi (1995:95), Dhavalikar (1995: 116-117), BB Lal (1997). Similar material is also in Bryant 2001 chapter 9 - "The Horse". So can you please specify what is wrong in Win's suggestion?Sbhushan 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Have you read even a single one of these "references" you're citing, thanks to Bryant? How do you know that Bryant has his references right? (Did you know that Bryant's "Meadow(1997)" reference in his bibliography is wrong?) You mean it's only for High Holiness You to simply say "Oh Allchin and Joshi this and Dhavalikar that" to make it our job to figure out whether there are any facts behind your assertions? That you can hide behind your beloved Bryant's "authority"? It doesn't work that way. rudra 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
To give you some idea of the intellectual fraud you're trying to perpetrate here, look at your statement above: In controversy with Meadow, Bokonyi and Meadow agreed to disagree (Meadow 1997:315). To start with, there is no Meadow(1997). It's Meadow and Patel (1997). In his biblio, Bryant has the title of the article correct. But there is no South Asian Archaeology. It's South Asian Studies. The Meadow and Patel article is p.308-315. Bokonyi's article is immediately before, p.297-307. And there was no "controversy", there was only respectful disagreement. Meadow and Patel's phrase "agree to disagree" is on p.308. So what is p.315? It's the second part of Bryant's quote, after the ellipsis in the middle. You did not know any of this, and yet you had the temerity to cite Bokonyi and Meadow(1997:315) and whatever else you felt like as if you not only knew something but also were entitled to answers from us? You have some nerve. rudra 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Rudra, you have some nerve. You tried to publish a whole article [Indigenous Aryans] of original reserach, where not one "references" was correct. Here you are quibling about date and page number. So far you haven't found anything wrong with the content.Sbhushan 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
none of the content of Indigenous Aryans is "original research", every last bit is referenced to notable publications. I am sorry you don't like communis opinio, but you shouldn't blame us or Wikipedia for it. It is you who keeps pimping your sources for your agenda. This is dishonest and disruptive, and it will get you nowhere on Wikipedia, because thank goodness we have plenty of scepticists. dab (𒁳) 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Did you mean this referenced version by you [[5]], which had more original research in notes. Or this version where you were misquoting BB Lal [[6]]. The current version has removed all the original reserach that you and Rudra tried to publish in wikipedia voice. In the six months, I have yet to see a single, good citation from you. Do you want me to provide history of that? Similar thing with Rudra; he wants to publish his original research in Wikipedia voice and only thing he can find wrong here is the Meadow said the statment on page 308 and not on 315. Does it not clearly state in my note that Kazanas quoted this and this is secondary source?Sbhushan 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Genetics studies

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

The problem with all these studies is the time depth involved. None of them have error bars sufficiently narrow to say anything particularly conclusive about influxes as recent as the 2nd BCE. That's why I would argue against quoting any genetic studies at all: the time frame is wrong in relation to the subject here. rudra 10:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
that's not a problem, since the studies don't claim they do (some editors do, incorrectly, but mistaken edits are not "a problem" as such). All the studies can provide is some sort of upper bound of prehistoric population influx. If the studies conclude, say, that maximal influx to NW Indian paternal lines is around 7%, we will be able to conclude that the "Indo-Aryan migration" will have involved population displacements rather below that number. But yes, the "genetics" section should be radically cut down to stating the general consensus that influx was "low". dab (𒁳) 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Spoked wheels"

Spindle whorls come with all sorts of decorations, as anyone, not to mention archaeologists, can find out for himself. rudra 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Clark's Law

Yet another example.

  • (Before:) Based on linguistic evidence, most scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India following the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian and the subsequent Indo-Iranian expansion out of Central Asia (Mallory 1989)[page # needed].[1] These scholars argue that, in India, the Indo-Aryans interacted with the remnants of the Indus Valley civilization, a process that gave rise to Vedic civilization (Parpola 2005). The linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed by the relevant scholars (Bryant 2001, p. 73–74). Linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds, but contemporary consensus clearly favours "gradual migration" over "military invasion".
  • (After:) Based on linguistic evidence, most scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India following the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian and the subsequent Indo-Iranian expansion out of Central Asia (Mallory 1989)[page # needed].[1] These scholars argue that, in India, the Indo-Aryans interacted with the remnants of the Indus Valley civilization, a process that gave rise to Vedic civilization (Parpola 2005). The fact that cognate languages must, by definition, have a common linguistic and geographic origin is little disputed by the relevant scholars.[2] Linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds, but contemporary consensus clearly favours "gradual migration" over "military invasion".

IOW, how to turn a paragraph with a weakening hold on coherence into stark raving gibberish. Context? Continuity? Relevance? Who cares about those? Just drop a "well-sourced reference" anywhere you please. Yes, I know, this is not vandalism. Maybe WP needs a policy page on sabotage. rudra 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The key theme of Bryant's book is that there is no consensus on even basic linguistic facts. But the article was claiming that "linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed by the relevant scholars" and attributing that to Bryant. When exact quote is provide from the book that was being referenced, you don't like the line anymore and remove it. You might want to also look up who inserted that overstated claim in the article in first place. It was long before I started contributing to the article. Who should Clark's law apply to?Sbhushan 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we have this straight. You're saying that you replaced a sentence with an "exact quote"? That's all? It didn't matter that the paragraph made no sense after that, the earlier sentence offended you so much that you had to turn the paragraph into gibberish just to make a point? Congratulations! You have surpassed yourself with your stultifying brilliance.


Did you note the (73-74)? It meant one of two things:

  • the offending sentence was a summary of two pages, hardly to be replaced by an "exact quote" in a single sentence (you do grasp what a summary is, I trust?); or
  • the relevant passage in Bryant being paraphrased crossed over from p.73 to p.74.

And lo! There is indeed a sentence fitting the second description: Unless this linguistic evidence is deconstructed in a thoroughly comprehensive methodological way, there are no a priori reasons to reject the basics of the Proto-Indo-European language as accepted by most linguists. Continue on to the sentence you elected to dump into the article, and you have the passage...


We want more! Go Sbhushan! Here's your chance to really shine. Show us the "key theme" of Bryant's book by reproducing for us here, the first sentence of Chapter 10. That's page 197. Counting two hyphenations as two words each, that's only 45 words. Can you do that for us? Please? Thanks so much! rudra 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You didn't include this part before the section that you quoted. Whatever might have been the real nature of Proto-Indo-European, for the purposes of this study, the existence of various linguistic stages of Indo-European more archaic than Vedic is irrelevant (or, at least, peripheral) to the problem of the origin of the Indo-Aryans. In the absence of compelling counterarguments, there are no grounds to question that Proto-Indo-European resembles, more or less, the reconstructed entity diligently assembled to the satisfaction of most historical linguistics with its e and o vowels, its laryngeals, and the rest of its carefully formulated components. All this says is that Vedic is NOT PIE, but to make a statement that linguistic facts of the situation are little disputed by the relevant scholars is using weasel words. The key word in the section you requested is assumptions, which is 7th word. If you have a specific question about a statement I have inserted I will address it. But I don't have time to read the book to you. If you don't know how many times Bryant has mentioned the malleable nature of linguistic evidence and how it can be configured to argue any side, then I don't have time to argue with you. You had asked me once previously to quote beginning of third paragraph in a chapter and I had responded back by asking you to read the end of the same paragraph and the first paragraph in same chapter. It appears you did not understand my response. If you are assuming that I don't have the book, then think about it again.Sbhushan 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Fringegab and technological fantasies

WIN (talk · contribs) insists on dumping his latest fadpiece into the article. He has not registered that his favorite webpage is an article without a bibliography.

  • So, what is "Kazanas(1993:33)"? Page 33 of what, and what does it say? Besides, it's by Kazanas himself, and thus worthless as a citation.
  • Similarly, what is "Basham(1954:21)"? Page 21 of what, and what does it say? Besides, the only well-known Basham was a historian, not an archaeologist.
  • Kazanas himself is no more than a footnote, so his sayso on the IVC having spoked wheels is worthless.

