Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Say where ''you'' got it, Part the ''n''th
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header |search=yes |archive_age=30 |archive_units=days |minthreadsleft=5|archive_bot=Lowercase sigmabot III}}
{{WP India|class=B|importance=high|history=yes|pre=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WP Pakistan|class=B|importance=high|history=yes|pre=yes}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=Mid|history=yes|pre=yes|history-importance=high|assess-date=May 2012}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia}}
{{WikiProject Central Asia | importance=Mid }}
[[Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/archive1|archive1]]
}}
[[Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/archive2|archive2]]
{{tmbox | text =<center>Regarding the Rakhigarhi-DNA and Shinde et al. (2019), see:<br>[[:Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 10#Rakhigarhi DNA|Rakhigarhi DNA]] - [[:Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 10#Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC.|Ancient DNA study of skeletal remains of IVC]] - [[:Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 10#Shinde et al. (2019)|Shinde et al. (2019)]] - [[:Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 10#Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018)|Further confirmation of Narasimhan (2018)]]</center>}}
[[Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/archive3|archive3]]
{{User:MiszaBot/config
[[Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/archive4|archive4]]
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 10
|minthreadsleft = 5
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ipa|long}}


== BBC View ==
== Laughter riot ==
Can someone add this BBC published link at 'External Links' section. I don't have autharization to add this link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.
Niranjan B 12 March 2007
:You mean [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml]. Page 4 is essentially a disclaimer, "dear Indian patriots, ~we know you don't like it, please don't fry us". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 18:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03769836211052101
:But what is the problem in adding this to "External Links" . If you are 'concerned' about India bias in Page 4 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml] then you can add page 1[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_1.shtml] 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 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/148.177.1.213|148.177.1.213]] ([[User talk:148.177.1.213|talk]]) 21:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
::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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 09:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Enjoy! [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
::: I prefer Page 4 [http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml]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. <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/148.177.1.213|148.177.1.213]] ([[User talk:148.177.1.213|talk]]) 17:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->


:[https://www.sofia.edu/about-us/ Ahem]. Not a single degree (see the programs tab) is remotely linked to history or archeology.
:::: Can some one add this (BBC) external link? I don't have autharization. Niranjan B 26Mar2007 <small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[Special:Contributions/148.177.1.213|148.177.1.213]] ([[User talk:148.177.1.213|talk]]) 15:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->
:ICHR used to be the the crown of all journals on history and allied fields, published from India. Atleast till a couple of decades back. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
::[https://www.hua.edu/people/dr-kundan-singh/ Fascinating career] for our author. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
:::[[WP:NOTFORUM]] [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
::::A journal—admired by [[Eric Hobsbawm]] to be "the richest venue for vigorous discussions on Indian History"—publishing ridiculous articles by a non-qualified author about our subject not only raises valid concern about the reliability of peer-review process under the current political regime but also protects our article from upcoming shenanigans.
::::This is not the first time, I am seeing journals published by institutes which are controlled by the Government of India publishing anti-AMT narratives in hitherto reliable journals. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 08:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
{{od}}
I am not laughing. I am seriously concerned. If the journal has been hijacked by the BJP, all the articles published in it under the BJP administration will have to be declared as unreliable. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
: The editor-in-chief is the president of ICHR, [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/arvind-jamkhedkar-to-head-ichr/article22765281.ece Arvind Jamkhedkar], the Chancellor of the Deccan College. So I am not surprised stuff like this is appearing in the journal. All the [https://journals.sagepub.com/editorial-board/IHR editors] are also members of ICHR. I can't recognize any of these names. Perhaps you can. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Joshua_Jonathan/Archive_2021#Some_interesting_gossip_from_Kai_Friese Here] is Deccan College for you. -- [[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]] ([[User talk:Kautilya3|talk]]) 00:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
::Here's an [https://www.newslaundry.com/2022/01/17/one-big-family-the-hindutva-takeover-of-ichr-is-fuelled-by-nepotism article] (published today) detailing the infiltration of Hindutva into ICHR. The report mentions one [[Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana]]; I am hearing of the organization for the first time but our article was written by [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde93]].
::That being said, I will appreciate anybody who can email me a copy of the article. I am not a subscriber. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 13:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Kautilya3|Kautilya3]], I am acquainted with none but have come across Kapil Kumar [https://twitter.com/ProfKapilKumar from] Twitter. Tanwar's [https://www.routledge.com/Be-Clear-Kashmir-will-Vote-for-India-Jammu--Kashmir-1947-1953-Reporting/Tanwar/p/book/9780367343002 book on Kashmir] is on my to-read list. I faintly recall Kadam being [https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/major-general-g-d-bakshis-jnu-event-chs-sfc-distance-themselves-6454487/ in the news] for inviting [[G. D. Bakshi]] (!) to speak about AMT/AIT at Dept. of History, JNU, Delhi.
::Both Kadam and Kumar being in ICHR is worrying. [[User:TrangaBellam|TrangaBellam]] ([[User talk:TrangaBellam|talk]]) 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


