Talk:Indigenous Aryanism/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Colonialism

I've added some info on colonialism. It seems important to me, since it provides more context. It's also fair to contextualise Indian nationalism; after all, we westerners were not invited there, were we? But I know close to nothing about this, so, could some others please provide some more info, and sources? And not just remove it!?! Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

NB: I welcome some fair criticism of western colonialism, c.q. occupations and invasions (hm, that sounds familiair...), and the (I suppose) devastating effect we've had. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that will be a big topic of its own! To tell you the truth, the British Raj had very little to do with the Aryan stuff, which was mostly formulated by private scholars or the British Raj officials in their private time. All that we can say is that the racism that would have been endemic in the colonial times might have influenced their thinking. But plenty of these scholars and officials were also Orientalists that genuinely valued Hindu traditions. (By the way the Hindus were called "gentiles" in the 19th century, which might have been a translation of "arya.") Once the Aryan theory was formulated, the British Raj would have found it convenient to allude to it, because it formed a retroactive justification for their own foreign rule over the Indians. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: You can look up how Herbert Hope Risley classified Aryans and Dravidians by the size and shape of the nose.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Now, wait a minute. We have always been clear that Indo-Aryan means a linguistic/ethnic group and heritage. If you want to talk about the Aryan racism, I will sign off from this page. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Herbert Hope Risley was a direct colonial administrator. And the subject is colonialism.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
While colonialism may have had its influence on why the Indogenesis movement began, I don't think this the article for an extended discussion of colonialism. We do not, and should not, go back to the Big Bang in every article, even though many events since then have influenced every topic in Wikipedia. Mention the effects of colonialism on the Indian psyche in a sentence or two (no more) and then link to an appropriate article (which will then link to the Big Bang). This discussion could get out of hand very, very quickly. What is relevant is that Indian nationalism and Hindu fundamentalism are driving this fringe theory. Where that nationalism and fundamentalism came from is not the subject of this article. --Taivo (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
re Risley: attempts to map racial classifications onto ethno-linguistic groups were very common in the 19th century (e.g. attempts to racially define Celts as opposed to Saxons in England), but they have very little bearing on the topic of this article, any more than they would have on an article about current theories of Celtic origins in England. However, I'm not sure why the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj are mentioned. Yes, they are both responses of different kinds to British Christian engagement with Hinduism, with the former emphasising Vedanta in engagement with Unitarianism, and the later a form of Vedic fundamentalism in response to Biblical literalism. But what do they have to do with Indigenous Aryanism? It was certainly irrelevant to the former movement. Paul B (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Arya Samaj was based on the idea of Aryan purity (cultural, not racial), and its founder Dayananda Saraswati may have been the first indigenist. So, it is ok to cover it here. I will look for decent sources. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't have been surprised if he was, but I know of no evidence of it. I've not read anything that suggests he specifically engaged with that aspect of the issue. Paul B (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

This book review has a succinct summary of what happened during the colonial times: Jha, D. N. (2000). "Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British India (Review)". Indian Historical Review. 27 (1): 94–97. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I've read Trautmann. Are you proposing something specific? Paul B (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, a couple of lines, with links to the specific articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
@Paul Barlow: Probably, I will want to mention the fact the British Sanskrit scholars Indo-Europeanists were trying to promote "brotherhood" between the British and the Hindu "aryans," while the colonial rulers and the Christian fundamentalists (feels good to use the term now) disagreed, emphasizing "race" over language. This disproves VictoriaGrayson's theses here.
I am also reading Thapar, Romila (1996). "The Theory of Aryan Race and India: History and Politics". Social Scientist. 24 (1/3): 3–29. JSTOR 3520116., which has more discussion regarding what the Indians were doing at that time. Fascinating reading. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 'colonial rulers' had any official line on the relationship between race and language. The review is just one person's opinion, by the way. It comes from a Marxist scholar who disagrees with some aspects of what Trautmann says. I don't think there are grounds for priviliging the views of Jha. In any case "Christian fundamentalists" by definition believe in equality before God. There's no fundamentalist 'opinion' on race. Some were racists. Some were anti-racist, but it has no conection to fundamentalism as such. They wanted to convert everyone to Christianity because all other religions were "false". Paul B (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, you say British Sanskrit scholars were trying to promote brotherhood with the Hindu aryans, while the Christian fundamentalists were in a different camp? This is a famous quote from British Sanskrit scholar Monier-Williams:

When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism are encircled, undermined, and finally stormed by the soldiers of the cross, the victory of Christianity must be signal and complete.

VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I used wrong terminology. Replace "Sanskrit scholars" by "Indo-Europeanists." Monier-Williams got the Chair at Oxford that should have gone to Max Mueller, because the donors for the Chair had conditions attached to it that required promoting Christianity. So, Monier-Williams was playing the part that he was hired to play. Many Indo-Europeanists wonder how history would have been different if Max Mueller had gotten the Chair! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
He had to says that kind of thing. Promotion of Christianity was one of the aims of the founder of the chair he held (Boden chair in Sanskrit). In any case, it's just what a literal-minded Christian believes. The false religion will be proven to be false and the truth of Christianity will be revealed. In fact the study of Aryan migration was part of the wider process that had the exact opposite effect. Christianity lost out. Trautmann draws attention to the ways in which study of Vedic culture had that effect. Paul B (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: I added some material on Colonial rule and Hindu revival movements. It is probably a bit of a dry narrative as I stayed off all "politics". Kautilya3 (talk) 02:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Conversions