As for the piece allegedly by BB Lal, the "reference" is to some random geocities page. Even if it's a blog, there is nothing to indicate that it's self-published by Lal. It has every appearance of being a bootleg copy from somewhere, with no guarantee of accurate reproduction. But even disregarding all that, the piece seems to be a "lecture", not an academic publication, let alone peer-reviewed. At best, it records Lal's personal opinions. On a technical level, the failure to discuss alternate interpretations of the artifacts smacks of "making a case" rather than scholarly "study".

Wikipedia does not exist to report random effluvia. WIN (talk · contribs) should move on to areas where he could make a constructive contribution, rather than waste everyone's time here. rudra 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The B.B. Lal lecture is posted on this commercial web site plugging a book by Simone Boger. Also, this Berkeley site links directly to the geocities page. For what's it worth, I would consider the lecture to be a reliable source. Addhoc 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The Berkeley site is a chapter of the Hindu Students Council, which is part of the VHP of America. It is explicitly a Hindutvavadi organization, and thus unlikely to be a source of necessarily unbiased information. rudra 02:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no doubt that Lal gave a lecture at the NCERT, and I have no doubt that the contents constitute nothing more than his personal opinions. That is, we have here at best a reliable source for what Lal said. We are nowhere near a reliable source for what the artifacts in a picture are and what they "mean". You do understand, I hope, that WP is about mainstream understandings and that archaeologists are often in disagreement over the interpretation of artifacts? It would take willful blindness not to see the patent POV-pushing in this "lecture". rudra 11:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, for the avoidance of doubt, a reliable source for the significant minority opinion for which Lal is a prominent adherent. Addhoc 13:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains, though, that the reference is essentially a blog. A fringe theory from a blog has no place in an article dealing with mainstream views of Indo-Aryan migrations. rudra 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Nope, it's a significant minority opinion and per WP:V "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher". Addhoc 09:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Having re-read WP:RS (as referenced by WP:V), I'm not so sure that there is a reliable source here. What is the "reliable production process" for this blog "publication"? The correct sources for artifacts from Rakhigarhi, Banawali, etc should be the reports published by the archaeologists involved (e.g. Bisht). BB Lal is long retired, and his post-retirement stuff on the IVC is rarely referenced in the professional literature (except by his proteges, of course). This is a case of auctoritas and ipse dixit, not of properly sourced information. rudra 11:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

For you Asko Parpola 's Proto-Rigveda & Proto-Dasa etc. ramblings are scholarship just because he supports Aryan Invasion / Migration theory. And, you will overwhelmingly cite his guess. It's height of pseudoism of AIT supporters who are finding his arbitrary or circular logic as scholarship. But, an opposer like B.B. Lal 's lecture with photos will be a personal opinion !!! B.B. Lal was previously a believer of Aryan Invasion/Migration theory , but now he is not supporting such a theory , based on newer findings ! WIN 10:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Parpola's reconstruction is accepted as a workable hypothesis by mainstream scholarship. You don't know this because you haven't read anything except some silly blogs and fringelit PDFs. If you haven't yet grasped that Wikipedia is obligated to reflect mainstream understandings, why are you here at all? Go set up a and ramble to your heart's content. rudra 16:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Rudra, NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. I suggest you carefully review the WP:UNDUE section in WP:NPOV - B.B. Lal's views should be included. Addhoc 09:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
um, this is precisely what rudra is saying. The imbalance of encyclopedicity must strike anyone watching this: rudra has good knowledge of the scholarly literature on the topic, WIN is scrounging any nationalist blog for soundbites. On any other topic on Wikipedia, there wouldn't even need to be debate about this. WIN simply cannot accept what happens to be so widely accepted in mainstream scholarship that there is hardly any debate on it. Sure, we can cite Lal: he is your best bet for a quotable dissenting opinion. We can cite him for whatever his statements are worth, directly, not after his soundbites have been run through the online propaganda machine. Any good faith editor around here will finally have to accept that we will represent the rock-solid academic consensus on this, with a minor reference to dissenting views, per precisely the policies Addhoc is quoting. You don't like mainstream consensus, or Wikipedia policy? You have three possibilities: (a) drop it, (b) rant about it on your blog, and (c), get tenure at some University and publish monographs about it. dab (𒁳) 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

dab, rudra, Addhoc (plus others)

Wow, you guys just go from page to page, trolling, yelling at people, calling everyone else liars, except you guys have contrived views, most of the time, without sources, and ganging up on people, personally attack them, and lie in order to stand your own ground. I think it's time you guys stop censorship of researched publications by your non-neutral positions. Cosmos416 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I dont see why you criticize addhoc. He's making a rather good faith effort.Bakaman 02:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Bakman, my experience with Addhoc has been very positive; he is making good faith effort to improve encyclopedia and his efforts should be commended. But I can't say same for either Rudra or Dab. Both of them claim to be experts, but when they are asked to demonstrate their expertise by adding good content, all they can do is, add original research. Please see request to Rudra here [[7]] and [[8]]. Both of these editors are ill-mannered and uncivil.Sbhushan 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Cosmos416 is very obviously not serious. his surreal exploits on Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) make clear that he is not here to give even a semblance of following policy or debating in good faith. Seeing the angelic patience rudra was investing in helping Cosmos with his alleged difficulty of following a very simple English sentence establishes him as an extremely charitable editor who assumes good faith even to the point of ridiculing himself. dab (𒁳) 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Horse findings after 1990

For findings of horse in IVC, please read pg.18 of this article . Now, I ask Dab & Rudra to read that section. And, then I ask them to write here that how Mallory 1989 ref. for refusing horse findings in IVC is not irrelevant now, as newer findings in 1990s shows the opposite.

Otherwise , I am going to add about newer findings from the above article in 2 - 3 days. WIN 12:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Before you do anything of the sort, please note that this is yet another PDF without a bibliography. We've already been through name-dropping like "Basham(1954:21)". Do not do this again. Further, this particular PDF happens to be the article that, instead of being peer-reviewed, was published as is with nine critical reviews, in order to expose how pathetic its "arguments" were. Read about it here. If you haven't read these reviews, we are not here to give you a free education. rudra 15:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Read this - Allchin and Joshi found “lumbar vertebrae of horse” at Malvan, a Harappan site at Shaurastra (1995: 95).

The book name is "Excavations at Malvan " MAS192, New Delhi, 1995. (with Dr. RR. Allchin). WIN 05:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC) = Kazanas. We have taken due note that Kazanas is bent on scraping together any evidence he can for "Aryan IVC". He has proposed it in JIES. He was resoundingly refuted. Kazanas is worth a brief sentence or footnote in this article, not more, not less. Thank you. dab (𒁳) 08:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You can not refute any person just because he is opposing Aryan Invasion ( Migration ) theory. This is pure denial of any evidence.

This way you are refuting findings of Joshi & Allchin, after 1990. Where as your insisted Mallory ref. is of 1989. WIN 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

it is not me refuting it, it is pretty much the entire establishment. In the 2000s, no less, well after your 1995 "sensation". Why is it so difficult for you to understand the difference between "censorship" and separating academic mainstream from fringecruft? We are not here to criticize mainstream, we are here to report on it. dab (𒁳) 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, there was no sensation in 1995. The Cambridge/ASI excavation of Malvan took place in 1970. If the memoir, published 25 years late, really says "lumbar vertebrae of horse", that's meaningless (if not a late and tendentious editing -- not surprising, given the publication date), because vertebrae don't distinguish equids. Phalanges and teeth do. rudra 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read above ref. article's section, then there are many evidences saying that horse bones are found from IVC excavation area.

If you have any latest scholarly ref. refuting that said findings, then write here. Otherwise, your 1989 assertion holds no good faith.

Secondly, remember that if you hold such assertions then also it proves that IndoAryans invaded ( as also asserted by Mallory 1989 ). But, invasion of any IndoAryan people on ancient India is refuted totally. Hence, linguists are no more using Invasion term ( which was theorized by linguists for last 150 years ) and using migration term. But, underlying current is still for invasion. Otherwise , indoaryans can not do what is credited to them.