India is a place where pseudoscience is preached in schools as science. Therefore Such publications in hitherto reliable journals are no surprise. [[User:ChandlerMinh|ChandlerMinh]] ([[User talk:ChandlerMinh|talk]]) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
== Deletions by Dab ==


== "Theory" ==
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]].
[[User:WIN|WIN]] 08:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


@[[User:WikiLinuz|WikiLinuz]] - you reverted my earlier edit which stated in the lead section that this is a "theory".
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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 09:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


Throughout the article, in numerous sections, there is this mention of it being a theory.


Based on that, I edited the lead section and added the above.
This is purely your POV. And, pushing POV is against WP policy. [[User:WIN|WIN]] 05:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Look forward to hearing back from you... [[User:StolenFocus007|StolenFocus007]] ([[User talk:StolenFocus007|talk]]) 12:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
:It's a fact, not a theory. And we're not talking about [[scientific theory]] either. [[User:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;color:#292928;">WikiLinuz</span>]] {[[User_talk:WikiLinuz|<span style="font-family:Optima;">talk</span>]]} <span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:15px;">🍁</span> 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
::How can it not be a theory when it is called a theory ? [[Special:Contributions/59.89.154.11|59.89.154.11]] ([[User talk:59.89.154.11|talk]]) 09:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
::It is literally mentioned in the article that it is a theory . [[Special:Contributions/59.89.154.11|59.89.154.11]] ([[User talk:59.89.154.11|talk]]) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


== Genetics info from D Reich ==
:: Domesticated horses in IVC or Neolithic India was a big hoax, WIN. Didn't you [http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf read about it]? Don't accuse dab of bad faith. [[User:deeptrivia|deeptrivia]] ([[User talk:deeptrivia|talk]]) 02:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


According to geneticist David Reich, Sintashta and Andronovo, the two cultures often associated with the Indo-Aryans and Indo-Aryan languages, did not directly contribute any DNA to India[source]:
::: 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it that] would defeat their purpose. Tsk, tsk. [[User:Rudrasharman|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 10:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


"Often in the story told with the steppe hypothesis, the Yamnaya give rise to later groups called the Sintashta and Andronovo that then contributed to India. But genetic data from those populations so far call into question that model, as they do not work statistically as sources of ancestry in India."
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. [[User:WIN|WIN]] 09:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
— David Reich


[Source] Reich, David (March 2018). "Ancient DNA Suggests Steppe Migrations Spread Indo-European Languages"
::::: 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 [http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/spindlewhorls.jpg 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. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 10:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