Aryan migration is used even today to convert the lower castes or Dravidians to Christianity. The Christian organization Dalit Freedom Network comes to mind.VictoriaGraysonTalk 21:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I rather doubt that, except in the minds of Hindutvavadis. Dravidianism is a whole other issue. The fact that Dravidian languages are distinct from Indo-Aryan is accpted by everyone, including OIT people, so the Dravidianist argument that Vedic culture is an imposition on Dravidians is wholly independent of I-A migration in the sense in which this article addresses it. It would be as 'valid' (or not) as an argument if I-E orginated in the Indus, or in the Gangetic plain, as Talageri argues. It still "migrated" south, however you cut it. You are confusing two separate types of "Aryan migration". The one you refer to is actually central to OIT itself, and the arguments of its proponents. If it's also used by Christian Dravidianists, that's up them. They are allowed to have opinions. Paul B (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
You doubt that Christians use Aryan migration for conversion? Its their bread and butter.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The bread and butter of Christianity is what it always has been - the claims of the religion for heavenly redemption. Only someone locked in a completely narrow mind-set would imagine that "Aryan migration" is anything but marginal to Christian conversion narratives. However, I note that you have simply ignored my main point. Also, it's worth adding that Christians have every right to use any aspect of history they want to as an argument for their religion. There's nothing stopping Hindus from doing the same to criticise Christianity or Islam. In fact they do it all the time. It's what you do in your every comment. You write as though there's some conspiracy involved in any criticism of Hinduism or any argument for conversion. If Christians use a particular argument from history, then the history itself must have been invented so they could make that argument! In a free society people have a right to criticise other religions. Paul B (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Western Christians are unaware how their donations are used overseas. The documentary God Loves Uganda comes to mind.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Utterly irrelvant of course, but a pretty mind-boggling case of double-standards considering the state of LGBT rights in India, an overwhemingly Hindu-dominated country. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
How science is used by people is immaterial to the science. The migration of Indo-Aryans into India is a scientifically accepted fact just as the moon landings are. Just because religio-nationalists doubt the scientific facts and just because conspiracy theorists doubt the moon landings doesn't make them any less of a scientific fact. Christian's alleged use of Indo-Aryan migration as a conversion tool is immaterial. Christians also advocate monogamy. Does that mean that Indians must reject monogamy because Christians practice it? --Taivo (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This is incorrect because moonlandings are world theories, Indo-Aryans aren't. They are not like Early human migrations. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Aryan Migrations are not "accepted fact" by many impeccably credentialed scholars such as Edwin Bryant and archaeologists such as Jim Shaffer.VictoriaGraysonTalk 03:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
The number of "scholars" who reject the fact of the IA migration is about the same as the number of people who reject the fact of the moon landings. And, Bladesmulti, your comment makes no sense. But the point is that it is totally irrelevant whether or not Christian missionaries use this fact for religious purposes. Unlike the Indogenesis mythology, the fact of migration isn't religious in origin, but scientific research. --Taivo (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I see. Your argument is that, if something affects all human beings, it needs to be a scientific theory but, if it affects just Indians, it can be made up? Are Indians unable to construct scientific theories, or incapable of understanding them? What exactly does "world" have to do with this? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This is not a forum, if you don't know the meaning of world/universal theory then you should first look about it. Aryan migration is not a world theory, unless you can show that there is actual agreement. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
All actual science is "world" in scope. There is no such thing as science that is different in India than it is in Brazil. So, Bladesmulti, by calling Indogenesis "local" science you are admitting that it is not science at all, but simply religio-nationalistic mythology. And the Indo-Aryan migration is not "theory" at all--it is universally accepted as fact except by a tiny number of religio-nationalists. --Taivo (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
When there is known agreement among the scientific community, they would become world theories or universally accepted science. There are many who are not religious-nationalists and they dispute the theory. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Add your arguments, c.q. an overview of those 'many who dispute the theory', and their relevant publications, to the RfC, not here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

@Taivo: You seem to be unaware that Indigenous Aryans was the original theory of western scholars before Aryan migration. It is not an invention of Indians. This is basic history.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Taivo who is an historical linguist by profession is unaware of the fact that when philologists first noted the similarities between European and Indic languages they initially assumed that since Sanskrit was the oldest documented language that the entire family had originated there. But what he is also aware of is that this theory had to be discarded because the evidence did not turn out to support it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
It says on his user page he taught English linguistics. This is nowhere near "historical linguist".VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Have you read his work? I have. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Where is his work?VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Also you really are adept at misrepresenting sources, hi talkpage says he is an associate professor of linguistics, and that he has ALSO taught English linguistics. I am not going to out him since he no longer gives his real name, but he is an historical linguist by training and profession. But it doesnt matter since we are not discussing him here. But we probably should be discussing your systematic misrepresentation of sourcs, facts and other editors' statements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
You are the one who claimed he was a historical linguist.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Which he is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Which I don't believe.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Objectively means there is some evidence.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a historical linguist by training and profession, Victoria. I have a PhD in linguistics from a major American university in that very subject. And "History of English" is one of the topics that every historical linguist worth his salt can teach (including all the details of Indo-European). (Can you define Grassmann's law and how it does and does not relate to the extinct Native American language Ofo? I didn't think so.) Within Wikipedia you can look at my contributions to Talk:Uto-Aztecan languages recently. But if you don't believe that then that's your problem, not mine. I don't believe that you are in the least bit qualified to be editing here. I have seen no evidence of it. Indeed, I think you are 12 years old and playing World of Warcraft when you are not disrupting Wikipedia. Please prove otherwise. --Taivo (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sources on language change

Parking a few sources here:

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thomas Trautmann - The Aryan Debate

Did anybody read Thomas Trautmann's The Aryan Debate? Looks like a relevant source, which does provide the critical context which Bryant omits. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I am reading the JIES commentaries on Kazanas. The Kuzmina's critique is especially devastating. She is saying that basically Kazanas's ideas contradict everything we know about the Indo-Iranians and Indo-Aryans from archaeology. Even though this appeared after Bryant's book, it is funny that Bryant didn't mention any of this type of evidence. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
See the additions I've just made, of Guha's review of The Indo-Aryan Controversy. She states clearly what I already thought: Bryant's book is flawed, since it presents an overview of political-religious mythologies as scientific theories, and threats and discusses it as such. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a nice quote from Kazanas (2002)(p.2) (emphasis mine): "E Bryant’ s The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture (2001) is a long overdue study presenting the indigenist views, advocated mainly by Indians." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are majority here. Trautmann is a new finding, Bryant mention his name sometimes. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
What, is the majority in India Indian?!? ;) Sorry, little twist; it's how I read the sentence for a split-second.
Hm, sorry. It's a little bit unfriendly to quote this line, but it confirms what's been "suspected" before.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
The phrase "advocated mainly by Indians" does not mean it's the "majority" view in India (majority of who in India anyway?). Yes, I've read Trautmann. It's a good book, but it's part of a longstanding academic debate over the legacy of Edward Said's Orientalism, which does not address AIM. So it mixes the AIM debate with the tangentally related debate about Said-ism. It's really about defending Orientalists against the charge that they are part of some ideological apparatus of Imperialism (hence the fact that Jha doesn't like it). Paul B (talk) 11:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
JJ, I was saying that they majority, when we are talking about the advocacy of the indigenist view. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I've just bought it at the web; looking forward to read it. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Language change

