Talk:Indo-Aryan migration/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

POV-check tag

What will it take to remove the POV-check tag? --UB 11:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Divine intervention, I guess. Paul B 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I know that I am opening a Pandora's box but I find that the article has both views (pro-migration & pro-continuity) well represented.--UB 11:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
whould maybe be replaced by a cleanup tag. Minority views should obviously be discussed, but clearly presented as minority views. We get many editors who are not prepared to base discussion on academic publications, and thus do not accept a presentation of mainstream opinion. This should have no effect on tags, since it is Wikipedia policy to present views weighed by academic notability: this means that a coherent case must be made before tags can be slapped on things. The political implications are notable to India today, but as such have their own article. Nobody disputes there is some continuity: "pro-continuity" here means "no influx, PIE out of India", which is obviously not a tenable academic position. Discussion of the IVC may be fair, but it is simply offtopic here. But I agree the article is not terrible, and we might attempt replacing the NPOV tag with a "cleanup" one, and deal with dissent [ paragraph-by-paragraph (a general "NPOV" template is not useful on such a long article, since it doesn't show which parts are under dispute). dab (ᛏ) 13:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
How about PCT? It will take care of both PIE as well as continuity.--UB 08:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, I replaced it with the cleanup tag; the article still indulges in much rambling about tangentially related topics. Note that this article should debate various scenarios about the migration's timeframe, and not treat random archaeological, philological or geological topics. The w idely accepted timeframe falls within 1900-1200 BC. There may be a case for pre-2000 immigration (source them), but such views are extremely fringy. There would still be I-A immigration, just in the 3rd instead of the 2nd millennium. I don't know if anyone believes in that, but it is certainly more credible than the idea of I-A miraculously developing independently. dab (ᛏ) 13:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Indus Valley Civilization 's scientific & organisational development was some MIRACLE ! Development of advanced town planning & laying of sewage underground pipelines during IVC was due to some MIRACLE ! Development of advanced maths & using decimal system that time was some MIRACLE ! Construction of sea port of Lothal which was massive, had dredged canal and docking facility was a MIRACLE ! Weights were based on units of 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, and 500, with each unit weighing approximately 28 grams, similar to the English Imperial ounce or Greek uncia was a MIRACLE ! Knowledge of Dentistry was a MIRACLE ! Practice of Yoga was a MIRACLE ! But, spreading of Sanskrit ( a scientific & `high' language ) over very vast civilized area of India by some nomadic tribes of central asia is not MIRACLE. WIN 05:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

um, yes, the IVC was a bronze age civilization with achievements comparable to those in Mesopotamia. If you are into that, you could consider contributing to our IVC article. And yes, even nomadic tribes have languages and rituals. Sanskrit became "scientific" with Panini in 500 BC, which has nothing whatsoever to do with IAM. dab (ᛏ) 08:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

In Mesopotamia , planned cities are not found. No `modern' underground sewage system is found. No decimal system is found which we are using today.No man made dock is found. No common weight measurement system is found as in IVC. This weight measurement unit of 28 gm = 1 unit was used by Greek & English as ounce. Still today, bricks ratio of 1:2:4 is being used. Dentistry knowledge is found so obviously it means that they were having knowledge of Life science Ayurveda. Whatever above written you see in IVC , is still practised in 2006 all over world. That shows that knowledge of IVC scholars was very deep and fundamentally correct. By your writings , you are undermining or negating the achievements of IVC Indians.

Give me example of any nomads who were sucessful in imparting their language & culture over much advanced & vast people. I have given so many examples in previous writings that language change was not possible. In India, historically any people coming & settling in India were asimiliated in vast Indian culture. Even in China history, The Great wall of China was made to ward off Mongolians who were `famous' nomads. But when, these `famous' nomads could invade China ; they adopted Buddhism ( an Indian religion ) and local language. So, mongolians who were central asian nomads when invaded China after 500 BC adopted Buddhism & chinese language but never were sucessful in implanting their language & rituals on Chinese Han people.

Panini had not deviced grammer of Sanskrit. Sanskrit grammer is same from Rig-Veda AND because of that Witzel's mis-translation of BSS verse was found. Panini only codified Sanskrit grammer in mathematical format around 500 BC. At the time of Panini, Prakrit languages like Pali & Ardhamagadhi were already common languages i.e. during Buddha & Mahavir's time around 500 BC. Panini codified already known Sanskrit grammer in concise manner using mathematical formula. His aim was to make Sanskrit grammer easy to understand & remember for common people so that Sanskrit which remained language of learned people that time, will not face any degradation. Even this shows that after complete drying of Saraswati river, IVC Indians were maintaining tradition of hard subject like maths. And, infact they used in language which is unparallel in the world history.

I think, first you should develop understanding in the subject. Otherswise, you will end up in illogical discussions here and Aryan Invasion Theory. WIN 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me example of any nomads who were sucessful in imparting their language & culture over much advanced & vast people.
The Arabs were successful in imparting their language & culture in the Levant over Greek speakers, in Mesopotamia over Aramaic speakers, in Egypt over the Copts, and in the present-day Maghreb over Berber, Punic, Vulgar Latin and Vandalic speakers.
Now, are you going to ask me to prove that people in those places weren't Arab before the 7th century?
CiteCop 21:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually CiteCop, your point illustrated genocide, not a superposition of language.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
what blooming nonsese. You must be Subhash. su-bhaṣitum, indeed :p (ᛎ) qɐp 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Bakaman, I think you know by now that I am no apologist for Islamoimperialism, but what occurred was not genocide, but the kind of colonization that V.S. Naipaul described in Beyond Belief.
CiteCop 21:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You guys still did not answer WIN's concerns.Bakaman Bakatalk 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
There's no need to answer WIN's concerns. He's already admitted that his goal here is to distract us from continuing to develop the article, not to seek consensus for the improvement of the material. Why spend time entertaining him? CRCulver 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Those are some strong accusations. Got any proof perhaps diffs?Bakaman Bakatalk 01:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
It's right there on his Talk page: "I want to make others to start thinking & realizing & doubting the very idea of any Aryan Migration". That violates the rule against using Wikipedia as a soapbox. He has no interest in making this article reflect scholarly consensus, and since he has already made up his mind that the article must fulfill his mission, he won't take into consideration any citations from reputable scholarship. Also, note that he won't accept citations as an answer to many questions he asks, he demands that editors come up with their own answers, which violates WP:NOR, so we often have a duty to ignore him. CRCulver 01:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
WIN wanted an example. I gave him an example even he wouldn't challenge. End of story.
CiteCop 02:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually we are talking of migrations. The arab conquest is hardly a migration.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
The Arabs were in the Arabian peninsula. Then they moved out of it. How is that not a migration? CiteCop 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
All "migration" means here is the movement of language and cultural traits, whether violence was involved or not has no bearing on the concept. The situations may be compared. CRCulver 02:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Pottery

what is the relevance of the pottery section? The YV was composed in India around 1000 BC (Painted Grey Ware culture) -- the archaeological match may be very interesting on Yajurveda, but since nobody claims the Yajurveda was composed in Central Asia, the discussion of Iron Age pottery seems irrelevant to the topic of this article. Likewise, presence of Bronze and cattle (on both sides of the Hindukush) predates the IAM timeframe, so its discussion tells us nothing about the topic at hand. dab (ᛏ) 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra

This section does not seem to add any value to the discussion. Can this section be deleted?--UB 05:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I seems very marginal to me, but it has been given great significance by the anti-Witzel clique as proof of the unreliability of "Western scholarship". Surely it doesn't deserve a whole section. Paul B 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
the present wording is also completely unaware of the context. Nobody in their right mind would use the BSS as "definite proof" of anything. The context was, I believe, that after IAM had been established as likely for all the reasons discussed, BSS was quoted as the most likely candidate of a possible reflection of immigration memories in a "direct statement". I don't know the final verdict on this, but it is certain that nothing hinges on it. There is a fuller discussion on Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra, which should just be linked. Since some acadmemic fuss has been made about the passage, I suppose reference to it should be kept. Although it is clear that the episode has more to do with people enjoying having caught Witzel making a mistake than with bona fide debate. dab (ᛏ) 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Early Indo-Aryans

Please refer to the following sentence:

The Sumerian legend of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" (late 3rd millennium BCE) and other Sumerian legends might also possibly refer to an Indo-Aryan culture or to modern East-Iran/Afghanistan/India (see Elst 1999).

The legend of "Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta" does not seem to have any relation to vedic text. I could not locate the reference mentioned. I have gone through Koenraad Elst's Indology Site. Can anybody help? --UB 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some vaishnavites - for reasons I don't understand - seem to want to demonstrate a link between Sumerians and I-As. This stuff pops up on websites (over on Aryan race an editor is trying to add the claim that arya is related to a Sumerian word). Paul B 09:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Elst discusses the story here [1]. Paul B 09:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

this is nonsense. Elst himself admits that there is no reason to believe any of this, but then goes on to elaborate on the consequences it would have if it could be believed. If we keep this around, clearly mark it as pure speculation. dab (ᛏ) 09:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following for now, because it seems a bit marginal to me in the present form and had a "citation needed": Whether some terms of the Kassites refer to Vedic gods or names is disputed[citation needed].
There is a short discussion on this in section 9 of this article [2] --RF 11:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Substrate influence

The following sentence seems to be a mere speculation.

Elamite language, an extinct language of Southwestern Iran, has also often been linked to Dravidian (in a proposed Elamo-Dravidian or Zagrosian family); if this turns out to be true, it would even more strongly imply a more northerly former distribution of the Dravidian languages.
Since it is not generally accepted that Elamite language is Dravidian, we should delete this sentence.--UB 08:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the following para does not seem to have any relation with IAM.

The early formation of political states also affects the distribution of languages. The Punjab was in historical times settled by Iranians, Greeks, Kushans (replacing Greeks and their language), and Hephthalites, yet Indo-Aryan languages dominate, probably due to the dominance of later Indian empires and states. Hence in regions where Persian and Indian empires dominated many languages died out. This process can be seen in the elimination of Saka and Tocharian languages through the influence of Persians, Buddhism (spreading Prakit language), and Turks.

--UB 11:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Elamo-Dravidian is a notable hypothesis, not mere speculation, but of course it can by no means be presented as widely accepted. It is pertinent to the topic of IAM only marginally, in as much as the IVC is brought into the debate (which is itself only marginally relevant to the topic). IVC is the likely locus of Proto-Dravidian, and assumption of Elamo-Dravidian settlement of the area between Elam and India seems plausible, and provides context. The IVC has some relevance as the origin of the linguistic substratum in Indo-Aryan, and a possible relation to Elam bears mentioning. But I agree the article should not be sidetracked too much by this sort of thing. I also agree that the second paragraph is too wordy, and it is unclear what point it is trying to make. It is enough to mention that the Hindukush is the classical invasion route into India, with a long string of known precedents. dab (ᛏ) 12:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"much earlier"

Removing the hazy 'critics argue that the migration could have taken place much earlier than 1500 BC', I am asking myself why no reference is made to the Anatolian hypothesis: based on it, immigration as early as 3000 BC could be argued, all within a framework accepted as the main alternative to the mainstream Kurgan view. In an "out of Anatolia" view, the mature IVC could be presented as Indo-Aryan. This will have little chance of wide acceptance (chariots and horses etc.), but at least it will not be a crackpot view (like the more prevalent "Paleolithic Aryans"). I am surprised none of the "IVC must be Aryan" supporters are arguing along these lines. Of course we won't mention the possibility as long as we cannot attribute it to an author, but it seems the only way to piece together a halfway coherent argument to the effect. dab (ᛏ) 09:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

That argument is discussed in Bryant. It is obviously far more plausible than OIT, but is not as gratifying to nationalst ideology. Unfortunately I don't have my copy of the book with me, so can't cite at the moment. Paul B 09:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
OIT presumably means "[PIE] out of India"? I don't know of anybody suggesting this, and it isn't even mentioned as a possibility on this article. "Indo-Aryan IVC out of Anatolia" would need to be considered orders of magnitude more likely. Linguistic mainstream will consider Indo-Iranian separation as early as 3000 BC extremely unlikely. But another possibiliy would be Indo-Iranian IVC with Iranians migrating back west after 1900 BC: this would sit very well with mainstream dating of Indo-Iranian separation. Such a scenario would be attractive to anyone convinced by Renfrew's proposal and would need to be entertained at least as a possibility. That we don't hear more of this is obviously due to the nationalist side being not interested in honest debate, they want Paleolithic Aryans in 80,000 BC, and they don't care about anything west of the Khyber Pass :) dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with dab that Anatolian hypothesis will be much better than OIT. Unfortunately, Renfrew is silent about eastward migration. It may not satisfy the hard core nationalist but most of the others who object to IAM will be satisfied with Aryan=IVC. Can we not include it as a possible alternate theory?--UB 09:50, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If Bryant discusses the possibility, I see no reason not to discuss it here. I think Renfrew himself takes the Proto-Indo-Iranians out of the Balkans in 3000 BC and moves them to Kazakhstan, so that his I-I story from 2000 BC is identical to the Kurgan one. Arguing for "I-I IVC" would require that some author says "no, Renfrew is right about Anatolian origin, but the I-Is migrated not to the steppe, but directly to the Indus Valley, which they reached by 2600". Thus, "Aryan IVC" is not directly compatible with Renfrew, but it could reasonably be proposed as a variant of Renfrew's view. Of course Wikipedia is not the place for original suggestions, but if anybody has argued along these lines, it would be desireable to discuss it here. dab (ᛏ) 09:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Horse and chariot

I find that the article on Introduction of the horse to South Asia states that:

It should however also be noted that other sites like the BMAC complex (which some consider nevertheless as Indo-Aryan) are at least as poor in horse remains as the Harappan sites.