Pretty interesting, since the theory focus a lot on Sintashta/Andronovo migrations which apparently did not happen. In the source Reich mentions that Sintashta/Andronovo-related ancestry reached India later than hypothesized, through a later culture that carried it (thus indirect contribution) [[Special:Contributions/46.176.160.196|46.176.160.196]] ([[User talk:46.176.160.196|talk]]) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (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?[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Please read footnote 2 at the end of that paragraph from which you pulled the quote.
:: 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"? [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it It doesn't work that way]. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 10:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:”In the year since this lecture was delivered, my laboratory and another laboratory have generated new ancient DNA data from Central Asia. With these data in hand, we have been able to show that groups like Sintashta and Andronovo in fact have mixed with some of these newly sampled populations to produce a plausible source population for South Asians.” [[User:Chariotrider555|Chariotrider555]] ([[User talk:Chariotrider555|talk]]) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
== "Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect [[:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)]] and has thus listed it [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|for discussion]]. This discussion will occur at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)]] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Futura,'Century Gothic','Trebuchet MS',serif;">[[User:Senator2029|<b style="color:#1974D2;">Senator2029</b>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Senator2029|<b style="color:#1974D2;">【talk】</b>]]</span> 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


== Infobox military conflict ==
:: 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 ''[http://www.britac.ac.uk/institutes/SSAS/journal/issues/v13.htm 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. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 11:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


{{yo|HorCrux48}} FYI: the IVC had already started to decline, due to climate change, when Indo-Aryan people started to migrate into northern India, also due to climate change. The 'Aryan Invasion Theory', bt which you seem to be informed, is outdated and incorrect. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 19:29, 31 March 2023 (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.[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{yo|RegentsPark|Bishonen}} does one of you care to convince this editor of their misunderstanding? Thanks. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] -[[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 19:30, 31 March 2023 (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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 15:32, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
::{{ping|HorCrux48}} If you find your additions reverted, please seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring to add it back. I'm removing your infobox and suggest you explain here why you think it necessary. Wait for consensus and, if you get it, then add it back. (See [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:EW]])--[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024 ==
:Did you mean this referenced version by you [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=118304468&oldid=118028032]], which had more original research in notes. Or this version where you were misquoting BB Lal [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indigenous_Aryans&diff=111588689&oldid=111588014]]. 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?[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


{{Edit semi-protected|Indo-Aryan migrations|answered=yes}}
==Genetics studies==
Please change:
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%?). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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. [[User:Rudrasharman|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". [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within south India associated with Indo-Aryan movements.
== "Spoked wheels" ==
[http://ausgraeberei.de/woerterbuch/index.html?Infoeng/engspindlewhorl.html Spindle whorls] come with [http://www.safarmer.com/Indo-Eurasian/spindlewhorls.jpg all sorts of decorations], as anyone, not to mention archaeologists, can [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22spindle+whorl%22&btnG=Google+Search find out] for himself. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 11:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


to:
== [[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".


The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within South Asia associated with Indo-Aryan movements. [[User:Lekhak|Lekhak]] ([[User talk:Lekhak|talk]]) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=120787931&oldid=120767690 "well-sourced reference"] anywhere you please. Yes, I know, this is not [[WP:VANDAL|vandalism]]. Maybe WP needs a policy page on sabotage. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 03:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
:[[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;'''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> no reason given for the proposed change. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
::Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature.
::For instance:
::"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
::UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
::"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
::"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
::Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo. Hence my simple request. [[User:Lekhak|Lekhak]] ([[User talk:Lekhak|talk]]) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::Look at the locations of those cultures. They have nothing to do with south India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture#/media/File:Rigvedic_geography.jpg
::This whole subcontinent is South Asia. South India is the a small part of South Asia (south of India), which has nothing to do with Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Painted Grey Ware, and Copper Hoard Culture.
::Hence my attempt to correct what appears to be a simple typo. [[User:Lekhak|Lekhak]] ([[User talk:Lekhak|talk]]) 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::[[File:Indo-Iranian_origins.png|thumb|Map of these cultures in the North West corner has nothing to do with south India]] [[User:Lekhak|Lekhak]] ([[User talk:Lekhak|talk]]) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)


"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
: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?[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 18:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature. For instance:


"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
Let's see if we have [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=120787931&oldid=120767690 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 [[WP:POINT|point]]? Congratulations! You have surpassed yourself with your stultifying brilliance.
: But...
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...
: Hey!
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! [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 01:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.