This 'majority' seems to respond to a theory that was dominant for 40 years, but has been left since the 1980s. The present IAmt is quite nuanced, as I stated before; no mass migration, but a spread of language and religion. The big question is, of course: why did the north-western Indians, cq. north-western elite, at that time take over the Vedic language and religion? Or maybem even better: why did they take over the religion, and how did that influence the language? and what does it have to do with the mixing of the northern and southern population at that time? abandoning the cities, taking another, nomadic lifestyle which fitted better at those times? who knows?!? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:53, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) Dhavalikar's answer as to why:[1] "The life of the Late Harappans thus reduced to penury was miserable. They then did what people do in such circumstances, more particularly Indians : surrender to god Almighty. The bulk of the Rv was probably composed during this period (2000-1500 BC). It is a truism that religion flourishes in adversity. Since there was no trade worth the name, the art of writing was forgotten, hence the Vedas were not committed to writing." (p. 23) Note that he is identifying the Vedic culture with the late Harappan culture/civilisation. As the Sarasvati dried up, people were forced to move more and more upstream. One might wonder if Sarasvati was praised so much in the Rigveda because it had dried up and it was a way of invoking the deity of Sarasvati to restore the glory of the river. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We need more clarity from the geneticists about the issue of women. If women did not migrate and only men did, they would amount to "migrant workers." Then one might start asking questions about what kind of "workers" migrated: warriors? cattle-herders? priests? This would then provide clues for why some of the archaeological features of the Gandhara grave culture are missing from the Cemetery H culture. Incidentally, the claims by Indian archaeologists that there is no "evidence" of migration is contradicted by Kuzmina and Mallory. For instance, they mention that hand-made pottery by the Indo-Aryans (kumbha) flourished side by side with the wheel-made pottery of the "sudras." Kautilya3 (talk) 11:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Dhavalikar, M. K. (2006). "Archaeology of the Aryans". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 87: 1–37. JSTOR 41692043.
My two cents: it was the lifestyle of the people who brought the Vedic religion that attracted north-western Indian (elites). Herding cattle, as an alternative to farming? but how many (how little) were there? And how long did it take? A few yers? Centuries? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sarasvati's drying up would have been quite sudden, perhaps two cataclysmic events causing the diversion of Sutlej and Yamuna respectively. People moving upstream would have been a gradual response, perhaps one century each. The reduction of cultivable land would have resulted in competition for the remaining land pointing to the need for warriors. The resulting poverty, by Dhavalikar's argument, increases the focus on religion. Non-cultivable land which might still be available for grazing, would have increased the need for pastoralism. The Indo-Aryans had expertise in all these areas. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, the tripartite division of brahmana-kshatriya-vaisya happened long before the Indo-Aryans came to India, according to the sources. They are found in pretty much all Indo-European areas. The addition of sudras was the Indian invention. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it curious that "language shift" received so little attention on Brynat 2005? Though,

"We note too Ehret’s cautionary proviso of the relative ease of language shift among “small-scale” social groups (Ehret 1988: 569).5 The existing interpretative discussions postulating large-scale human “invasions” (Renfrew 1987; Allchin 1995) simply do not correlate with the physical, archaeological, or paleoanthropological, data (Kennedy 2000). No matter how prevalent some population intrusions have been within the South Asian context since the time of Alexander the Great, the archaeological data currently available do not support a parallel scenario being drawn for the prehistoric context." (Shaffer & Lichtenstein, p.81)

"Small-scale social groups"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the language-shift is quite easy to explain. The vedic texts including the Upanishads have extensive coverage of the education system. The Brahmins were the teachers, and the only teachers, of scholarly education. A student was committed to brahmacharya at the beginning of the education, wearing a sacred thread, possibly living with the teacher and his family, until the teacher said the education was complete. All that education would have been naturally in Sanskrit. The people that didn't have such education only had skills-training from parents and relatives and they got marginalised over time. They were the anaryas who weren't allowed to listen to the Vedas. So, even to attend a sacrificial ceremony (where Vedas would be recited), one would have needed some amount of brahmanical education. So, the assimilation of anaryas into the Aryan fold implied language-shift. Oh, to put it in an ironical way, the hand-made pottery beats the wheel-made pottery! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Just noticed that you were using "language shift" as a technical term. I don't believe that that kind of language shift (creolisation) happened much in India. Sanskrit preserved the archaic features so well because it didn't suffer creolisation all that much. Language change/language spread happened in India more through religion than intermixing. The Vedic ideology (dharma) states that the gods give you wealth, and you must pay back the gods through sacrifices. Then the gods are pleased and give you more wealth. If you don't do sacrifices, then you are "stealing" from the gods and eventually you get penured. However, to do sacrifices, you need to get sanskritised, through the education system that I just mentioned. Thus the language rides on the religion. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, though the starter question still is: why would paople take over a religion anyway? You gave a possible explanation above, that doesn't satisfy me. But, another thought just came up: what if the people who learned Sanskrit as second language did not all speak the same language, but different languages? Sanskrit as a 'lingua franca'? Just like us here, different mother-languages, but all speaking (writing, reading) English. @Taivo and Paul Barlow:, is that possible? Also, a change of language not "overnight", but gradual: parents becoming bilingual, children turning mono-lingual to the new language. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
User:Joshua Jonathan: Outside India, Sanskrit was, indeed learned over a wide area as a second language as far as Malaysia, Sumatra, and Central Asia and was a lingua franca throughout the Buddhist region. And it is not unusual at all for populations to learn a new language that is the language of a dominant ruling class. As the Indo-Aryans entered India as an elite ruling class their language would have been the language of government, probably of education, of religion, etc. Others would have learned it as a second language and then the younger generation would have learned it as a first language. But we have to remember that Proto-Indo-Aryan and Sanskrit are not exactly the same thing. Sanskrit represents a literary form of the Prakrits--the Indo-Aryan vernaculars (the spoken form of "Sanskrit"). Just like Classical Latin represents the literary standard for "Vulgar Latin" (the spoken form). The Romance languages evolved from the dialects of Vulgar Latin as the Roman Empire spread across Europe. The same thing happened as the Arabic language spread across North Africa and the Middle East--it was the spoken form that developed into the various Arabic languages while (Standard/Classical) "Arabic" is the common literary form. So too, the modern Indo-Aryan languages evolved from the invading Prakrits--the spoken form of Sanskrit. Local populations would very readily have learned the language of the (minority) invaders who wielded military and religious power--as with the Romans changing the language of Europe and the Arabs changing the language of North Africa. We can see this also in areas without a literary tradition--the Pygmies of Central Africa adopted the languages of the more powerful Bantu invaders, the Aslian of the Malay Peninsula adopted the languages of the more powerful Afroasiatic invaders, the Negritos of the Philippines adopted the languages of the more powerful Austronesian invaders, etc. Does that answer the question you were asking? And a language shift from L2 in the parent generation to L1 in the child generation is, indeed, "overnight" in a linguistic sense. --Taivo (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Quite a lot, yes. It reminds me of my parents. They grew up in the western part of Groningen, a province in the north of the Netherlands. My father learned a Gronings dialect at home. Primary education was given in 'Gronings' for the first three years, because none of the kids spoke standard Dutch. My mother grew up just a few kilometers more to the west, at the border of Friesland, in a Gronings village where Fries was spoken. Her father was Fries, her mother was german. They (my mother and her brothers and sisters) learned a mixture of Fries, Gronings and German. When they (my mother and father) went to study, in the city of Groningen where a different dialect is spoken, they permanently shifted to standard Dutch. My father can still speak Gronings dialect; my mother can't, because she didn't learn the dialect proper, but their own "creole" of Fries, german, gronings and maybe also some standard Dutch. Just a very small area, and yet such a diversity in language. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:08, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Split thread (it's lively here)