Have you any ref. mentioning that B.B. Lal 's finding of spoked wheel ( as mentioned in his article with photos ) is something else ? Otherwise you are just pushing your POV on WP by deleting my additions. WIN 11:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, this is not a game of trading references. You have ZERO knowledge of the field, and imagine that soundbites scraped from here and there are somehow meaningful. Please get a clue. In his review of Kazanas, RH Meadow wrote (in JIES vol30):
That is, random claims are cheap, even by archaeologists. How many of these claims have been confirmed? You, of course, have no idea. Why don't you just go away? rudra 11:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

But, hungarian horse specialist Sandor Bökönyi had confirmed that the excavated tooth specimens could "in all probability be considered remnants of true horses [i.e. Equus caballus Linn]". Bökönyi stated that "The occurrence of true horse (Equus Caballus L.) was evidenced by the enamel pattern of the upper and lower cheek and teeth and by the size and form of incisors and phalanges (toe bones). This was disagreed by Meadow.

Now, in this matter if there is a dispute among specialists ; then why Mallory's 1989 assertion is flashing here. Instead , it should be written that it's disputed. Same way there is a dispute that same linguistic evidences can also be argued for PIE in India.There is always two sides of a coin.

And, then why Aryan Invasion Theory was accepted in the west when there was no invasion evidence found in archeology, anthropology or in Indian literatures ( which infact says opposite ). So, such basic aspects were overlooked by western linguists in formulating theory.

So, the section should be neutral to the fact.

And, what about ref. of your spindle ? WIN 08:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WIN, in response to your last paragraph, why don't you actually read some of the historical literature on this subject to learn about how the theory developed? It's not difficult to find. It had nothing to do with horse bones and everything to do with ethnolinguistics. Max Müller wouldn't have had the faintest idea when horses were first found in India. The archaelogical evidence concerning the history of horse domestication came to be added to the model decades after it was established on other grounds. Tell me, why don't you think that Scotland is the home of PIE? I know of no evidence from "archeology, anthropology or in Scottish literature" of c1500BC invasions. Paul B 13:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
to be fair, an unambiguous Mature Harappan representation of horseriding or spoke-wheeled chariots would indeed impact the chronology of IAM, arguably pushing it back several centuries. Unearthing equid vertebra or "spokes" drawn on spindles (not to mention photoshop stunts) is not going to do that trick however, and PIE doesn't enter into it (this isn't "PIE migrations"). dab (𒁳) 13:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
My response was to intended to address WIN's comments about how "AIT" came to be "accepted in the west" - the point being that it was well established as a model before archaeological evidence of any kind was significant. I've no idea what "basic aspects" of "anthropology" seem to have been ignored by the formulators of the theory. Paul B 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WIN, for the last time: we are not here to educate you, and you show no sign of abandoning your state of utter ignorance. As Meadow has stated in a number of places, the earliest confirmed horse remains are from Pirak, at about 1800 BCE. There are plenty of horse remains from later dates, but those won't do your Indigenous Space Age Vedics any good. The whole point of the Harappan Horse cottage industry has been to "prove" horses in the 3rd millenium BCE or earlier. The only claim of this type with a semblance of archaeological professionalism (see Meadow quote above) has been AK Sharma's 1974 report from Surkotada, for horses at about 2200 BCE, and there was disagreement between Bokonyi and Meadow and Patel over this. So, Pirak at 1800 BCE it still is. Obviously you haven't read any of the originals; you are parroting Bryant. So, this will not be repeated again. Now, go away. rudra 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

BBC View

I added external link rudra don't remove this as this belongs to this article. This was discussed before But earlier i didn't had autharization to add. Common users of wikipedia understand plain language used BBC better than searching whole article to get needed info. This is not crap, BBC one of the most trusted source of news known for NPOV. Bkn (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)..

Discussed? Perhaps you missed the implications. The BBC is a news organization. It is not a source of encyclopedic information on scholarship, or for that matter, on propaganda masquerading as scholarship. The page you want to link cites no sources. It is, in effect, an essay or opinion piece, and adds nothing in the way of further information that is not already covered adequately in pages such as Out of India and Aryan Invasion Theory. We could waste time discussing the shoddy "scholarship" that went into the writing of that page, but the fact remains that the propagandist POV pushed by that page has already been registered properly elsewhere on WP. This page is about the scholarship on the issue, to which the BBC page contributes absolutely nothing. rudra 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was discussed sometime back (you can see in discussion page). Wikipedia is for all people not only for 'Experts' or 'scholars'. So if a common visitor read this article nothing can be clear understood as this not written in plan and point by point because of "scholarship" (both Pro and against is mixed in same paragraph). So once they read this confusing article they can visit BBC for easy reading. And I am adding this as external link not altering existing article. What is wrong with this? Why are so afraid? Because more people of would know truth? or People trust BBC than this 'Scholarly' article? In your point of view BBC article may be shoddy "scholarship", But BBC is best know for natural view and people trust the information. You may be pro-invasion /migrations but such people loosing ground as truth is coming out fast. Change in BBC view is best indication of that.Bkn (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Easy reading is not the point. Accuracy is the point. Encyclopedic value is the point. The BBC article does not have it. It is not informative, and indeed if anything, it misinforms. Do you get it now, or do you still insist that recycled Rajaram polemics is all there is to know on the subject and therefore Wikipedia's voice must be suborned to that POV? rudra 23:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
It may be easy reading but it is still silly ignorant rubbish. Fortunately it's not quite as silly as it once was, having been modified after numerous complaints. The historically inaccurate claim (copied from Rajaram) that Max Müller created the "aryan invasion theory" in 1848 is still trotted out, along with the absurd non-sequitors ("it suggests that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures" etc). Sadly, however, the BBC, however much they have betrayed themselves by posting this dross, still count as a reliable source according to the guidelines within which we work. Paul B 00:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, having reviewed WP:RS it seems that there is nothing there that requires us to include this if it contains demonstrable falsehoods, which it does. The "change in the BBC view", as you put it, is evidence that they have been lobbied, nothing more. The fact that the nonsense about 1848 (copied from Rajaram) is there indicates that no real reasearch has been done at all. Can someone please tell me which of MM's 1848 publications created the theory? Since it well predates 1848, it would be surprising. I guess Rajaram is thinking of Muller's 1848 edition of the Rigveda. I suppose he has never even seen it, since it is entirely in Sanskrit apart from a very short preface which says nothing whatever about Aryans, invasions, migrations or anything related to them. It just thanks people who'd helped him complete it. And why, according to this bizarre BBC page, does the theory only have implications for India, but apparently does not equally "suggest that Greek culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures" or that "German culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures" etc etc? Paul B 12:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The question is source. You may not like their point of view. If you think it is not accuracy or lobbied I think they are reflecting reality and written based latest developments. Imagine if BBC had ‘other view’ then you would have thought it has ‘encyclopedic’ value isn’t it. Therefore, It is incorrect to say information not accurate just because it doesn’t reflect your ‘view’. Why do you think ‘Chang in the BBC view’ because of lobbying? Just because you don’t like it? I am sure ‘pro invasion’ group is ‘lobbying’ put their view on BBC. I don’t know the BBC internal process before publishing their position on such sensitive issue (as they agreed in the beginning of the article) but sure they must have reviewed available material including ‘Rajaram’s’ and ‘Witzel’s’. May be you can argue (with BBC) on few points (like ‘1848’) but underlying message (Aryan invasion is inaccurate) is not going to change. I don’t understand your resistance to add this just as external link, which contains many non-scholar non-encyclopedic links (for eg DMOZ list contains a fiction ‘The Aryans - A page by Richard Hooker,). As paulb pointed out BBC still counts as reliable source, whether you like it or not so it should be added as external link if not in the article. BKN 7 may 2007.
Er, no. Accuracy is accuracy. It's not about reflecting my point of view. Why do I think that? I think it because I know the history of this page. Some while ago I contacted the Yahoo Indology list to encourage complaints and explantions from the BBC, as a result of which the page has been changed - but not enough! The underlying message is nothing more than non-sequitors. Paul B 20:34, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
You are right accuracy is accuracy. The things/facts is accurate for others is not accurate for you (this topic is not a Math subject). Most of them feel Witzel’s theory is inaccurate but still in external link. If current information were that accurate then this article wouldn’t look like ‘Phd’ thesis. Wouldn’t be debated so much. Does all the external links are accurate? links either pro or against invasion. As I pointed out, check the link in DMOZ list (The Aryans - A page by Richard Hooker), what is the accuracy and encyclopedic value in it? I guess there is a clean up needed in external links. Do you accept this? Then why you look for ‘accuracy’ in BBC?