"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
: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 [[WP:weasel | 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.[[User:Sbhushan|Sbhushan]] 12:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
== Fringegab and technological fantasies ==


Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo.
{{user|WIN}} insists on dumping his latest fadpiece into the article. He has not registered that his [http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/RVpH.pdf favorite webpage] is an article ''without'' a bibliography.
* So, what is "Kazanas(1993:33)"? Page 33 of what, and [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it|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 [[Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Say_where_you_got_it|what does it say]]? Besides, the only well-known [[Basham]] was a historian, not an archaeologist.
* Kazanas himself is [[Talk:Nicholas Kazanas#Kazanas in JIES|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 [http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl002.html "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".


*This was added by {{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migrations&diff=prev&oldid=711160490 this diff]. --[[User:RegentsPark|RegentsPark]] <small>([[User talk:RegentsPark|comment]])</small> 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not exist to report random effluvia. {{user|WIN}} should move on to areas where he could make a constructive contribution, rather than waste everyone's time here. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 03:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


:::Done. [[User:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Forte;color:black">Joshua Jonathan</span>]] - [[User talk:Joshua Jonathan|<span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;color:black">Let's talk!</span>]] 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
:The [[B.B. Lal]] lecture is posted on this commercial web [http://www.cycleoftime.com/articles_view.php?codArtigo=54 site] plugging a book by Simone Boger. Also, this [[Berkeley]] [http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~hsc/resources.htm site] links directly to the geocities page. For what's it worth, I would consider the lecture to be a reliable source. [[User:Addhoc|Addhoc]] 10:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
::: The Berkeley site is a chapter of the [http://www.hscnet.org Hindu Students Council], which is part of the [http://www.vhp-america.org/whatvhpa/history.htm VHP of America]. It is [http://hscnet.org/aboutus.php explicitly] a Hindutvavadi organization, and thus unlikely to be a source of necessarily unbiased information. [[User:Rudrasharman|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". [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 11:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:::Yep, for the avoidance of doubt, a reliable source for the [[WP:UNDUE|significant minority opinion]] for which Lal is a prominent adherent. [[User:Addhoc|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. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 02:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

::::: Nope, it's a [[WP:UNDUE|significant minority opinion]] and per [[WP:V]] "self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher". [[User:Addhoc|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. [[User:Rudrasharman|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 ! [[User:WIN|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 hindutvapedia.org and ramble to your heart's content. [[User:Rudrasharman|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. [[User:Addhoc|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

== [[User:Dbachmann|dab]], [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]], [[User:Addhoc|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.
[[User:Cosmos416|Cosmos416]] 22:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

:I dont see why you criticize addhoc. He's making a rather good faith effort.<b>[[User:Bakasuprman|<font color="purple">Baka</font>]][[User talk:Bakasuprman|<font color="red">man</font>]]</b> 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 [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_Indigenous_Aryans_in_India&diff=121175965&oldid=121056224]] and [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory&diff=121686574&oldid=121172607]]. Both of these editors are ill-mannered and uncivil.[[User:Sbhushan|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 11:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)



== Horse findings after 1990 ==

For findings of horse in IVC, please read pg.18 of this article http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/IIR.pdf . 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. [[User:WIN|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)". [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it|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 [[Talk:Nicholas Kazanas#Kazanas in JIES|here]]. If you haven't read these reviews, we are not here to give you a free education. [[User:Rudrasharman|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). [[User:WIN|WIN]] 05:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
:omilosmeleton.gr = 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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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. [[User:WIN|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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. [[User:Rudrasharman|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. [[User:WIN|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):

{{cquote|In dealing with animal bones from archaeological sites, and particularly with those from so important yet so problematical a family as the equids (Equidae), there are three outstanding issues that must be addressed: quality of identification, quality of archaeological context, and absolute date. A review of the existing literature concerning equid remains from South Asian sites shows that discussion of at least two of these three issues is usually missing for any particular specimen.}}

: 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? [[User:Rudrasharman|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 ? [[User:WIN|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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 [[N. S. Rajaram|photoshop stunts]]) is not going to do that trick however, and PIE doesn't enter into it (this isn't "PIE migrations"). [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Rudrasharman|rudra]] 21:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

== BBC View ==
I added external link http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history_4.shtml. 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.
<small>— [[User:Bkn|Bkn]] ([[User talk:Bkn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bkn|contribs]]) has made [[Wikipedia:Single purpose account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic. {{ #if: 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC) | The preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment was added at 14:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC{{{3|}}}).}}</small>.