Kautilya3, you seem to be unaware that all the Buddhist Mahayana and Vajrayana texts are Sanskrit.VictoriaGraysonTalk 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But/and ironically, the Buddha himself did not teach in Sanskrit, nor Pali; and yet, his teachings are preserved in Indic languages Pali. Isn't that an illustration of the power of dominant languages? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Is there some point to this comment, because I'm at a loss to understand what Victoria is actually contributing with these regular gnomic utterances that are evidently supposed to be "meaningful" in some way. Of course the earliest Buddhist texts are in Prakrit (Pali), but Sankrit was an intellectual lingua franca, like Latin in Europe. Texts are still written in Sanskrit today. Is the existence of Mahayana texts in Sanskrit supposed to prove something? If so, what? Paul B (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 says Sanskrit spread through the guru-student relationship in the Brahmanical religion.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
We don't know for certain how Sanskrit spread, though that's one likely mechanism. One reason for the very rapid spread of Anglo-Saxon in England was that 'foreigners' (Welsh speakers) were legally inferior in Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. Maybe there was some similar social pressure in Vedic India. I'm still at a loss to understand what the existence of Mahayana texts in Sanskrit has to do with it. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Aaargh! That was not my question! See above, "another thought", in bold, about the possibility of speakers of various languages who took over Sanskrit. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
@VictoriaGrayson: Not just religion, all education was transmitted through the guru-shishya relationship, including archery, medicine, construction work etc. (For example, Rama and his brothers were educated by Vasishtha and Viswamitra, Pandavas and Kauravas were educated by Dronacharya, etc.) Brahmins were the repositories of all knowledge. In the absence of writing, they were the libraries of the Indo-Aryans. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Why did the religion spread? I can only fall back on Dhavalikar. In hard times, you take recourse to religion. We don't know enough about the Indus Valley religion to say how the Aryan religion trumped over it. But just looking at what the Vedic religion says, "you must pay back to the gods through sacrifices, otherwise you will get penured," it is clear that the people in hard times would latch on to it. Secondly, the sacrificial rites were big spectacles. Even today, they are. A large number of guests would be invited, priest would chant hymns for hours, animals would be killed, truck loads of food would be cooked and fed. It is easy for an outsider watching all this to say, "I want to do that too," or easy to get afraid of getting bankrupted if he angers the gods by not doing it.

But, note also that the old religions didn't die out. All the non-Vedic gods that are now predominant in Hinduism (Rama, Krishna, Shiva, Kali etc.) might have been the gods of the old religions that survived the Aryan takeover, and eventually came to the forefront after the Buddhist revolution. Buddhism somehow forced the Aryans to pay attention to the folk religions and, so, the Vedic methods were adapted to include their worship. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I can write about my first hand understanding. Teacher-Student culture has been there, yes, and it was a little more involved than birth right -- they had to prove competence. Jabala is a common instance where he was 'declared' Brahman for his truthfulness. Sanskrit is simple to learn and in last few decades the number of people speaking it has steadily increased. There is an organization called Sanskrit Bharati (if I am not confusing with something else) which train spoken Sanskrit without any writing/reading in ten days. I can read/write/speak and my friend who is doing Ph.D. in Sanskrit says they manage to make it work out well in ten days. It has limited root words and very well defined grammar or pattern so it is actually simple to spread. About the understanding of Vedas and Upanashidas mentioned above by Kautilya3, it is perhaps a little more dramatic, negative and incomplete than what it happens to be. I would refrain from going into a discussion over it. I can say safely that Adi Shankaracharya's work and the struggle of Buddhism and Vedic religion of that period is a nice read. I may give other useful/simple pointers if someone wants. I have read/am reading Vedas and Upanishads and their historic context. --AmritasyaPutraT 15:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:, We can indeed expect that there would have been multiple languages in the Indian subcontinent before the arrival of Aryans, and each of them would have given rise to a creole language by combining with "Sanskrit." The Praktrits were exactly such creole languages. Sanskrit escaped creolisation by being the lingua franca, the liturgical language, which was taught through formal education. The Prakrits were allowed to take up native influences and change over time. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry User:Kautilya3, but the Prakrits were not "creole" languages. They were fully Indo-Aryan languages closely related to, and derived from the same source as, Sanskrit. They undoubtedly borrowed from the languages they overwhelmed, but that's not at all unusual for vernaculars. Borrowing of lexicon, and even some morphology, however, doesn't make them creoles. "Creole" has a very specific definition in linguistics and the Prakrits do not meet that definition. They are Indo-Aryan with borrowings, nothing more. --Taivo (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, there is no evidence that any of the modern Indo-Aryan languages of India were creoles at any point in their existence. Nor is there any evidence of creolization between prior, non-Indo-Aryan languages, and the invading Indo-Aryan languages. People throw that term "creole" around willy-nilly, but 90% of the time it is inaccurate. --Taivo (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
I was using "creole" in the same sense as Beckwith (I hope):[1] The Indo-Europeans spoke more or less the same language, but in settling in their new homes they took local wives who spoke non-Indo-European languages; within a generation or two the local creoles they developed became new Indo-European daughter languages. I don't know if this differs from the sense of "creole" used by linguists. (We have been told that Beckwith is not entirely reliable.) Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ * Beckwith, Christopher I. (2009). Empires of the Silk Road: A History of Central Eurasia from the Bronze Age to the Present. Princeton University Press. ISBN 1400829941. Retrieved 30 December 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
That is a completely incorrect usage of the term. Beckwith confuses language borrowing with creolization. His view is common among non-linguists that if a language borrows virtually anything from another language, then it's a "creole". It's not. Creoles only arise in very limited and specific circumstances from pidgins. Many people (not linguists) have used Beckwith's mistaken view of "creole" to argue that English is a creole just because it has a lot of French and Latin loanwords. That's just simply not the case. Beckwith is not alone in this linguistic misunderstanding. --Taivo (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Northern and southern