From your comments I understand

1.You and your group ‘lobbied’ to change BBC contents – then lobbying is okey.
2.BBC content is fair – They listened to your group, They evaluated your complaints and made changes.
3.BBC is important - Otherwise you wouldn’t have try to change BBC contents
4.BBC has more impact on people - otherwise you would have dismissed the content as ‘non scholar’ non encyclopedic or something else. Because same/similar content is published in most of the websites
5.You would have accepted BBC has external link if all of your changes were accepted.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bkn (talkcontribs) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

BBC is important because it is widely circulated and respected. Lobbying is neither good nor bad in itself. I'm not complaining about that in itself, but about the fact that this weird page's very presence is purely a result of this. And as I say, it's a matter of factual accuracy, not interpreation. And, yes, I would have accepted it if it were accurate. Even now, I'm not strongly opposed - silly and nonsensical as the page is.Paul B 17:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

rudra, don't remove BBC link in external link. you did this nth time. if you have point discuss first.. It is better than other links. if you are worried about 'accuracy' or 'scholorship' then remove DMOZ link first. check the quality of the links in that listing. If you are not removed that i will remove later... BKN 12May2007
Listen up, and listen good. You are a WP:SPA. You have no business threatening to do anything. Your shenanigans with the DMOZ link are transparent attempts to filibuster in order to get your way. The DMOZ link is a directory: it has no direct content, and therefore cannot be compared with the garbage on the BBC page that you want to make it seem that Wikipedia endorses. You fool no one with your POV-pushing. The BBC link is **WRONG**. What part of "WRONG" do you not understand? Stop playing games and go find a blog. rudra 07:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes I started new, but I am intended to do more and cleanup mess. This no threatening but it is an attempt (DMOZ list) to expose your double standards in the name of scholarship. My question is do you accept articles in DMOZ listing? Just because it is directory it is not eligible to add under external link. Do you accept article by “ The Aryans - A page by Richard Hooker”. I don’t know what ‘accuracy’ and ‘scholarship’ you see in that article, that article is totally a fiction. Except this, most of the listings already part of references and external links. Why do you need this listing? Can you explain?

Second, when said BBC is 'WRONG' and garbage you never gave reason why it is wrong. I clearly stated my points why BBC should be part of external links (infact it should be part of initial summary). As I said before external links have both pro and against invasion, but you are 'worried' only BBC because you know BBC carries more value than Witzel etc and people believe BBC than other sites. So you don't want to visitor know the truth and latest developments.

Third, as I said before, I think (most of others) think Witzel article is a garbage but still it is allowed in external links because to accommodate both views (though other side becoming smaller and smaller).

And Finally, don’t suggest what I should do, I know what I am doing, mind your business, Okay? BKN 21 May 2007

On the contrary, you have not the faintest clue. What "theory" did Max Mueller propound in 1848 and where? Why don't you go and learn something instead of parading your utter ignorance? rudra 03:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I feel that the article should be sourced from strong academic sources. The BBC web site, at best, is a derivative source, and as such should not be used if a better source can be found for specific points that it makes. Instead of discussing the use of a web site, it would be helpful to me if someone would pick one specific point of fact that they feel should be included, and then the question can revolve around finding souces that are strong that either support or deny that point. The BBC web site does not actually cite any WP:RS in a way that meets the tests of Wikipedia:Verifiability so it clearly fails to meet the tests of WP:EL. Buddhipriya 04:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
"when said BBC is 'WRONG' and garbage you never gave reason why it is wrong". I've given several reasons. You haven't replied to any of the specific points. I could go through each of the assertions in detail. Shall I? BTW, Witzel is professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University. He views carry far more weight than the BBC website. Paul B 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Between Individual views and BBC : BBC would be a preference. 05:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It's not about my individual views, or even Witzel's. It's not even about the BBC. There are several biographies of Müller written by specialists in comparative religion. There is also a large body of specialist literature on this subject by scholars. Perhaps you can identify one of these in which "AIT" is devised by Müller in 1848 and in which the list of "reasons" why it's a problem are articulated. The arguments trotted out on the BBC page come from Hindu nationalist literature, not scholarship. The 1848 date derives from a conspiracy theory according to which MM was employed by the East India Company as part of some cunning plan to "denigrate Hinduism" [9]. Since AW Schlegel, who had much earlier proposed an extra-Indian origin of IE, cannot be defined as part of this supposed plot, he gets forgotten. The fact that he wrote in German also helps. Paul B 08:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

rudra, Keep that in mind wikipedia is for all people not only for ‘scholars’, Are you looking for 100% accuracy in BBC article, do you think all the external links are 100%? If not, why are you asking then? I think you are the most ignorant person in the whole world. With your writing I can understand you are arrogant, ignorant and no respect others, go and look at your face in mirror before judging others and giving free advice … you cannot intimidate me by bullying.. Discuss points.

Thing I don’t link is anyone question Aryan invasion becomes Hindu nationalist; supports becomes ‘Scholar’, how come? This shows their biased version they are similar to pseudo-secularist in India.

paulb – Witzel is Sanskrit professor not a historian. So his words may carries more weight for very small ‘group’ not all. I found many interesting articles on Witzle I will post later. Anyway discussion is not on Witzel...

I would see BBC article has presenting the subject in simple and understandable way to all people after analyzing/evaluating current facts (both pro/against) as you said BBC made changes based your group complaints, so they have considered both side’s arguments. Surely you many questions on few facts or many not accept few points that are not the reasons ‘not to list’. Show me one article on this topic accepted by both groups? So answer the following:

1.Are you looking for ‘100% accuracy’ in BBC content? 2.If so, is this rule applicable to all links? Why double standards? 3.If so, how do justify listing of DMOZ which as fiction part of listing. Also most of this listing already part of reference or external links, then why do de need this? Explain. BKN 24May2007