: 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. [[User:Rudrasharman|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.{{Spa|Bkn|17:51, 30 April 2007}}

:: 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? [[User:Rudrasharman|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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? [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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.
<small>—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|unsigned]] comment was added by [[User:Bkn|Bkn]] ([[User talk:Bkn|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bkn|contribs]]) 17:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned -->

: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.[[User:Paul Barlow|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 [[WP:POINT|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. [[User:Rudrasharman|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? [[User:Rudrasharman|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]]. [[User:Buddhipriya|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|Paul B]] 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Between Individual views and BBC : BBC would be a preference.[[User:71.117.86.106|71.117.86.106]] 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" [http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_2/0088.html]. 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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Bkn|Bkn]] 17:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

::Is there any point in talking to you at all? The errors are not trivial but fundamental. [[User:Paul Barlow|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? [[User:Buddhipriya|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. [http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/decline-of-ai.html] [http://www.india-forum.com/articles/107/1/The-Debate-over-the-Origin-of-the-Vedics]. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Buddhipriya|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.[[User:Bkn|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"? [[User:Rudrasharman|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. [[User:Paul Barlow|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. [[User:Chaipau|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. [[User:Buddhipriya|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. [[User:Dbachmann|dab]] <small>[[User_talk:Dbachmann|(𒁳)]]</small> 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. [[User:Buddhipriya|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 <strike>Arvidson's</strike> Trautmann's ''Aryan Debate'' and Bryant's ''Quest...'' book are clear that OIT is a non-mainstream view. [[User:Paul Barlow|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 hoax accusations|Apollo moon landing was a hoax]]. [[User:Buddhipriya|Buddhipriya]] 06:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

==Removal of DMOZ==

I support the removal of the DMOZ link that was done in this edit: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=next&oldid=133227800]. 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]]. [[User:Buddhipriya|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." [[User:Gschadow|Gschadow]] 16:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Citing sources#Say where you got it|Say where ''you'' got it]], Part the ''n''th ==

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Wikipedia
! {{Harvtxt|Bryant|2001}}
|-
|width=529px| '''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)'''.
|width=529px| '''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)'''.
|}

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Wikipedia
! [http://voi.org/books/ait/ch49.htm Elst (1999)]
|-
|width=529px| '''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.'''"{{ref|hc-wp}}

{{note|hc-wp}}'''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.'''
|width=529px| '''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.'''”{{ref|hc-ke}}

{{note|hc-ke}}'''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 [http://voi.org/books/ait/ch49.htm Elst]. [[User:JFD|JFD]] 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 12:07, 3 April 2024

Laughter riot[edit]