The "northern" vs "southern" issue is a red-herring. "Ancestral North Indian" (ANI) and "Ancestral South Indian" (ASI) are just labels for genetic markers. I think ANI refers genes that are predominent among the present North Indians and ASI, similarly, for the genes presently predominant among South Indians. There is no implication that ANI-carrying people always lived in North India and the ASI-carrying people in South India. The fact that there was no intermixing of ANI and ASI prior to 2,200 BC implies (very strongly) that India was populated by ASI-carrying people earlier and the ANI-carrying people started coming in around 2,2000 BC, intermixing with the locals. The only alternative explanation is that the ANI and ASI people lived side by side without mixing for centuries/millennia, which would be quite preposterous! Kautilya3 (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

"Vedic-Puranic chronology"

Is there an article on the "Vedic-Puranic chronology" - the Yugas, and the lists of kings and genealogies as narrated in the the Puranas, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana? And what's the Indian term for this "Vedic-Puranic chronology"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Not yet. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
I've started a draft: Vedic-Puranic chronology. Input (at the talkpage) is welcome! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Centum–satem isogloss

Does anybody around here know more about this topic? I don't. I can become more knowledgeable, but hey, I'm already doing a lot o work, ain't I? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And where's the missing argument? I mean, to what argument is Hock's responding? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, I will try to see if I can figure out what is going on tonight. Incidentally, it occurred to me that the parallels with evolution-creationism-debate are quite literal. Just as evolution is a theory of how biological species evolve, comparative linguistics is a theory of how languages evolve. In both cases, the skeptics are people that don't believe that such scientific theories are possible and reliable. Just like the creationists believe that God put the man on the earth PERIOD, Indigenous Aryanists believe that God put the Hindus in India PERIOD. And, like creationists think evolution is fake science, the Aryanists think linguistics is fake science. Deja vu. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
I am afraid I am out of depth here, and I don't have access to Hock's paper. Perhaps Maunus and Taivo can help? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The centum/satem split in Indo-European was an early attempt at subgrouping that has since been discredited. In satem languages, the velar stops (*k, *g, *gh) became palatalized and in the centum languages they remained velar. Some late 19th and early 20th century subgrouping proposals therefore divided IE into two groups. However, nothing is that simple and modern reconstructions of PIE include palatalized velars as part of the reconstruction: *kj, *gj, *gyh.
So, what do I do with that section? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Race science?

(Separating this off-topic discussion) Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Aryan Migrations developed out of European race "science", which also gave rise to Nazism. Read "Breaking India" by Rajv Malhotra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, Aryanism is also a race science, whether it be Germanic or Indian. But, should we put a stop to this free-wheeling philosophisizing and restrict to topic? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Let me try to explain again. Nazism and Indo-Aryan Migration Hypothesis developed out of the same discredited European race science. Read "Breaking India" by Rajiv Malhotra.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
That is wrong, it has the thing backwards. Race science adopted elements from historical linguistics. Race science being discredited has no relevance for the linguistic and historical hypothesis. Malhotra is not a reliable source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Discredited race science is the source of Indo-Aryan Migration as well as Nazism. This is documented in "Breaking India".VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"Breaking India" is not a reliable source but a piece of propaganda, neither of its authors have any expertise in a relevant field. It is in this case entirely wrong. "Aryan" as a racial epithet was first used by Arthur de Gobineau who did use the claim that "Aryans" invaded India as a proof for his racist theory which was later adapted by Hitler. He got the temr Aryan from linguistics that had already been using it, but in an entirely different meaning to describe those groups spoke languages related to Avestan and Sanskrit. But the indo-aryan migration theory preceded Gobineau by about 100 years, and it has nothing to do with the idea of an "aryan master race" at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Actually not first used by Gobineau. As meaning Indo-European, it dates back to the 1840s, a decade before he published. But the point remains. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a historical fact that the Aryan concept was used in linguistics long before it became linked to ideas about biological races. Of course we have to acknowledge that the word "race" was used very loosely in the 18th-19th century to mean ethnicities, lineages etc. When "race science" developed in the mid-late 19th century it developed a different meaning altogether. Hence Muller's famous statement that "blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs; and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. .. To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." This was a mainstream view even at the height of 'race science'. See the 1911 Britannica [2]. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
"Breaking India" is probably the best referenced book on Aryan Migrations. @Joshua Jonathan: should read it.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
It is written by political advocates with no academic credentials, and published by a popular press with no academic review, there is no reason anyone here should read it and we cannot use it as a source for anything other than the authors opinions if they were notable. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Vic, I'm afraid we don't agree here on the books to be read. Rajiv Malhotra knows of my existence, and knows his sympathisants here at Wikipedia don't have the talent to come with proper arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the book and the author are notable. I didn't get the slightest hint of what does RM knowing of JJ's "existence" have to do here. --AmritasyaPutraT 09:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability gives us a license to write an article about it, if we care to. To cite it, you need reliability, which is an entirely different concept. Moreover, reliability depends on the context. So to cite him on race issues, we need to establish that he is an expert on race issues. Or, history for that matter.Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course, can you give reference that he is unreliable? I don't care about your biased opinion. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutraT 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what "of course" is supposed to mean. You said "notable" and this is not the first time you have used the word inappropriately.
  • The burden of proof is with whoever wants to cite a source to demonstrate its reliability. (In any case, the proof of unreliability is already there on the Rajiv Malhotra page.)
  • Finally, please desist from personal attacks. Or, you will end up at ANI.
Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Please give reference. I really don't care about your personal opinion. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutraT 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory

the "Indigenous Aryans" proposal which is the subject of this article is a fringe theory according to Wikipedia guidelines. jps (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC-question