It also includes 2 references (Bryant & Thapar)

Also, I may be wrong but I have not seen any reference to any archaeological site prior to Mauryan period which has significant remains of horse.

In light of these facts, can remains of horse be used in any way to either prove or disprove IAM? --UB 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

there are plenty of horse remains from as early as 4000 BC in the Pontic Steppe. That's the whole point of the Kurgan argument. See also domestication of the horse. To imply "either BMAC or IVC" as this passage does is a false dichotomy. BMAC was 'urban', and the horse in those days (2000 BC) was the hallmark of nomadic pastoralists. So while some people suggest the BMAC was infiltrated by Indo-Iranians, I don't think it is likely that BMAC is the origin of Indo-Iranians: urban cultures don't erupt in explosive population expansions (at least not in pre-modern times), the classical mater gentium has always been the steppe. In India, the Swat culture has undisputed evidence of the horse, and both in location (Gandhara) and date (1600 BC) is the perfect candidate for early I-A (Rigvedic) presence in India. The 'inventory' of Rigvedic culture was definitely present in India by 1500 BC. The question is whether it can be argued that it had already been present in 2500 BC. dab (ᛏ) 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I was trying to look for any reference to sudden increase in horse remains in India corrosponding to the migration. However, I only find stray reference of one or two horse remains in IVC, Swat culture and other subsequent culture. So, the point is, can horse remains be used to argue either pro or anti IAM?--UB 10:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
early 2nd millennium introduction of the chariot to India is consistent with the overall picture of the spread of this innovation (Mesopotamia 1700, China 1600, N Europe 1300).
early 2nd millennium introduction of the chariot to India is consistent with the overall picture of the spread of this innovation (Mesopotamia 1700, China 1600, N Europe 1300).
yes, they can: without horses (and chariots), no Rigveda. If the IVC people could be shown to have been moving about in horse-drawn chariots, the case for 2nd millennium IAM would be pretty much destroyed and the debate would be reduced to glottochronology. To the best of our knowledge, the horse drawn chariot was invented around 2000 BC, in NW Kazakhstan: if this is true, the Rigveda can impossibly be older than 2000 BC, plus the time needed to migrate from the Oxus to the Indus (hence, 1600 BC). If people would discover horse-drawn chariots in 2600 BC Harappa, this argument would just collapse. dab (ᛏ) 10:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... But what you have stated is true for chariot and not necessarily for horse. You have stated earlier that horse remains dates back to 4000 BC. So, horse remain in Harappa by itself may not be a problem. Any way horse is not of Indian origin.--UB 11:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know remains in India are very few and it is not always easy to distinguish them from remains of the native Onager. Paul B 11:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
evidence of domesticated horses dates to as early as 4000 BC (maybe 3500, there is dispute there too; of course wild horses go back as far as you like in their native steppes). This refers to the Caspian-Pontic steppes, and not to Harappa. Yes, the chariot thing is more conclusive, but even uncontrovertible evidence of horses (not onagers) in 3rd millennium IVC would seriously affect our timeframe here. The horse is not known to have been domesticated outside the steppes anywhere before 2000 BC, and it spread together with the chariot: keep in mind that horses back then were much smaller, and almost useless as mounts, so that before the introduction of the chariot there was no reason to bother importing them to areas to which they were not native. The chariot suddenly made the horse extremely valuable militarily, and the Near Eastern empires show strong interest in them from about 1800 BC. It stands to reason that the same chronology holds for India, unless the opposite is clearly demonstrable from the archaeological record. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab is right here that there are unquestationable evidence of horses ( & not onagers ) in 3rd Millenium IVC. In IVC, pottery of wheels are found and also bullock carts. Since, wooden chariots will not be available to us from IVC excavations ; there should be no doubts that IVC people can ever make two wheeled chariots. So, in above photo by making years of 3rd millenium for IVC India; the picture becomes very clear that IVC was first to make chariots.Due to this technological plus point over steppe nomads they could spread very fast with their other IVC technological advantages. WIN 12:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

presence of bullock carts in the IVC is undisputed and meaningless to the debate. There is no evidence at all for chariots, and claims of IVC horse remains are believed by few archaeologists apart from those who make them. Your statement that "the picture becomes very clear that IVC was first to make chariots" is therefore completely wrong. There is no reason whatsoever to assume chariots for the IVC except for the desire to score points in the IAM debate. In scholarship (unlike politics), a desire to score points is not a strong argument in favour of anything. dab (ᛏ) 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aryan theory was propogated without any evidences of archeology or texts. It was proposed by linguists like Max Muller were not having solid evidences ( except some linguistic similarity )for AIT. But, they never thought of reverse OIT because of superiority complex which was developed after European dark age.But British Raj developed this theory to achieve political & conversion goals without checking Indian side. But, when you are finding more & more evidences which goes against this theory ; you are telling Indian side as political motivated ! Then, what will you tell for those non-Indian scholars who are opposing this theory ? WIN 09:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

we know by now you don't like the theory, WIN. Feel free to cite Indo-Europeanists or archaeologists (Indian or non-Indian) suggesting "OIT", but your conspiracy theories are simply not of interest. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
WIN, we all know that there are many holes in IAM. However, the alternate OIT has far too many holes, many more than IAM, to be acceptable. There has to be some explanation other than these two! --UB 04:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that OIT means ancient Indians went to Europe and their descendents are Europeans.There is Oppenheimer's genology report but it's timeline is 40,000 BC for ancient India to Europe.