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/03769836211052101

Enjoy! TrangaBellam (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem. Not a single degree (see the programs tab) is remotely linked to history or archeology.
ICHR used to be the the crown of all journals on history and allied fields, published from India. Atleast till a couple of decades back. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating career for our author. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM Chariotrider555 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A journal—admired by Eric Hobsbawm to be "the richest venue for vigorous discussions on Indian History"—publishing ridiculous articles by a non-qualified author about our subject not only raises valid concern about the reliability of peer-review process under the current political regime but also protects our article from upcoming shenanigans.
This is not the first time, I am seeing journals published by institutes which are controlled by the Government of India publishing anti-AMT narratives in hitherto reliable journals. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not laughing. I am seriously concerned. If the journal has been hijacked by the BJP, all the articles published in it under the BJP administration will have to be declared as unreliable. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The editor-in-chief is the president of ICHR, Arvind Jamkhedkar, the Chancellor of the Deccan College. So I am not surprised stuff like this is appearing in the journal. All the editors are also members of ICHR. I can't recognize any of these names. Perhaps you can. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is Deccan College for you. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article (published today) detailing the infiltration of Hindutva into ICHR. The report mentions one Akhil Bharatiya Itihas Sankalan Yojana; I am hearing of the organization for the first time but our article was written by Vanamonde93.
That being said, I will appreciate anybody who can email me a copy of the article. I am not a subscriber. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3, I am acquainted with none but have come across Kapil Kumar from Twitter. Tanwar's book on Kashmir is on my to-read list. I faintly recall Kadam being in the news for inviting G. D. Bakshi (!) to speak about AMT/AIT at Dept. of History, JNU, Delhi.
Both Kadam and Kumar being in ICHR is worrying. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India is a place where pseudoscience is preached in schools as science. Therefore Such publications in hitherto reliable journals are no surprise. ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Theory"[edit]

@WikiLinuz - you reverted my earlier edit which stated in the lead section that this is a "theory".

Throughout the article, in numerous sections, there is this mention of it being a theory.

Based on that, I edited the lead section and added the above.

Look forward to hearing back from you... StolenFocus007 (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fact, not a theory. And we're not talking about scientific theory either. WikiLinuz {talk} 🍁 18:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How can it not be a theory when it is called a theory ? 59.89.154.11 (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is literally mentioned in the article that it is a theory . 59.89.154.11 (talk) 09:17, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Genetics info from D Reich[edit]

According to geneticist David Reich, Sintashta and Andronovo, the two cultures often associated with the Indo-Aryans and Indo-Aryan languages, did not directly contribute any DNA to India[source]:

"Often in the story told with the steppe hypothesis, the Yamnaya give rise to later groups called the Sintashta and Andronovo that then contributed to India. But genetic data from those populations so far call into question that model, as they do not work statistically as sources of ancestry in India." — David Reich

[Source] Reich, David (March 2018). "Ancient DNA Suggests Steppe Migrations Spread Indo-European Languages"

Pretty interesting, since the theory focus a lot on Sintashta/Andronovo migrations which apparently did not happen. In the source Reich mentions that Sintashta/Andronovo-related ancestry reached India later than hypothesized, through a later culture that carried it (thus indirect contribution) 46.176.160.196 (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read footnote 2 at the end of that paragraph from which you pulled the quote.

”In the year since this lecture was delivered, my laboratory and another laboratory have generated new ancient DNA data from Central Asia. With these data in hand, we have been able to show that groups like Sintashta and Andronovo in fact have mixed with some of these newly sampled populations to produce a plausible source population for South Asians.” Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Senator2029 【talk】 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox military conflict[edit]

@HorCrux48: FYI: the IVC had already started to decline, due to climate change, when Indo-Aryan people started to migrate into northern India, also due to climate change. The 'Aryan Invasion Theory', bt which you seem to be informed, is outdated and incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RegentsPark and Bishonen: does one of you care to convince this editor of their misunderstanding? Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HorCrux48: If you find your additions reverted, please seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring to add it back. I'm removing your infobox and suggest you explain here why you think it necessary. Wait for consensus and, if you get it, then add it back. (See WP:BRD and WP:EW)--RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024[edit]

Please change:

The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within south India associated with Indo-Aryan movements.

to:

The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within South Asia associated with Indo-Aryan movements. Lekhak (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature.
For instance:
"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo. Hence my simple request. Lekhak (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the locations of those cultures. They have nothing to do with south India: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cemetery_H_culture#/media/File:Rigvedic_geography.jpg
This whole subcontinent is South Asia. South India is the a small part of South Asia (south of India), which has nothing to do with Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Painted Grey Ware, and Copper Hoard Culture.
Hence my attempt to correct what appears to be a simple typo. Lekhak (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map of these cultures in the North West corner has nothing to do with south India
Lekhak (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.

Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature. For instance:

"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.

UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.

"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.

"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.

Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo.

Done. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]