The "Indigenous Aryans" theories, c.q. "out of India" theories, are fringe, since they have no support in mainstream academics. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To avoid unnecessay polarisations: "marginalized views" is an alternative phrasing, as suggested by Bryant, and suggested here by Katilya3. See his comment below. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Related threads

This RfC was preceded by, c.q. lead to, the following RfC and threads:

The following threads on this page are also related:

Support

  • Support. * Fringe "marginalized views" "religious-political POV and project"
  • The "Indigenist Aryans"/OO-position has been disregarded by mainstream scholarship:
Comments by Mallory, Witzel, and Jamison
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Mallory, emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies; & Adams, professor of English at the University of Idaho, state in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006):
"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)
"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)
"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)
  • In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES (Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.[3]) Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:[4]
"Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions."
  • Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, commented:
"It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." (Wiztel (2003), Ein Fremdling in Ṛgveda, JIES vol 312003, p23, §5 end))
  • Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:
"This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." (Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9)
  • Michael Witzel has severely criticised the "Indigenous Aryans" position:
"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage [...] The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115)
"...the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." (Jamison, Stephanie W. (2006). "The Indo-Aryan controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian history (Book review)" (PDF). Journal of Indo-European Studies. 34: 255–261.)
  • Fosse, Lars Martin (2005), "ARYAN PAST AND POST-COLONIAL PRESENT. The polemics and politics of indigenous Aryanism", in Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie L. (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Controversy. Evidence and inference in Indian history, Routledge:
  • "The literature quoted by the polemicists is largely in English. German Indology seems to be mostly unknown, and French Indology is hardly mentioned at all, in spite of the important contributions from such people as Louis Renou, Georges Dumézil, and J. Filliozat. Consequently, all the works considered here are in various degrees underinformed, all the more so because the English sources have not been fully exploited either. The result is a critique that is largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent, but which due to its rhetorical force and potential impact in an Indian polemical context cannot be entirely ignored." (p.438)
  • Regarding Sethna, Bhagwan Singh, Navaratna and Talageri: "The impressions of the first part of this chapter are based on a close reading of books by four indigenist polemicists: K. D. Sethna, Bhagwan Singh, Navaratna S. Rajaram, and Shrikant Talageri. These writers are not only concerned with the homeland of the Aryans, but also with the divisions of Indian society caused by the “little” nationalisms of the subcontinent and India’s import in the context of global culture. None of them seem to be familiar with other ancient Indo-European languages than Sanskrit, and are therefore often forced to quote Western authorities in support of their views rather than developing their own scholarly and technical arguments based on first-hand knowledge of the sources." (p.438)
  • Regarding Talageri: "A curious aspect of Talageri’s work is the limited number of sources upon which it is based. His bibliography contains some 40 items, the Larousse Encyclopaedia of Mythology being his most important source on matters of IndoEuropean religion [...] Within the limited space of a medium-sized book, problems of immense complexity are dismissed in a few paragraphs, whereas sweeping statements replace the detailed and painstaking analysis that would be expected from a professional scholar." (448-449)
  • Regarding Talageri, Rajaram and Bhagwan Singh: "Talageri’s reinvention of comparative philology is among other things flawed by the fact that he has not understood the principle of sound laws, which makes comparative phonology something of a hard science. This is a shortcoming he shares with other writers such as Rajaram and Bhagwan Singh, both of whom have extremely fanciful views on comparative philology and etymology." (p.449)
  • Regarding Kak: "Kak’s paper is strangely poor on details [...] The reasons are lack of rigor in the methods applied, as well as the fact that several of the language families that are supposed to be related are still in dire need of research. The presumed Altaic family may not exist at all. Thus Kak is really clutching at straws." (p.455)
  • Guha, Sudeshna (2007), "Review. Reviewed Work: The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History by Edwin F. Bryant, Laurie Patton", Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Third Series, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Jul., 2007), pp. 340-343, notes that the book has serious methodological shortcomings, by not asking the question what exactly constitutes historical evidence.[1] This makes the "fair and adequate representation of the differences of opinion" problematic, since it neglects "the extent to which unscholarly opportunism has motivated the rebirth of this genre of 'scholarship'.[1] Guha:
  • Regarding Bryant: "Bryant's call for accepting "the valid problems that are pointed out on both sides" (p. 500), holds intellectual value only if distinctions are strictly maintained between research that promotes scholarship, and that which does not. Bryant and Patton gloss over the relevance of such distinctions for sustaining the academic nature of the Indo-Aryan debate, although the importance of distinguishing the scholarly from the unscholarly is rather well enunciated through the essays of Michael Witzel and Lars Martin Fosse." (p.341)
  • Regarding Lal: "Lal's quotation of Ernest Mackay, regarding the terracotta horse from Mohenjodaro, is one example (p. 69). By ignoring Mackay s subsequent sentence where he had clearly stated that "unfortunately both the tail and ears aremissing so that the identification of this model as representing a horse is purely tentative" [...] Lal secures his evidence for the presence of the 'Harappan' horse at the site." (p.343)
  1. ^ a b Guha 2007, p. 341.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
And keep this alternative in mind: Indo-European migrations is for real (sorry) science, with a link somewehere to "Indigenous Aryans"; Indo-Aryan migration theory also mentions the "Indigenous position", and Indigenous Aryans gives an overview of the Indigenous positions, with intro's into the theoretical aspects, and with the counter-arguments from the relevant literature. And please, let some proponents also do some work there, if they find it so important. Stay cool, all of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Kautilya3 made a good comment; "fringe" may be overstated, and not helping the craetion of an encyclopedia. I'm striking my own "fringe", and replace it with "marginalized views". I understand that this topic is loaded for many Indian editors who are proud of their country and their history. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It is also disregarded by Indian scholars, who notice the political aspects:
Indian scholars & politics
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Okay, this is a nice addition (see also [5], [6] and [7]): Delhi University's Sanskrit department "starts project to prove Aryans were not foreigners":
" The project is unlikely to find the support of the university's history department. "This is a meaningless debate. We all now know that the entire human race can trace its ancestry back to Africa. So how does it matter whether Aryans were indigenous to our country or were outsiders? There are far more serious issues of archaeological and scientific research that need to addressed in our country," said Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor of archaeology in the history department at Delhi University.
There's no evidence to back the claim, said renowned historian DN Jha, who specialises in ancient and medieval Indian history.
"This debate is not new, but I can say that at present there is no scientific evidence to prove that Indo-Aryans were indigenous to our subcontinent. But since the political ambience in the country has changed, there will be many such attempts to prove this," said Jha, who used to be a Delhi University professor. "I have no comment to offer except that a serious historian will only dismiss such research."
I think we can close this RfC right now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
DN Jha is a proponent of Aryan Invasion theory. I also think that we can close. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You mean "DN Jha understands the indo-Aryan migration theory, which is the prevailing theory among scholars." You're still using the wrong term, and suggsting that people who understand it can't be taken serious. Please understand what's going on here, how "academics" are being led by politics, instead of rigorous academic standards. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I meant invasion see [8] Bladesmulti (talk) 06:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
You're quoting Rajput, making a atatement on Jha: "...the NCERT director, J.S. Rajput said [...] "Even Prof. D.N. Jha, an esteemed scholar on ancient India, who has himself authored several books, has accepted that Aryan invasion theory is a matter of academic debate," he said". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:54, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
That's one link, now I saw where I had read Jha's support for invasion theory again, it was the link that was provided by you[9] here. He agrees that it is a issue of debate, but in the same year he had wrote about invasion in The Myth of the Holy Cow, Verso, 2002. I don't know if he has switched to migration theory or not, but yes he don't agree with the indigenous theory.Bladesmulti (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The last remark, "yes he don't agree with the indigenous theory", is important. That's a neutral statement. The daily Mail writes: "The ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ is a contentious issue. Noted historians like Romila Thapar and D.N. Jha support the theory which claims that Aryans came from outside India as invaders." The Daily Mail clearly uses polemical language. You should be aware of that. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
"Bharadwaj pointed to the pattern of similarities between ancient Sanskrit words and ancient words in classical Western languages as one of the linguistic examples of Indian influence on cultures abroad."
I guess we need to put that on our Sanskrit page. What the heck? We have a reliable source! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's a religious-political POV and project, in the interest of specific Indian views of what 'true' Hindu-ness is. See Fosse 2005 and Bergunder 2004:
Analysis by Fosse and Bergunder
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Fosse, Lars Martin (2005), "ARYAN PAST AND POST-COLONIAL PRESENT. The polemics and politics of indigenous Aryanism", in Bryant, Edwin; Patton, Laurie L. (eds.), The Indo-Aryan Controversy. Evidence and inference in Indian history, Routledge:

  • "Hindutva has adopted Indigenous Aryanism as a part of its ideology, thereby making it an explicitly political matter as well as a scholarly problem. Although indigenism is supported by Indians who are otherwise not connected to the Hindutva movement, and also by some Western scholars with no connection to the same movement – along with some personalities who would seem to be part and parcel of it – it is important to see what it means to the nationalists and how they proceed to express their views. I shall mainly concentrate upon books produced by amateur scholars whose polemics may not carry much scholarly weight, but who play an important part in India’s public debate on the Aryan question. For practical reasons, I shall distinguish between amateur scholars referred to as polemicists and professional academics. The latter may of course also act in a polemical capacity, but their training sets them apart from the laymen." (p.435)
  • "Therefore, in the scheme of things, the moral disqualification of Western Indology is crucial, and the attempt to bring about this disqualification runs like a red thread through much of the indigenist literature I am about to consider. Let me state quite clearly that there is nothing innocent about this rhetoric. It is not due to a lack of insight into how “proper” academic discussions are to be conducted. The same kind of rhetoric reverberates in the political discourse of the Organiser and other Hindutva publications." (p.437)

Bergunder, Michael (2004). "Contested Past: Anti-Brahmanical and Hindu nationalist reconstructions of Indian prehistory" (PDF). Historiographia Linguistica. 31 (1): 59–104. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help):

"The Aryan migration theory at first played no particular argumentative role in Hindu nationalism. [...] This impression of indifference changed, however, with Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar (1906–1973), who from 1940 until his death was leader of the extremist paramilitary organization the Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh (RSS). [...] In contrast to many other of their openly offensive teachings, the Hindu nationalists did not seek to keep the question of the Aryan migration out of public discourses or to modify it; rather, efforts were made to help the theory of the indigenousness of the Hindus achieve public recognition. For this the initiative of the publisher Sita Ram Goel (b. 1921) was decisive. Goel may be considered one of the most radical, but at the same time also one of the most intellectual, of the Hindu nationalist ideologues. [...] Since 1981 Goel has run a publishing house named ‘Voice of India’ that is one of the few which publishes Hindu nationalist literature in English which at the same time makes a 'scientific' claim. Although no official connections exist, the books of 'Voice of India' — which are of outstanding typographical quality and are sold at a subsidized price — are widespread among the ranks of the leaders of the Sangh Parivar. [...] The increasing political influence of Hindu nationalism in the 1990s resulted in attempts to revise the Aryan migration theory also becoming known to the academic public.[1]}}