Just think that after going through Sanskrit it was learnt that there is some connections in words of European languages with Sanskrit. Refer this http://digilander.libero.it/toponomastica/ie-roots.html which says about IE roots. In it you can notice that for most of IE root , Sanskrit is cited first. I , myself , has notice some European language words which are exactly similar in Indo-Aryan languages but it's not exact Sanskrit word. Sanskrit daru 'wood' is Hittite taru. But same taru is word in my Indo-Aryan language mothertongue but rarely used now for mentioning tree. And, remember Hittite is very old language than present Romance languages. Welsh dol 'valley', Gothic dal 'valley' - I cite here my Indo-Aryan language Dol = bucket ( similar meaning with valley ) & dhal = human shield used during war ( it's shape is spherical ). Sanskrit dva-rah ( Eng.door )- Albanian derë . In my Indo-Aryan language door = darvaj , delë ( this delë word is used in rural vocab. )

In newer European languages such changes are wider or unrecognizable than Indo-Aryan languages. So, you should understand that how IE words are tied to IE root , same way Indo-Aryan languages are also having similar word developments. Since, Indo-Aryan languages are in Sanskrit base area ; their words changes are not such abrupt like European languages.

In word reading also, devnagari script is so perfect that pronunciation will be same always. Not like cut & put. Any person who can read devnageri script will pronounce same irrespective of knowing that language or word. Development of such a script requires profound & deep knowledge same as development of Sanskrit as a language. WIN 06:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN, what has that got to do with anything? Believe me, I am familiar with IE reconstruction. Also, Devanagari emerged from AD 1200. Yes, it's a nice abugida perfectly suited for Sanskrit. But what does that have to do with IE or AIM? Please stop spamming talkpages with completely unrelated stuff, and please recognize that copy-pasting random factoids is no replacement for solid education. dab (ᛏ) 09:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Your point about Sanskrit is clear. However, for the purpose of this article we need to answer the following questions.
  • Does the similarity of language imply a common origin (PIE)? (if yes, then)
  • Did this language spread without movement of the people? (if no, then)
 For above answers, I suggest to read online book http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/  which gives more detailed knowledge than written here.   WIN 08:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Did the original speaker of this language come into India from outside or did they go out of India to other places? (if the answer is they came to India, then)
  • When did they come?

--UB 08:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

genetically, Indians descend to some 80% from the paleolithic population of India, just like Europeans to 80% descend from paleolithic (pre-IE) European populations. The AIM would have accounted for a population shift of at best 10% (in rough numbers, just to gesture at the orders of magnitude involved: various tribes totalling around 200k souls infiltrating some 2-3 million pre I-A people in N India). Many people outraged by the notion of "AIM" do not realize this. Languages do not spread entirely without population movement, but they may spread by relatively modest population movements. The main part of "AIM" takes place inside India, with gradual expansion of I-A culture from the Punjab over the whole subcontinent. With all the fuss about Central Asian origins, this much more notable process of "Sanskritization of the Subcontinent" in (early) historical times is sometimes almost forgotten. dab (ᛏ) 09:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It is an interesting point. After all Swat valley to Bengal is about 2000 km. It is almost the same distance from Swat valley to Mesopotamia!! However, if you believe in PCT then the situation is a little different. Are there any fundamental problem with PCT?--UB 12:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, travelling from the Oxus to Bengal, Gandhara is merely the first stage. Most of the actual IAM took place within India. The PCT article has been waiting for expansion for some time now. At first glance it seems like a European version of the "OIT", i.e. patent nonsense (naive identification of genetic ancestry with linguistic history). We had Guparra (talk · contribs) announcing he would show there was more behind it, but he never followed up on that. I think I would like to coin the term autochthonism here: PCT supporters in Italy make essentially the same claims as the "Paleolithic Aryans" crowd, they just differ in Eurocentric vs. India-centric flavour. dab (ᛏ) 15:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"At Bactria NorthWest Afghanistan alabaster plates decorated with a humped bull in the Indus or Harappan style, at Bactrian graves Harappan steatite seals, etched Carnelian beads, a cosmetic flacon having an exact parallel at Chanhudaro, pins with spiral, metal mirrors that parallel ones found in the Indus." - There are similarities in archeology findings of BMAC & Indus valley civilization. If IVC people had such impact on life of BMAC people then how & why they will adopt any `central asian' Sanskrit ? Why such points are kept under dark ? Logic is not used but negation. Read more about IVC seal at http://www.indoeurohome.com/ WIN 13:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

that's most interesting to the topic of IVC, but maybe also to IAM: Are you suggesting even the IVC people had connections to Central Asia? Are you arguing for "Dravidian migration" now? BMAC-IVC contacts may indeed have a bearing on IAM: the Hindukush would appear an even more trivial obstacle, and the "Proto-Dasa" of Parpola may indeed be found in the BMAC. Of course you are linking to just another crackpot site, but I do think it would be interesting if IVC influence on the BMAC could be established. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For you it seems that there was only "one way" road leading to India and not vice versa. As per you, IVC Indians were not capable of crossing Hindukush mountains. I would call Parpola's "Proto-Dasa" theory as crack pot indeed. It means that Indian subcontinent's more than 1 billion people's ancient roots were in central asia and ancient India was populated first by central asian dravidians and then some small % ( around 10% as per you ) by central asian aryans !!! Ancient India was no-man's land and current Indians' forefather came from central asia or BMAC area !!! Wow, how deeply logical and scholarly opinion !!!

Now, I am very much sure about your shallow level of logical understanding. IVC people can do business by sea route to Mesepotamia but they can not travel by road to nearby BMAC area !!! Ha, Ha , Ha !!! Then, as per your logic finding IVC seals in Mesepotamia was due to ancient Mesepotamian ships coming to IVC docks as IVC ships were not capable of going to mesepotamia !!! Sea trade was in " one way " direction !!!

I can only say that, clean dust of " one way " thinking which is without any in-depth logic. WIN 05:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Substrate influence

This section looks a little long and out of context. It is not clear with this section is trying to prove. Can anybody help in making it more readable and more to the point? --UB 12:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture - Edwin Bryant

I was reading parts of this book through Google Book and came across the following para on page 44:

"Until very recently, Western scholars, whose primary emphasis and concern, at least historically, have been the origins of Western civilization, have renegotiated and reconfigured the pre- and protohistory of other nations such as India as by-products of their investigations. Yet for the most part, they have not been exposed to concerns over, and responses to their formulations expressed by the native scholars from those countries. India, in particular, initiated the whole field of Indo-European studies when it's language and rich culture were "discovered" by Western scholars. Yet opinions from that country, especially if in disagreement with the more forceful voices in the West, are poorly understood or cursorily dismissed." --UB 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's the principal topic of the book. Read it, though I warn you it's not an easy read, even though Bryant is a clear and jargon-free writer. It's rather a frustrating text in many ways due to Bryant's desire to put the best gloss on every possible point of view (though he draws the line at P.N. Oak). Taking views of Indian writers "seriously" should mean treating them in exactly the same way as Western writers, who also include cranks, nationalists and fundamentalists as well as unorthodox but genuine scholars. After all the Greek indigenists are no no more accepted in the West than the Indian indigenists. Paul B 11:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Iron Age Vedic Civilization ?