You brought up Witzel, genius. I can't decipher some of what you are trying to say. It's not a question of 100% accuracy, but of blatantly false historical information and non sequitors. There are matters which are legitimately disputed and there are facts. By "Hindu nationalists" I mean non-specialists motivated by religio-national ideology. Of course there are also Indians who are specialists. That's a separate matter. One of the best biographies of Mueller is by an Indian. Paul B 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok I will put it simple way
1.Are you looking for ‘100% accuracy’ in BBC content?
2.If so, is this rule applicable to all links?
3.If so, how do justify listing of DMOZ which as fiction part of listing. Also most of this listing already part of reference or external links, then why do de need this? Is this listing contain blatantly false historical information? BKN 24May 2007
1. If there were trivial errors it wouldn't matter, but they are not trivial.
2. If the links contain significant out-and-out falsities, then yes.
3. I don't care tuppence about DMOZ. Paul B 16:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Okey, if you feel there is a trivial error then complain and lobby BBC and get it corrected as you did before. Then,I will remove DMOZ listing. Bkn 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there any point in talking to you at all? The errors are not trivial but fundamental. Paul B 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I ask again, is there any specific point of fact that is in the BBC article that can be taken up as a specific content issue independently of the unproductive debate about the web link itself? It is clear that there is no agreement on use of the web link, and continued insertion of it seems disruptive. If there are specific content issues that are at stake that are sourced by the web site, can we please specify what they are and then take up one of them at a time for closer examination using WP:RS? If conflict over this web site continues, would it be helpful to do an RfC? Buddhipriya 18:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
An RfC is fine. I don't think there is anything of value for the article in the link, since what is says is not supported by Reliable Sources. The debate about inclusion is essentially about appropriating the status of the BBC as some sort of semi-official authoritative source. In some of the more extreme manifestations of this the BBC page is presented as the official view of the British Government, as evidence the "the British" have now "admitted" that "AIT" is false. [10] [11]. Paul B 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
My comment about an RfC is intended to stop the wheel spinning about the BBC link, which I have previously commented on, and which I feel should not be used in the article. At some point the bickering about it becomes unproductive, and instead of continuing unproductive debate, using some other conflict resolution process to draw in more editors may be needed. The other approach that could result in forward movement is to take up actual content issues, if there are any, and work on those issues directly. If the other editor cannot say exactly what content issue needs to be addressed, there is no substance to the discussion and the behavior of the editor becomes the issue. Buddhipriya 19:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a value in BBC article which shows significant shift from previous 100 years view on AIT. We should not undermine the importance of this change. If this article weren’t that important then I wouldn't have faced such resistance. I grow up reading British version AIT in school. I still remember 6/7 grade Social studies, which clearly says 'Invasion' of Aryans to North India. I don't want to waste my time wheel spinning but I know digesting this fact takes more time for 'Pro AIT camp', I am sure shortly would they would understand.Bkn 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Only a complete moron, too stupid to grasp the depth of his pathetic ignorance, could find "value" in that page. You need to get this into your skull: Max Muller did not publish anything in 1848, let alone a theory. Is Rajaram your uncle or something, that you cling to such myths as "valuable"? rudra 05:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
The BBC page contains no scholarly material at at all. It is obvious you have never read any books or articles on this topic since you just keep repeating the same assertions over and over. You do not engage with actual questions about the value of the content. Paul B 21:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
BBC is reputed for its news reporting. These articles are not news reports. They are not even reports about academic research. They are part of a general guide to some topics as a part of their effort to vamp their website. I am not sure how these articles were created or what kind of vetting process they went through. Did they just ask someone in their staff to write it? Did they ask an expert to write it? Did they outsource it? If so, are the staff at BBC competent to judge what they got? It is also possible for a news organization to have two different views on the same the issue. The best example is WSJ, where the editorial and the news reporting staff have diametrically opposite views on many issues of the day. Therefore it would be wrong to assert that just because these articles appear on the BBC website, they are endorsed by the entire organization. Trying to put the entire weight of the BBC reputation behind these articles is fallacious. Chaipau 22:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No new content issues have been brought out in the past several points, and this seems to be wheel-spinning. Please note that at some point a call for compliance with WP:CONSENSUS may be in order. Specifically, at some point the refusal to focus on content issues becomes an issue of user behavior that may justify use of a conflict resolution method such as AfC or ANI. It seems to be time to consider those steps if there is continued refusal to address specific content issues. Buddhipriya 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

why the hell is everyone discussing that BBC page? It's at best a popular summary of the topic. With our acedemic bibliography, we are far past the stage where something like that could have any impact. BBC is a broadcasting company, people. That's journalists summarizing stuff they read for people, a tertiary source of questionable reliability. We can link it as a gimmick, but it is patently pointless to argue about the validity of its content. dab (𒁳) 10:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How to prove a negative?

I put a fact tag on the following sentence in the lead because it is unsourced and on the surface represents a POV: "'Out of India' counter-theories, arguing for all migrations with respect to the subcontinent to have occurred in the opposite direction, have little academic support." I think that the statement is true, but from an intellectual integrity point of view, I would like to see it sourced. This problem of how to refute WP:FRINGE theories comes up often on Wikipedia and I would like to learn more about how to handle such debates in a clean manner. Buddhipriya 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

This comes up a lot on pages discussing fringe theories, since mainstream literature often does not directly disdcuss them. David Icke's theory that Tony Blair comes from the bloodline of alien Reptilians is not generally believed to be "mainstream". But it would be difficult to to produce a biography of Blair that specifically rebuts the claim. However I think Arvidson's Trautmann's Aryan Debate and Bryant's Quest... book are clear that OIT is a non-mainstream view. Paul B 13:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Can citations to those works be added so there will sourcing on the lead sentence? Such sourcing helps the reader understand which materials are being used in which ways. Once we clear this up I can get back to trying to determine if the Apollo moon landing was a hoax. Buddhipriya 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of DMOZ

I support the removal of the DMOZ link that was done in this edit: [12]. I have been following discussions about DMOZ that have been taking place related to spam control, and my sense is that while DMOZ can be useful as a tactic in stopping the addition of spam to articles where that is a problem, there is little support for the idea that DMOZ should be used indiscriminately. The pros and cons of DMOZ are the subject of debate on WP:EL. For this article I think it is best to either have no external links, or only those that clearly meet the tests of WP:EL and WP:Verifiability. Buddhipriya 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Genetic Evidence for AIT

I have added detail to the presentation of the Genetic evidence. The public interpretation of some recent papers in Genome Research and PNAS is somewhat confused and often instrumentalized as if they definitely refuted the AIT on indisputable genetic ground. However, that is not so. The salient publications in fact positively support influx of genetic material from West Asia. I have quoted a paragraph from each paper. The key to interpretation lies in paying attention to qualifying clauses. Maternal vs. Paternal, recent or older contributions, these are important distinctions one must make when interpreting these. The 2001 paper shows unambiguous supporting evidence pro AIT, and the PNAS paper of 2005 does not refute that evidence, and clearly states "there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language." Gschadow 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Say where you got it, Part the nth

Wikipedia Bryant (2001)
Kenneth Kennedy (1984), who examined 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley civilization, concludes that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan”(p.102). K. Kennedy (1984), however, who was able to examine all three hundred skeletons that had been retrieved from the Indus Valley Civilization, found that the ancient Harappans "are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from the present day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan" (102).
Wikipedia Elst (1999)
Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen's study (1994) of the migration of genetic traits does not support a movement of Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley around 1500 BC. According to Hemphill's study, "Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era."[13]

^ Hemphill & Christensen: “The Oxus Civilization as a Link between East and West: A Non-Metric Analysis of Bronze Age Bactrain Biological Affinities”, paper read at the South Asia Conference, 3-5 November 1994, Madison, Wisconsin; p. 13.

Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen report on their study of the migration of genetic traits (with reference to AIT advocate Asko Parpola): “Parpola's suggestion of movement of Proto-Rg-Vedic Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley by 1800 BC is not supported by our data. Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era.[14]

^ Hemphill & Christensen: “The Oxus Civilization as a Link between East and West: A Non-Metric Analysis of Bronze Age Bactrain Biological Affinities”, paper read at the South Asia Conference, 3-5 November 1994, Madison, Wisconsin; p. 13.

If it wasn't obvious enough that this was a cut-and-paste job, "Bactrian" is misspelt the same way ("Bactrain") in both Wikipedia and Elst. JFD 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Indus Valley Civilization

If the Indus Valley Civilization predated the "aryan" incursions, why do these studies say that their inhabitants most resemble modern north indians and pakistanis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the Romans never invaded Gaul because the inhabitants of pre-Roman Gaul probably resembled modern French people.Paul B 12:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Did Romans changed language & culture of Gaul which is a small area of France ? Were Romans considered as more civilized than Gaul people ? In some ways, Language & culture spreads due to cultural or military superiority. Gaul is much much much smaller than Indian subcontinent whose area is bigger than whole Western Europe.
Culture & Civic difference between any central asian nomads & IVC people can be compared with English people & Austrian natives of 300-400 years back. (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Gaul is not a "small area of France"; Gaul is France, and the whole of France speaks French, in case you hadn't noticed - and yes, the Romans changed the language (even the few surviving bilingual Bretons speak a later immigrant language). You also seem not to have noticed that the whole population of India does not speak I-A languages. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Allchins 1997: 223 says that immigrants had adopted the “material culture and lifestyle” of the Harappans. So, if there were any aryan nomads of central asia then they accepted lifestyle & material culture of Harappans like other central asian tribes who came to India during historical period.

France area is just nothing in comparing whole Indian subcontinent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No it isn't, not that the point is remotely relevant since the I-A languages do not cover the whole of India, as has already been stated, and the Romance languages cover an area much larger than just France. What exactly are you contesting? Paul B (talk) 12:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh mother fucker Paul, the are in south asia where I-A languages are spoken is still bigger than your tiny west europe. Only a small part of south asia which is south of india speaks dravidian language, and area of dravidian speaking region is nothing compared to indo-aryan speaking area of south asia.