I have deleted `iron age' word from first sub-heading write up. In India, iron of carbon dating 1800 BC is found in central ganga plains. So, one can not tell 100% surely that central asian nomadic aryans brought Iron smelting technology. Refer http://www.archaeologyonline.net/artifacts/iron-ore.html


In Vedic Civilization article, read People and Society section. It's mentioned something like - people started learning agriculture etc. Initial aryan people were tribal type and learnt agriculture - obviously after they came from central asia to Indian subcontinent. But,that time ancient Indians were already reaping rich agricultural output to feed many trading IVC towns. If aryans had to learn basic subject like agriculture from IVC Indians or develop indigeniously without IVC Indians contact, then how can they have knowledge of maths, astronomy,life science, metallurgy etc. with high language like Sanskrit's development skill ?

So, in which way these aryans can impose or make ancient Indians to adopt Sanskrit ?

So, obviously Rig-Ved depicts very ancient time period of India. Because after IVC period, IVC Indians just migrated from arid regions to greener regions carrying their accumulated knowledge with them. But that trading based affluency to make planned cities was absent.

Give me only one example of some tribal people who were sucessful in imposing their language & culture on civilized nation. WIN 06:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

WIN, when will you realize that you don't have the beginning of a clue about these things. Read Iron Age. Learn that the Iron Age doesn't begin with the first iron artefact dug up. Please, I am sure you have an area of expertise; what is your job? I am sure you can be really helpful in helping build articles in some area you understand. dab (ᛏ) 08:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I know about Iron Age but the wordings in the article was such that it gives impression that Iron Age began after `coming' of some aryans from central asia. And, to rectify that I have written above point. I know that Vedas mentions different colors of ayas i.e. eng. metal like yellow, black etc. So, obviously yellow isn't color of iron. But bronze or gold. I am not having `one way' thinking like you !

And, instead why don't you comment about Aryans' other above point ? WIN 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

you are an imaginative person WIN. Unfortunately, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Nobody claims the "Aryans introduced Iron". Occasional iron artefacts were known even in the Bronze Age. The Iron Age begins with societies relying on iron metalwork. This happened much later than any suggested period of IAM, namely around 1000 BC. Yes, there may be single IVC iron artefacts dating to 2000 BC, just like there are Egyptian iron artefacts dating to 3500 BC. This still doesn't mean the Iron Age began then. But I shouldn't be telling you this, since you are not here to learn, of course, but to preach your "truth". Where do you get your ideas, WIN? From crackpot websites? From your Swami? From foaming redneck politicians? Because you sure as hell don't get them from reputable scholarship. Which is the only sort of evidence that you'll have no problem introducing to Wikipedia, thank goodness:
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS
WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR OPINIONS
thank you and goodbye. (ᛎ) qɐp 12:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Dab, whatever I have written is not some `imaginative' idea like Parpola's central asian dravidian concept in which you agree. I have made above points for Iron age Vedic civilization because ( as told earlier ) previously what ever was written on the article were suffient to give false impression to readers that central aryans brought Iron Age in India.And, due to this superial skill they were able to do what is currently credited to them. Now, any form of Invasion is ruled out so supporters want to show some kind of superiority over ancient Indians which made Indians to adopt central asian language and culture. So, if central asian nomadic aryans are not having any superiority against ancient IVC Indians who were much more advanced than some nomadic central asian aryans then why & how they can adopt some foreign language & culture ? I have already said that Persians who are from same IE group had not changed their language ( i.e. Persian ) after Islamic Arab Invasions then how can ancient Indians can change language + culture + each and every nomenclature from some Dravidian to Sanskrit as told as per this theory.

Dab, I know about depth of your `one way' understanding. Even, linguists like Max Muller who had propogated this Aryan theory had no solid evidences except some similarity of words. So, why are you not telling that linguists as crackpots ?( who had no expertize in other concerned subjects but they were superbly imaginative to fabricate the theory ). Because it suits your notion. Telling every opposition as crackpot is like hiding your head in the ground. WIN 05:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

So, if central asian nomadic aryans are not having any superiority against ancient IVC Indians who were much more advanced than some nomadic central asian aryans then why & how they can adopt some foreign language & culture ? I have already said that Persians who are from same IE group had not changed their language ( i.e. Persian ) after Islamic Arab Invasions
And yet, Greek speakers of the eastern Mediterranean, Aramaic speakers of Mesopotamia, the Copts of Egypt, and the Romans of the present-day Maghreb all adopted the language and culture of invading nomadic Bedouins from the Arabian peninsula whom they were much more advanced than.
CiteCop 06:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Invasion of India by some central asian aryans is totally ruled out. If you can understand difference between Islamic Invasions and aryan migration then you would not have told such. There is no animosity between North & South Indians.There are no scriptures from both areas or in local tradition saying some animosity. South Indins have Caste, even people's names, traditions etc. every thing from Vedas. First , develop understanding about India and then you can understand my writings.

Kurdish people may have converted but their language is converted.The first mention of the Kurds in historical records was in cuneiform writings from the Sumerians (3,000 BCE).But Kurdish language is found to be Iranian branch of IE and closely related with various dialects of Persian,Pashto and Baluchi.

Now, Kurdish people are in Mesepotamia from 3,000 BC and their language is IE one. Then, does it mean that central asian aryans invaded / migrated to Mesepotamia before 3,000 BC ? WIN 07:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the paper "The correlation Between Languages and Genes: The Usko-Mediterranean Peoples," the Kurds adopted Iranian language with the invasion of the Iranian Medes about 8th-7th century BCE.
In other words, the Kurds were invaded by Iranian speakers and then adopted Iranian language.
CiteCop 14:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Iranian Avesta

How is the second para relevant to IAM discussion? Basically, the para states that Avesta can not be dated on its own. It can be dated only with respect to the date of Rigveda. This para should be shifted to the article on Avesta. --UB 06:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph is relevant because the Gathas and the Rgveda date to <500 years of each other. Burrow may date the Avesta on the basis of the conventional date of the Rgveda but Boyce, using genealogical calculations, ends up in the same ballpark (1500 BCE-1100 BCE), as does Gnoli (c. 1000 BCE) and, on the basis of linguistics, Mallory (1400 BCE-600 BCE).
CiteCop 08:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


But, Gnoli has also written below sentences.