Boy are you dumb. It's not just West Europe, it's the whole of Europe and Russia too - a vast vast area, much bigger than India. But, hey. Size is not important. Its what you do with the diversity that counts. Paul B (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


One of Wikipedia's goals is that articles be accessible to most readers. As someone with a better than average knowledge of history and a post-graduate degree, I would hope to be able to easily read and understand an article about history. However, I found this article very difficult. It seems to presume that the reader already knows about the Indo-Aryan migration, and focuses on arguments in favor of it versus arguments for the "out of India" theory. I came to this page hoping to learn what the Indo-Aryan migration was, where and how it occurred, and what are some of the results of it. While I'm sure much of that information is contained in this article, it is buried in a host of arguments. Is the subject matter too controversial to first present the areas of common consensus before moving on to various controversies and evidences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talkcontribs) 19:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"the areas of common consensus" - there is no such thing between Aryan Migrations and Out of India theories. That is the whole reason why this article is so complicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But as these are theories, the following can be stated at the beginning of the article in a easy to understand way: 1. That this is a theory, with a major competing theory (link to "out of India" theory) and some indication of how widely accepted each is, or that both are widely considered possible. 2. A summary of what the "Indo-Aryan migration" theory is that is accessible to most people, prividing enough detail and common terms to be useful, without every other sentence making reference to the "Out of India theory". The comparisons and evidences for each can be given later in the article. And the non-expert who wants to see the "out of India theory" can go to that page for basic information on that theory.Readin (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

except that this is not true. there is no "major competing theory". "Out of India" is a figment in the feverish brains of Hindu nationalists and has no place in a serious discussion. dab (𒁳) 17:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about the opening sentences

The opening line is extremely defensive, stating that the AIT is a necessary corollary of any theory positing an urheimat outside of ancient india (i.e. modern day NW India, Pakistan, parts of Afghanistam). As currently stated, this is ambiguous in my view, for the following reasons:

- firstly, the AIT/AMT as commonly understood is tied to a 1500BC date. This is not a corollary of an out of India urheimat; this is a specific statement about when a migration occurred. A general corollary would be that if India is not the urheimat, then a migration must have occurred at some unspecified time. - secondly, the AIT must be considered on its own merits proof-wise. I.e. at present, the AIT as presented in WP is being strengthened by the argument that an Indian Urheimat is unlikely. Taken in combination with point 1, this is misleading. In fact, it is probably better from an evidentiary perspective to state that the AIT is unproven, whilst the out-of-india theory is unproven and possibly remote based on the existing linguistic evidence. That both are unproven is a better statement than saying that because the urheimat is improbable, the AIT must be true. Scientifically, they are both unproven, and possibly unprovable (e.g. Bryant's book, a very even-handed perspective on this debate, basically states this exact point - Bryant seems to be saying that whilst he considers the migration theory more likely, its not provable based on current evidence) - thirdly, one of the key objections to the AIT (1500BC scenario) from 'indigenous' aryans is that is states that the vedas are foreign, not that the 'aryans' originally came from outside of India (at the end of the day, everyone alive today is 'african' but no one gets in a state about that normally, because people are assumed to be located in a particular geography once they have been there long enough (say) that all memories of former homelands are lost. How many americans whose lineage stretches back to the forefathers believes that they are not american? By fixating on a 1500BC date, indigenists are going to be unhappy with the AIT/AMT. However, the irony is that the AMT is fully consistent with the vedas being 'indigenous' i.e. written by people living in India with no memory of life outside of India. This is not really reflected in the current WP article. (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This article, along with Out of India Theory, Indigenous Aryan Theory, and Aryan Invasion Theory, is the battered remnant of dozens of edit wars. It, like the others, has no coherence simply because an army of blog-warriors enthused by a recent school of revisionist pseudo-scholarship is determined to have their POV get top billing. Right now, there's a lull in the action. Check back in say, a month's time, and you'll find the article changed to something quite different and just as incoherent. rudra (talk) 08:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration - I've been following the content of these pages on and off over the last few years and seen some of the edit wars as they're happening. Recently, I re-read Bryant's book as it seems to be the reference source covering non-mainstream views in a comprehensive, readable way. What strikes me about his book is that he makes the comment that whilst he continues to believe in AMT, all existing evidence is readable to support the idea that no AMT happened either; i.e. as a linguistic theory, linguistics does not offer a way to prove things for sure one way or the other. In particular, no individual point (existence of horses in harappan culture, beech trees, etc) can be taken by one side or the other as a definitive proof/disproof (however, occam's razor does often suggest which is more likely).

Onto specifics in the article as it stands currently (vs. Bryant's book): The lingusitics section mentions the principle that the centre of gravity of a family of languages is where diversity is greatest; however, as Bryant points out, in the Indo-Iranian languages, this is complicated by the fact that the similarity is based on ancient languages, not the modern day ones; i.e., if you look at modern day IA languages in use in India, Pakistan, and Iran, without reference to the ancient branches then the variation is at least as great as modern day european languages. I.e. the fact that we have documents with the oldest Indo-Iranian languages is the only thing that gives us the strong links between these two languages; if we had similar attestations of the european branch, would we see the same levels of diversity in the modern day languages?

A second (unrelated) point in his book is that some linguists argue for the centre of gravity to be where the language is most conservative under some circumstances.

On the dialectical variances section, its interesting to note that Bryant mentions Nichol's hypothesis that the spread of IA languages can actually be seen as expansions of successive waves of IA innovations in the region, rather than a set of migrations.

On the substrate influence, it should be noted that Bryant presents the case that it is entirely consistent with available evidence for borrowings in Sanskrit to be adstratum rather than substratum. Also, as I understand it, other branches of the IA tree also show substratum influence, although I have not seen comparative statistics on this (for some reason the figure of 30% substratum influence on proto-Germanic seems to ring a bell, but I can't recall the source). The article should be cleaned up here to include comparative statistics on substratum influences elsewhere.

For the material archaeology and phsyical anthropology sections, I think it may be worth pointing out that these sources of evidence are unlikely to address the linguistic nature of the theory. Therefore, whether or not there is archaelogical correlation with either a migration or no migration, this doesn't actually address the basic point. It should be noted that from a purely scientific perspective, there don't appear to be falsifiable hypotheses at play here: thus, in the absence of the linguistic theory, it would be strange reasoning to bring AMT into play from a scientific starting point. This situation would change if the harappan civilisation script was deciphered of course, as then the archaelogical evidence would include a linguistic basis too. The physical anthropology section looks strange to me; as I understand it, the AMT is not actually linked to 'races' of peoples, so it seems to be a category error to raise it as arguments for or against an invasion.

The point here is that you start to see why Bryant concludes as he does in his book - whilst the weight of evidence available still favours the AMT on balance of probabilities, the lack of decisive evidence is such that scientifically, the AMT has to be considered unproven, and possibly unprovable. The OIT is unproven too, and on balance of probabilities less likely than AMT.

Having read the AIT/AMT/OIT articles over time however, I'm not sure if this is too subtle a set of points to include in WP. (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please dodn't be disingenuous. You are a previous editor returing anonymously intent on the usual tactic of listing all possible queries and ambiguities to blur the central issues and arguments with endless obfuscation. By the way, the "indigenousness" of the Vedas is not seriously disputed with the possible exception of claims about some early hymns. Paul B (talk) 12:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, these two comments are the first time I have posted to WP (hence I have not set up an account etc and sign-off with my IP address). As stated in my post, I think that these arguments are too subtle for WP, particularly with the histories of flamewars. I have no real issue if the WP article stays as it is, apart from a bit of disappointment that WP is not as authoritative as I used to think. On your final comment re: indigenousness of the Vedas, I would say you are being disingenuous. AIT/AMT has long been used a way of saying that the essence of hindu culture is an import to India; my personal belief is that this is what drives half the flame wars we're seeing on this topic. (talk) 14:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant arguments are not "subtle". They are too obvious, which is why you won't find them spelled out schoolmasterishly in what usually passes for a WP:RS. The basic point is that archeology places the floruit of the IVC in the 3rd mill BCE, while linguistics and philology (and archeology of the Near East) place the Vedic materials in the 2nd mill BCE and later. Either the considerable cultural impedance mismatch between the two is to be explained, or it is to be explained away. rudra (talk) 01:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, just a quick comment on 'listing all possibles queries and ambiguities' - I have no interest in the all the possible esoteric arguments around this. As mentioned, I have recently reread Bryant (based partly on the fact that most of the arguments tossed around here seem to be linked to areas he has reviewed in his book), and I was struck by his very agnostic attitude to AMT/OIT; i.e., he definitely seems to think AMT is more probable, but actually states that after he reviewed the material, he now has a greater appreciation for the indigenuous aryan arguments which cannot just be brushed aside.

My view is that anyone who has an interest in this topic should read his book in full - the arguments and discussions are far more involved than can be detailed in a WP article. (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Calling Bryant's book "even-handed" seems to be a common misapprehension, confusing the purpose of his book with (the basis of) his own personal estimate of the issues. His purpose was to give "the other side" a fair (if not also sympathetic) hearing. What makes his book valuable is that he gave the crackpot continuum short shrift, and thus was able to assemble a reasonable "purvapaksha". Since he didn't venture into how the "mainstream" would answer -- or has answered -- the arguments presented come out looking stronger than they actually are. rudra (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
another common misconception appears to be that the AMT position denies all claims of indigeneity. That's as wrong as can be. If a Bronze Age migration precludes development of an indigenous culture, there is probably not a single indigenous culture to be found on the planet. In this sense, the nationalists are raving against a position that nobody even holds. dab (𒁳) 09:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your responses, and I'd like to answer a couple of things if I may:

The 'subtle' argument I was referring to was not so much about the veracity of the AMT vs. the indigenous position, but rather that both should be looked at on their individual merits and cross-referenced to available empirical evidence. The AMT is not 'proven' by any means; it is the best working guess. Moreover, it is arguably difficult to put to a falsifiability test (which I consider the basis of any scientific statement). The lack of falsifiability stems in large part from the lack of mechanism; without this, you don't have a testable hypothesis to measure evidence against. Hence my comment on unprovability (i.e. as it stands, I'm not really sure if the AMT is merely unproven, or actually unprovable).

The AIT (with aryans destroying the Harappan cities) was arguably falsified when archeological evidence was uncovered pointing to a civilisation that imploded / relocated due to ecological factors.

The indigenous view is similarly unproven, and most (western) scholars agree that it is extremely unlikely. The falsifiability test for this view is if the Indus Valley script proves not to be Indo-Aryan; in this case, the theory falls apart entirely.

The problem, as I see it, is that the unlikeliness of one argument is used to add weight to the other. Under a position where both are mutually exclusive, this is fair enough; however, as I understand it, the current (mainstream) AMT still relies on a dating of the Vedas at between c. 1800BC and 1200BC. Therefore, there is an excluded middle here - the AMT + vedic dating pre 2000BC (which would have consequential impact on other urheimat theories). My view is that the opening paragraphs to this article are therefore either misleading or just wrong.

On the even handedness of Bryant's book, I think my meaning has been misconstrued. In contrast to your view on the 'crackpot' continuum, Bryant's book is quite nuanced in the way he deals with the different voices. He makes the point that while much of this debate has been seen as a symptom of hindu fascism, not all indian scholars who question the AMT are hindutva (although, sadly, many are and do indeed hold crackpot views). Whilst the crackpot arguments should be ignored, those that raise meaningful questions do deserve a hearing. Whilst they might be wrong (the nature of academic advancement everywhere), the route to the answers may shed more light on other matters. Also, some of the points discussed in his book really are interesting - e.g. the view that the scripts in the vedas vs. the avesta are so similar that they must be nearly contemporaneous vs. the exercise done comparing 16th century spanish / italian (iirc) and getting a date for the common script (latin) as c.1000AD (and I'm not saying that this proves anything, glottochronology having been discredited in large parts).

Anyway, I have no wish to argue this matter on WP; hopefully at some point in time there will be more solid evidence available that either proves one of the theories (most likely AMT I imagine) or refutes all other possibilities (again most likely AMT is correct, and as noted above if the harappan script can be deciphered, this may be the solid evidence that disproves all alternatives to AMT). What would be interesting would be if the harappan script was indo-aryan; I imagine that that would stir up a hornets nest, but it may well be that the script is never deciphered. Peace (talk) 20:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for Adding the NPOV Tag

Well, it should be fairly self-explanatory, seeing the explosive nature of the issue and the massive size of this discussion page. Nonetheless, I will state some of the reasons I have tagged this article as NPOV. Of note is this article's heavy reliance of Bryant's book, which many have criticized as being biased. I note a lack of actual references in this allegation here, so I'll provide a few. First, in the The Journal of Asian Studies, (Vol. 61, No. 4), Carlos Lopez notes, "...specialists in Vedic philology, linguistics, and the archeology of South Asia may find fault with some of Bryant's analyses of the data." Just because he claims to try and be nonbiased and just because it is the favorite text of Western Indic scholars does not mean it is flawless. Next, counter-theories to the AIT are scarcely mentioned in this article; the few times credible alternative theories are mentioned, they are presented in a highly negative light and categorically attacked with unverified claims. Overall, the edit wars and polar-opposite theories have made this article skewed towards the camp that has the greater number of people. Obviously, the more currently-developed "Western world" is going to have this majority. It's a shame there is no substantial body of text out there that lays out each of the theories in an objective manner. Perhaps this will come in the next few years, but for now, this article is clearly lacking the objectiveness that it needs. It is for this reason that I have tagged it as NPOV, a tag it seems to have been needing for quite a while now. Vamooom (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Your quotation does not support what you claim, since all it says is that specialists may find fault with some of Bryant's analyses. Given the great complexity of them, that's not a surprise. Also, you have completely misrepresented the sentence, which in fact says, "While specialists in Vedic philology, linguistics, and the archeology of South Asia may find fault with some of Bryant's analyses of the data and may quibble with his estimation of some of the theories he discusses, scholars of South Asia in general will find this work extremely informative". So it is essentially an entirely positive assessment, which you are trying to present as evidence that the book has been badly received. In the end, all you appear to be saying is that at some point in the future some alternative theory may become more widely accepted. Maybe. If so we should alter the article when that happens. I must add though, that I find your view that theories about ancient history are to be judged by the geographical location of theorists to be totally contrary to the spirit of objective scholarship - as of course is misrepresenting quotations. Paul B (talk) 21:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The {{NPOV}} tag isn't used to advertise real-life controversies, but alleged on-wiki violation of WP:NPOV. WP:CRYSTAL per Paul for the future. dab (𒁳) 12:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Info for Indian Wikipedians

One article on a related object has appeared in last issue of Frontline magazine, which I collected last Saturday. Not sure whether it helps, just FYI. GDibyendu (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


Can we please not have piles of the Hindu nationalist OIT material here? It's strictly fringe theory stuff. Discussion of it is fine: open advocacy is not. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For instance, I really don't think David Frawley has any place here: that really is undue weight (at least Elst has a PhD). Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Koenraad Elst is the only proponent of the OIT in the article however. The comment added from him however is independent of the OIT, Frawley criticizes the weak interpretations used from the scriptures especially but does not necessarily argue for the OIT. Also Hindu nationalists do not all support the OIT. Trips (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, I suppose I'll have to go through this piece by piece. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Frawley isn't an interesting source on anything else but views on Yoga and Ayurveda. If even that, since his repreated attempts to pose as a scholar have left him with little credibility on anything at all. If a point is worth making, it should be possible to find some source other than Frawley. If Frawley is your only source on anything, chances are that you should just forget about it. dab (𒁳) 13:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Anyway how can theory be a weasel word, there is hardly consensus or definitive evidence of mass Indo-Aryan migration, I'm wondering why everyone assumes this in the first place. I can find many sources that name with "theory". The AIT became the Aryan migration and the theory will continue to change reflecting new evidence. Trips (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "theory", in your sense of the word, that there was migration, since you seem to be using the word "theory" to mean something that is disputed. It's undisputed that there was some sort of migration, so the term theory is superfluous. The disputes are about when, from where and in which direction(s) the migration occured. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

.. and the amount of migration, manner of migration, disputes with interpretations used as evidence for migration etc. But yes it is superfluous. Trips (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The amount of continuity between linguistic groups of ancient India, and IVC remnants, with the undetermined amounts of migration/s from central Asia is usually understated by proponents of Aryan migration/invasion. And conflict between linguistic groups is assumed on dubious interpretations. Trips (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"the creation of the Aryan Invasion theory was primarily motivated by "British divide-and-rule" tactics"

It has been argued that the creation of the Aryan Invasion theory was primarily motivated by "British divide-and-rule" tactics[1][2]. The British identified themselves as "Aryans"[3]. The Aryan invasion theory laid the foundations for the Dravidian movement which still has support in southern India today[4][5]. Anti-Brahminism was justified in this movement as south Indian Brahmins were projected as "Aryan invaders from the north"[6] and were subject to discrimination, resulting in mass emigrations of Brahmins from Tamil Nadu[7]. Dravidian politics pitted "Aryan", Brahmins and north Indians against "Dravidian" and non-Brahmin Tamils[8].