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

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

Secondly, Avestan language is improperly pronounced form of middle Indo-Aryan language with non-perfect grammer of Sanskrit. i.e. Avestan is degraded form of Sanskrit. Anybody knowing Sanskrit can come to know this. Refer www.avesta.org

WIN 12:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Gnoli notes that India is very much a part of the geographical picture
Gnoli also notes that Central Asia—Sogdiana, Margiana, Bactria—is very much part of the geographic picture.
Secondly, Avestan language is improperly pronounced form of middle Indo-Aryan language with non-perfect grammer of Sanskrit. i.e. Avestan is degraded form of Sanskrit.
What's to say that Sanskrit isn't an improperly pronounced form of Old Iranian with imperfect grammar, i.e. a degraded form of Avestan?
CiteCop 14:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

To understand what's called degradation or improper pronunciation , first you will have to understand Sanskrit , Avestan or Indo-Aryan WHICH YOU DON'T. First learn that languages and then you will get rid of `one way' thinking. WIN 05:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

So how do you think palatalization and the centum/satem divide informs our little discussion?
CiteCop 14:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
And how did Sanskrit get to be so perfect? Did it just emanate from the Brahman? Paul B 22:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Paul, regarding Sanskrit's perfection ask Forbes Magazine ( July,1987 issue ) or I hereby quote some encomiums showered on Sanskrit language by Prof James Santucci,California State University:

1. Emphasized the study of sounds, not letters

2. Emphasized the descriptive use of grammar and not the prescriptive use of grammar

3. Most likely discovered the zero element in morphology, most certainly employed it well before the Europeans in linguistic analyses

4. Emphasized the notion of substitution rather than transformation(vikåra)

5. Developed morphophonological explanations (= sandhi)

6. Stressed in phonetics the place and manner of articulation

7. Recognized ablaut correspondences;

8. described language in a formal manner and not as a logical system

9. Developed a metalanguage

10. Approached the sense of the phoneme

When you find all such qualities in any world language then write here.

When Hindu tradition or scripture says about origin of Sanskrit from Brahman ( the supreme ) and not from some central asian nomads, even this is a tight slap on your face who always tries to downgrade Hinduism or India.

Read Grammar section of Sanskrit. You will not find such a long, very deep grammer in any IE languages.As per AMT, Sanskrit is brought by some nomadic people from central asia. If Sanskrit is from central asia then why the parent area is not having that deeper grammer in current language or that deeper IE vocab. If your mothertongue is not Sanskrit or you are not in touch with Sanskrit then one can easily forget that Sanskrit grammer. So, how it became possible that North Indians started speaking Sanskrit instead of their some other mothertongue ?( Remember that Dravidans were drawn down to South is an obsolete Invasion concept ) How Sanskritization was total in North ? How & why South India also named their biggest rivers to Sanskrit or adopted Vedic culture in totality except changing mothertongue ? Why culture changed was total but not language ? Even `aryan' trademark caste is present in South India - How it became possible ? WIN 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC) WIN 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You signally fail to answer the question. How did it get to be "perefct"? Did it just start off that way, emerging fully formed? Paul B 14:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually WIN your last sentence is a dead giveaway to the AMT pushers (they could say Iyers and Iyengars are translplanted Aryans). I don't get the "perfect" part either. But the point about central asia makes a lot of sense. KAzakh, Uzbek, Uigur, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Turkish, and Mongol are closely related, and those are the languages that are extant in the Androvo region. Should there not be a trace of PIE in the area?Bakaman Bakatalk 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, Iyer are Shaivaites. Shiva is called as Dravidian God by Aryan theory proponants. As per AIT , Dravidians were original IVC people who were drawn away by hordes of Aryan invaders. Finding Pashupati ( Shiva ) seal in IVC was told to support this Aryan invasion & fleeing of Dravidians in South. Since invasion by Aryans on Dravidian IVC Indians is out of favour, how will you explain Sanskritization of North and Vedizination of full India ?

Do you mean to say that Iyer who are brahmins ( & Aryan as per AIT/AMT ) adopted Shaivism & Tamil language ? Aryan nomads who migrated to India , who were told be `so much' powerful to convert language of Indian subcontinent ( except 4 Southern states ), forgot or changed their main God as Dravidian Shiva and language in South ? Then, what happened to this `unparallel nomads in the world' named Aryans ? Just think it over again then you will realize what I mean. WIN 08:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Sogdian and Tajik, to name two. And let's not forget that the Turkic expansion dates to the c. 6th century and the Mongol one to c. 13th.
CiteCop 18:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Do you not think Tajik may have came from an eastward expansion of Persian influence, perhaps Sassanian times? India was crushed by the Huns during the Sassanid heyday.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Also this map here shows Sassanid influence right before the time of Muhammad. Tajikistan is under sassanid rule, as is Afghanistan, and parts of central asia. Bakaman Bakatalk 18:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought you were just asking for Indo-European languages in the region.
The expansion of western Iranian languages such as Tajik into Central Asia is probably a combination of both Sassanid expansion and refugees from the Muslim conquest, largely replacing the eastern Iranian languages that were formerly spoken in the region.
Bactrian, for example, is textually attested to before the conquests of Alexander the Great.
And then there are the 2 Tocharian languages, which aren't even Indo-Iranian at all, but an Indo-European subfamily all by itself, and the only "centum" Indo-European language found outside of Europe.
Linguists think it's most closely related to the Italic and Celtic Indo-European subfamilies.
CiteCop 18:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well what are the eastern Iranian languages then?Bakaman Bakatalk 18:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
List of Iranian languages and Eastern Iranian languages will probably explain it better than me.
CiteCop 19:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Compared to the 10 million or so Tajiks and the 70 million persians, or even 20-30 million Pathans Wakhi (an eastern language) with 50k seems a bit small and insignificant.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Pathan is an eastern Iranian language.
CiteCop 19:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes but Pathans have been in Afghanistan and India for so long their language is somewhat neutral and does not have the adventurous overtone of Wakhi. Bakaman Bakatalk 19:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, after the Norman invasion, English doesn't sound as Germanic as it used to.
It's still a Germanic language.
CiteCop 20:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
All right I think were off track here. Pasto isn't very similar to Hindi, though most Afghans do have a supericial understanding of Hindi. Androvo is still a whole bunch of linguistic mumbo-jumbo. What are the origins of Turkic languages, which are domiciled in the "Androvo region"? Bakaman Bakatalk 02:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take a look at a map of Central Asia, there's a place where the "four corners" of Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China and Russia meet.
That's roughly the area where the Turkic languages originate from.
CiteCop 12:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