Trips has added the above assertions accompanied by a seemingly impressive list of footnotes. I only have immediate access to two of these books. Bryant is added here with no page ref to the first assertion (which is popular on Hindutva websites). I have Bryant. He never argues that it was motivated by any such thing. In fact since the existence of a distinction between Indo-Aryan and Dravidian is not disputed it's difficult to see how political motivation for "creating" a division that is in fact true is a meaningful concept. British policy certainly involved favouring some groups over others (Sikhs, for example), but this was not one the basis that the favoured groups were "Aryan" not "Dravidian". Also the notion that 'Aryans' migrated into India originated with A.W. Schlegel, and was well established by German philologists who had no British imperial motivations. This whole section confuses two things. The idea that "Aryans" invaded/migrated into India at some point and the idea that there is a distinction between Aryan and Dravidian identity. The latter is an undisputed fact which is not dependent on the former. Nationalist movements routinely co-opt ancient history, real or mythical, to further their ideological aims. Paul B (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The other book to which I have access is Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. The page is question makes a series of uproblematic observations about the ideological role of the concept Aryan, and its racialisation in British India, followed by a discussion of the political uses to which the Aryan/Dravidian distinction can be put when associated with an invasionist model: in particular the 'heroic' or alternatively 'ruthless' invaders as opposed to the 'primitive' or alternatively 'true-born' natives, comparing it to other instances of the same opposition in British history (Celts versus Saxons; Saxons versus Normans etc) and the imagery of 'resistance', or 'pioneering energy' which depends on whether the invaded or invader is identified with. It's quite a nuanced presentation, pointing out that in the Anglo-Indian encounter models existed for identifying with either - and sometimes both - the 'oppressed' and 'pioneering' figures in the narrative. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

yeah, we've been over this several times. I see no reason to rehash it once more just because somebody couldn't be bothered to review the talk archives. That's just standard Hindutva blogcruft. dab (𒁳) 17:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Earlier European anthropologist theories went well beyond the existent difference in language, and how they came to be about, and that is the cause of all these political implications. No one denies that the linguistic division wasn't present before the British. Trips (talk) 06:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

the "cause of all these political implications" is the fact that a lot of people in Indian politics need to grow up. We have an article on obsolete 19th century racial theories, it's at historical definitions of races in India. That's a valid historical topic, but nobody except for a radicalized lunatic fringe takes these at face value today, and consequently they have no "political implications" today, again except for an extremist lunatic fringe, for which see WP:TIGERS. --dab (𒁳) 08:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


  1. ^ Edwin Bryant (2001).  Text " The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate " ignored (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ Nelson, Robin (2003). Antinomies of Modernity: Essays on Race, Orient, Nation. Duke University Press. pp. 37–38. ISBN 0822330466. 
  3. ^ van der Veer, Peter. Conversion to modernities: The Globalization of Christianity. Routledge (UK). p. 130. ISBN 0415912733. 
  4. ^ Sharada Sugirtharajah (2003). Imagining Hinduism: A Postcolonial Perspective. p. 52.  Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Peter van der Veer (2001). Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain. p. 141.  Unknown parameter |Publisher= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Kamil V. Zvelebil (1992). Companion Studies to the History of Tamil Literature. Brill. p. 217. 
  7. ^ Lloyd I. Rudolph Urban Life and Populist Radicalism: Dravidian Politics in Madras The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May, 1961), pp. 283-297
  8. ^ Canadian Anthropology Society. Anthropologica. p. 275. 

"Indo-Aryans" and linguistics

"Indo-Aryans" is a linguistic term. If a population speaks an Indo-Aryan language, it is an Indo-Aryan population. If it doesn't, it isn't. It isn't "partly" or "mostly" a matter of linguistics, it is a matter of linguistics, period.

If there had been a migration of people, but these hadn't spoken Indo-Aryan, it wouldn't be an Indo-Aryan migration. Are we clear on this now? It's a question of the history of a language group. Considerations of material culture, genetics and what not only ever enter the picture inasmuch as they can be correlated to the language group, in support or criticism of the linguistic hypothesis. Thanks. --dab (𒁳) 14:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

But that ignores adoption of Indo-European languages. Languages are not fixed to a peoples, and contact with cultures is all that is required for languages and units of culture to transmit, therefore entering Indo-European languages does not have to correspond with a large migration of distinct peoples, which this article assumes as fact. This is why the migration is theorized on linguistic grounds, which is why the cited content is fitting. Trips (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong, the article does not "assume as fact" that the migration was "large". It specifically discusses the possibility that their genetic impact would have been negligible and, as was the case with the Normans in England, would have been "lost" in a few generations in the much larger gene pool of the Indus people. Sometimes I think a lot of talkpage grief could be avoided if people could just be moved to read the article they are talking about. --dab (𒁳) 12:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Issues with the insertion of cited content

"doh, guess what, this is a linguistic topic beginning to end".

This, has several things wrong with it. First of all the impression of the article is not that it is primarily linguistic. It implies a mass emigration of Indo-Aryan Central Asian peoples independent of the IVC to India. This obviously has more to do with language considering the amount of information in the article not concerned with linguistics. There is no justification to remove a cited statement by Bryant that the argument is based on linguistic grounds, as the casual reader of the article will not be immediately aware of this. Enough said? Trips (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

could you stop setting up the "mass emigration" strawman? Can you point to any passage that suggests a "mass migration"? Because, to the contrary, the article cites no support for any model of massive migration. If you cannot show where the article suggests "mass emigration", could you please stop bringing it up? --dab (𒁳) 12:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Words


The phase "Even though it lies outside the mainstream academic consensus..." is pretty much a textbook case of weasel words. What is your source? Who do you cite? Can someone knowledgable or an expert in this area comment on this topic? If not, take it out. (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

we would take out mention of the "Indian Urheimat" thing, if it wasn't for its (limited) political notability. It is duly mentioned under "Political debate and implications" and the article in no way suggests that it is to be taken seriously. For details, please read the main article. --dab (𒁳) 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect to political notability, the article should mention 1) the racist disposition of some of the earliest proponents of Aryan "Invasion" theory in the overall context - these were the Victorian times , and 2) how the original Aryan "Invasion" theory has now been modified to Aryan "Migration" theory due to lack of evidence for supporting the orignal botched claims regarding "invasion" (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yawn. There was no "original Aryan invasion theory". The earliest versions all assumed migration. The references to military clashes in the RV were later interpreted to imply a more invasionist model, but there was really never any absolute distinction between migration and invasion. Some writers suggested an invasion event, some suggested migrations and acculturation. Invasionist models were actually most prominent in the mid 20th century. Racial theory only became implicated in the debate in the later nineteenth century when ideas about racial hierarchy became popular in the West. Again, early writers on the topic have little or no interest in race. None of this has any relevance except in the misrepresentation of the facts currently popular among some right-wing Hindu authors. Paul B (talk) 09:31, 18 January 2009 (UTC)