Saptarshi & Arundhati AND Indian Sacred Fig tree mentioned in IVC seal

Refer http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola12.html where Saptarshi & Arundhati ( wife of Rishi Vashishtha ) are mentioned. This is read by Asko Parpola. He reads Dravidian word ( Old Tamil word ) Elu-meen i.e.Seven Star. But, if you know all Seven Stars of Saptarshi & Arundhati then they are from Vedic & Puranic legends. They are all Sanskrit names. Rishi Vashishtha is also credited with many Rig-Veda hymns. If Aryan theory is believed then IVC Indians changed their Seven Rishi & wife's name from some XYZ Dravidian to pure Sanskrit.IVC Indians were great sky observers and they changed their tradition stories of Seven Rishi or all astronomical names of planates,stars, constellations ( Nakshatra ), Rashi etc. each & every to some `foreign' Sanskrit language. Ref. Hindu Calendar . So, how some central asian nomadic language developed such a high technical nomenclature in every technical & scientific subject with total Sanskritization of all most all of Indian Subcontinent ?

Refer http://www.harappa.com/script/parpola11.html where Asko Parpola says that Indian Sacred Fig tree i.e. giant Vad / Vat tree's name comes from dravidian name in Sanskrit or modern Indo-Aryan languages. If India specific tree's name comes from Dravidian ( & not from Sanskrit - so called central asian language ) then Elephant's ( a India specific giant animal's ) name is from Sanskrit i.e. Hastina and not from Dravidian. Or why giant rivers of India ( North or South ) are having names in Sanskrit & not Dravidian. This means that ancient Dravidian Indians forgot to give names to their rivers or changed each & every river names of their land or even their own names ( as evident from their current names ) to central asian tongue while celebrating their `ENLIGHTENING' arrival !!! Ha ! Ha ! Ha ! This shows `one way' thinking. Whatever suits to your supportive notion should be fabricated ( ignoring other facts ). Remember that Invading Europeans who were technically much much ahead of native americans could not change USA's giant rivers original native names Mississippi River and Missouri River. It is said for IVC "the structure of their cities were so far advanced that it was not surpassed until the late nineteenth century in Europe (Heinz 1997:68)" From http://www.csuchico.edu/~cheinz/syllabi/asst001/fall97/2chd.htm . Then, why Vastu Shastra or Sthapatya Veda i.e. Science of town planning & architecture is originally written in Sanskrit and not in Dravidian ?

Harvard references

I've beeen working on some major updates and clean-ups to this article off-line, and I was wondering if anyone would object to my changing this page to use Harvard references with templates. It's effectively that already, since most of the footnotes are effectively just Harvard citations. It would also make it clearer which claims are being attributed to which source without having to click through, and would make it more obvious which citations are (for instance) missing page numbers or have malformed references. Actually, there are already several Harvard citations interspersed through the article, which I've been trying to track down references to. Anyway, if nobody objects, I'll be bold and switch it over soon. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead.WP:BOLD . Bakaman Bakatalk 05:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Brahui language, Dravidian substratum etc. modifications in article

I have given well ref. points for Brahui or Dravidian substratum points. Do you think that you are bigger than those scholars ? Regarding Brahui language , what's written reflects older scenario and newer scenario should be represented in the article so that readers get upto date informations. Same is the case with Dravidian substratum point. I have given direct words of against linguistics with proper ref.

By continuously deleting well ref. points you are going against that any violation. If my ref. points are wrong then write on talk page but don't delete it one sided to suit your POV. WIN 12:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

None of the points that I deleted were either relevent or well referenced. As for the Brahui, it was me who added the references to the recent research, in case you hadn't noticed (which, unsurprisingly, you have not)! Paul B 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Paul, check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=93129986&oldid=92879707 to know who added Brahui language 's ref. and then check this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Indo-Aryan_migration&diff=93130681&oldid=93129986 which shows that you modified that ref.

In Brahui language article page, it was me that first edited to give ref. and mention that its immigration in Baluchistan is in last millenium.

Secondly, Dravidian substratum influence is refuted by many linguistics scholars ( despite supporting AIT/AMT linguistically ). Just because it is not pleasing you , that don't make them inferior either. So, don't delete that ref. points and instead try to understand newer development in this subject. WIN 05:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

clutter

guys, you are not writing a book. keep it on-topic, refer to sub-topics by wikilinks, don't write entire chapters about topics treated elsewhere. The scope of this article is very narrow: what sort of case can be made for PIE migration out of India, when and to where did this migration take place. Please, it is enough to say that some scholars are sceptical towards the substratum thing. The substratum is not part of this discussion, both IAM and OIT work with and without it. What we want here are scenarios about how the migration took place, outside India, not phonological details of Sanskrit. Can we please stop discussing India now, and focus on the actual out of part soon? When did the centum dialects leave India, what route did they take and when, etc. dab (𒁳) 13:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight

Please note that a recent revert [3] with the edit summary It's not undue weight. Remember both are hypothesis unless otherwise proved. Secondly, it was linguistics franernity that first fabricated AIT without any proofs. misses the point; While both are hypotheses, one has received overwhelming academic support. On WP we cannot change that; we can link to articles on the minority hypotheses; but we have to clearly state up front that they are minority hypotheses. From WP:NPOV: "Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at al". Note it is only for the sake of peace that these views are in the header at all; by rights, as they are views held by a tiny minority of academics, WP:NPOV says .. they should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. Is that a satisfactory explanation? Please do not revert without discussion.Hornplease 11:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

yep, its as simple as WP:NOR. Too many people do not understand that Wikipedia is not about finding the "truth", but about accurately reflecting academic discourse. If you want to change presentation on Wikipedia, you'll have to change academic communis opinio first, and that doesn't have an "edit" button. This is the only policy that allows us, since we do have edit buttons, any sort of stability. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[4] is not any original research. So, first understand what [5] contains. Read *Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization - Bal Ram Singh - UMASS center for Indic Studies . You should know that except Linguistics eating fat pays, all other science stream scholars oppose it. So, it is not an original research. WIN 05:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Uh, a press release from the Center of Indic Studies doesn't really qualify as a reliable source on the number of scholars that adhere to either theory. Both Mallory and Bryant note that Indo-Aryan migration is the dominant explanation, so it has to be given the lion's share of explanation. Incidentally, Mallory is an archeologist, and I daresay if you look up any of the relevant journals, the number of papers that question IAR are minimal. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
the press-release is not "from a university", it is a press-release (not a journal article) by some Indologist. This Indologist seems very eager to claim "leading geneticists" "collide" with linguistics, but when you look at the actual genetics paper, it does nothing of the sort, and the "leading geneticists" are just co-authors in a larger group. This is obviously just a biased blurb. You can post it under external links, but further than that it has no relevance, it's not even by a geneticist. If there were an actual geneticist paper making the same claim as the press-release, the matter would be different, but that paper would still need to be presented alongside other papers that make the opposite claim. dab (𒁳) 13:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
WIN, your comments do not address my points about undue weight. A single press release from a single university (and not a particularly notable one) does not buttress the case for greater weight to alternative theories. (In addition, the release you quote is hardly equivalent to any peer-reviewed, published work. I have seen it quoted before, I believe, and was a little puzzled by the non-academic tone.) Hornplease 09:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, you must also have be puzzled by non-acedemic tone of Witzel's papers against OIT .WIN 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The tone of most of his peer-reviewed work is not unusual. I presume you are conceding the undue weight point at this time?Hornplease 09:44, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Look, it's not just Witzel, Thapar, and the rest of your bugbears who believe in IAM. Walk into any Indology department, or look at any of the relevant peer-reviewed literature, and at best you'll be able to count the number of people critical of IAM on one hand. IAM is accepted in all the major Indo-European handbooks and textbooks of comparative linguistics I've ever read, and so must it be in this article. Whatever personal issues you have with Witzel are irrelevant. Remember that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (WP:V) and "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." (WP:Undue weight). " Those are absolutely non-negotiable policies here on Wikipedia. --Xiaopo (Talk) 20:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
OK, so the discussion is on the idea that saying
The opposite theory is the Out of India theory which argues that the reverse events took place. It's not widely supported by linguists.
As opposed to
Other theories have been advanced seeking an alternative explanation but have found little academic support.
Is WP:Undue weight. WINs version isn't saying that the Out of India theory is true and neither is it saying that it is supported by anyone. So the issue of undue weight is the fact that Out of India theory is written there instead of other theories (which Hornplease presents with a wikilink to Out of India theory). This article is on Indo-Aryan migration is it not? Not the Kurgan hypothesis...The Out of India theory is the only one that suggests Indo-Aryans did not migrate into India, so it is the only theory which opposes Indo-Aryan migration into India. Other theories is not necessary here.
Now, I know the majority of academics don't believe in it, but it's not undue weight to fleetingly mention the fact that there is a theory, which a lot of people (in terms of sheer numbers) believe in, which presents the exact opposite migration. Thus I think it deserves mention. I won't revert Hornplease until this discussion is concluded. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 04:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for being the voice of reason as always, Nobleeagle. I think the issue with that statement is that it says that the theory isn't widely supported by linguists (as opposed to academia in general), implying that the opposition to the theory comes from linguistics, and not other fields—which appears to be what WIN actually believes. In reality, of course, most archeologists and other relevant experts disagree with it as well. Furthermore, I think people object to WIN's editing of the earlier sentence that says most scholars adhere to the theory, even though that's exactly what the citation says. And finally, it's apparent that many sections of the article contain more criticism of IAM than support, which is unacceptable. Anyway, why mention "Out of India" in the first paragraph rather than the view even more popular among the hoi polloi, to wit, that Sanskrit is the progentor of all the Indo-European languages? Based on some of the comments WIN used to incessantly post on this talk page, he/she actually believes that too. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Forget Sanskrit = PIE, no-one can put that onto a Wikipedia article unless it is accompanied by the word "wierd" in the same sentence, Out of India theory seems fine. In relation to the actual sentence that is being discussed. If the only problem is saying that it is not widely supported by linguists then all that is needed is to rephrase the sentence WIN has proposed. There is a source I've seen somewhere which suggests that most archeologists in a particular study came to the conclusion that a migration into India was unlikely. To say linguists, archeologists, geneticists, astrologers and whatever other field of academia you can find, do not agree with the theory, that substantially downgrades a theory which is supported by some outside the field of linguistics....I just tried finding a sentence which may solve this problems but I must say WIN's seems OK to me and is true without being presented from either side of the coin. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
I am open to changes to my sentence; I do think saying that "not supported by linguists" or whatever leads the reader to suppose that other disciplines 'support' it; any sentence should clearly indicate that the alternative theory is a vast minority in all the relevant disciplines. Hornplease 06:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
the main alternative to Kurgan is Renfrew's Anatolian hypothesis. Many people would call even that fringy. IAM is a corollary to that too (although a 4th millennium IAM, and thus an "Aryan IVC" is possible there). There are various sub-scenarios to both thh Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses. Any other alternatives are pure fringecruft and shouldn't be presented as anything else. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Most Indo-European textbooks will point out that the Kurgan hypothesis is generally accepted among archeologists today. It's a corollary that they accept the Indo-Aryan migration. And no, I don't think there's anything wrong with WIN's changes sensu stricto (except for the aforementioned deletion of "most" and the thing about the linguists), but then, I don't think there's anything wrong with the current sentence either. --Xiaopo (Talk) 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Refer paper by Prof. B.B.Lal who is Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India named `The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts' http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html. Kurgan hypothesis is generally accepted in IE textbooks but that seems not to be in accordance with overall picture. Read the paper which check all possible hypothesis with wider angle. WIN 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, WIN, remember that Wikipedia is not about truth. B. B. Lal may well have shown that the Kurgan hypothesis has major problems and shouldn't be accepted, but until most Indo-Europeanists accept his conclusion—and one way of checking that is to see what appears in the textbooks—it'll have to be given marginal treatment in Wikipedia. --Xiaopo (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Text books may not represent latest developments. Still in India, it's taught ( in some state text books ) that Aryans invaded ancient India. So, I totally disagree that text books portrays properly. WIN 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not talking about school textbooks; I'm talking about the textbooks used in undergraduate and graduate courses in the subject. There are plenty of recent ones, like the excellent ones by Fortson and Lehmann. And textbooks aren't the only measure—also articles in the major peer-reviewed journals and so on. Come now, surely you're not suggesting there's been a sea-change in expert opinion in the last few years? If there was, it would be obvious, and it isn't. As Nobleeagle pointed out, OIT is fringy in academia by any measure. --Xiaopo (Talk) 05:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

In the second para in the introduction states "Based on linguistic, archaeological and cultural evidence, most scholars have argued that Indo-Aryan speakers migrated to northern India ..."

The fourth para states "Archaeological data indicates that there was a shift of settlements from the Indus Valley region to the east and south during the later 2nd millennium BCE, but is inconclusive with regard to a preceding immigration into India"

Also, in the rest of the article almost all the archaeological and cultural evidence has been disputed.

So, I am changing the second para to "Based on linguistic evidence, most scholars ..." --UB 06:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)