"Fringe theory" may even be an over-qualification; "religious-political POV and project" may be a better term. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Comment (tend towards Oppose) - I don't see what is achieved by branding it a fringe theory. I prefer Bryant's description of "marginalized views" for the various indigenist positions (and there are several such). I believe that we do not have sufficient evidence to rule out the various possibilities. However, we should recognize the Indo-Aryan migration theory as the accepted view and base all our pages on that view, except for this particular page where the indigenist views are discussed. So, practically, what we want is a containment of the indigenist views to this page. I think it would be better to reformulate the RfC for such a practical proposal. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, very good comment. I've changed my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I had previously proposed, in the comments below above, a middle way terminology of "marginalized view" instead of "fringe theory" mainly because the latter sounds a bit pejorative. Maunus provided a detailed response to my comments, I have re-read all his comments again and took a couple of days to understand all the implications of the "fringe theory" label. On the face of it, the indigenous Aryans theory fits into the operative description of fringe theory: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field. Secondly, I see more clearly now that the Hindu crusaders that come to push the theory here are not able to understand what it means for a theory to be mainstream or fringe, continue to claim that their favourite theory is the right one. The fringe theory label is quite necessary to give them a clear signal as to its standing on Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm also not completely sure what is being asked here. This is the only place where the indigenous Aryan theory should be discussed since it is obviously the page for that. Including it seriously on any other page (other than the briefest of mentions and a link to this page) would be giving it far more credence than it deserves. It is a fringe (marginalized) theory and should be treated as such. All other relevant pages should present the facts of the mainstream consensus (it's no longer a "theory" once nearly-universal scientific consensus is reached--as with evolution, gravity, climate change, etc.--to claim otherwise shows that the word "theory" is being gravely misunderstood and misused). --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Yes, it is a fringe theory, and what is achieved by being clear about that, is that then we realize that WP:FRINGE applies to the way we represent it in wikipedia. We do not represent fringe theories as if they are equal to mainstream views. Now why is it a fringe view? 1. Because in the same way that the view that the earth is flat would require us to negate everything that we know about astronomy and physics, the view that Indo-European languages originated in India would negate most of the we know about historical linguistics. Historical linguistics as a science is built on the advances in the study of Indo-European languages beginning in the 17th century, and while advances can certainly still be made, there are aspects that cannot be doubted without jeopardizing everything that we currently think we know about how languages are related and how we can know about the history of languages. As Hock points out there are two possible scenarios under which Aryan languages could be indigenous to India: 1. if Proto-Indoeuropean was exactly like Sanskrit - this would mean that all other IE languages could be derived from Sanskrit which would in turn negate all the work on reconstruction done by all linguists since the 17th century, including everything we know about the possible laws of sound change. 2. if all the other languages left india in an ordered group fashion and in a timing that would have let them to their current locations, without any intermediary contact between them. This would be the least problematic scenario, but it is an extreme violation of occams razor because it requires a demographic process that has not been observed anywhere else on earth ever, and which is extremely unlikely to be possible. So on those two accounts alone the theory is fringe. Thirdly it is fringe because its primary proponents are invested in the theory not for scientific but for religious and political reasons. This happens all over the world when nationalists and religious fundamentalists decide they need to bend science to fit their personal beliefs. This is pretty much the definition of Fringe science - just like Creationism and Intelligent design, just like climate change denial, and just like racists pushing the idea that there are human races and some are more intelligent than others, or like nationalists of every nation pushing the view that their particular country is the cradle of civilization. Wikipedia cannot and should not represent such fringe views as legitimate, to do so is to lie to our readers and make them more stupid and misinformed instead of our actual mission to inform them about the current state of scientific knowledge. Calling it a "marginalized view" is not possible because the same could be done to all these other fringe views to lend them legitimacy that they do not have. We dont need to use the term "fringe" in the article, but we do need to make it entirely clear to the reader that the view does not currently have any status within the scientific community, and the policies on WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT need to be followed. The extent to which a "compromise" is possible, is that we can describe the arguments of both groups as well as their implications. I.e. we can say that "Kazanas says X" or "Talageri says Y", or that "proponents of OOI argue that Z". Bryant's two books are actually a good basis for doing that since a lot of the time he summarizes the literature instead of making new arguments. But we do need to be clear however that the mainstream view is unequivocally that the arguments in favor of the Indian origin hypothesis are not considered valid by specialists. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
We must also brand Aryan Migrations as a fringe theory, or atleast point out the loss of support in archaeology:

The vast majority of professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views.--Edwin Bryant

VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Bryant's "survey" of archeologists is irrelevant, and certainly cannot be taken at face value as a statement of the archeological consensus. If there is an actual archelogical reliable source that adresses the quesiton then we could cite that, but I doubt very much there is. Furthermore the Aryan migrations theory does not require or even suppose archeological evidence. Indeed it suggests that the Indo-Aryan languages were spoken by relatively technologically primitive nomads with no material culture to speak of except for the chariot and horse based warfare, who then entered the cradle of the indus civilization and adopted local indic material culture. The archeological evidence is exactly that 1. there are no horses or chariots in Indus civilization, 2. we have indo-europeans practicing complex agriculture and adopting the material culture of indigenous South indians. Voila.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That comment is ridiculous on its face. Indo-Aryans entered the subcontinent from the north. It is as well-established as evolution and gravity outside the unscientific religio-nationalist community of the Indian subcontinent. We might as well promote in the pages of Wikipedia the common Native American view that they evolved in the Americas and did not migrate there in the distant past. We might as well promote six-day creation in the pages of Wikipedia. Trying to pass the Indo-Aryan migration into the Indian subcontinent off as "fringe" shows an ignorance of the data and the history of the field and a total reliance on religio-nationalistic promotion. 99.9% doesn't make "fringe". --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
That comment is ridiculous. Aryan Migrations are not accepted by major authorities such as Edwin Bryant (author) and Jim G. Shaffer among others.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You rreally need to stop this Victoria. They are not major authorities. And even if they were the vast majority of other major authirities do accept it. Your argumentation is just terrible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are major authorities. If you disagree then simply disagree. Don't be patronizing.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Bryant is a major authority on the Yoga sutras of Patañjali. Not on the history of Indoeuropean languages. Shaffer has not published anything major since the 1990s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Bryant has a PhD in Indic Languages from an Ivy League university and was a professor at Harvard.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
He is a professor of religion. Not of language. At Harvard he taught religion, not language. Studying how to translate sanskrit does not make you an expert in indoeuropean historical linguistics Victoria. DO you want me to make a list of people with Ivy league Phds and professorships at Harvard who do not agree with Bryant? It will not be short.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
He has a PhD in Indic Languages from an Ivy League university, was a professor at Harvard and has written 2 books on Aryan Migration. You just don't like his position.VictoriaGraysonTalk 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
His position btw is "agnostic" in his own words. Not as you continue to portray him pro-OOI. He does not consider the Aryan migrations hypothesis to be fringe or pseudoscientific. He has written one book, and edited another.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Vic, you're right, we also have to consider what's being said about archaeology. But in context: IAMt does not state that large groups moved into India. It speaks about small, male, elite groups. So, the question is: how can small groups effect such changes? What do the scholars say about that? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: I fully agree with the technical aspects of what you say. It has always been clear to me, since High School days, that the only way the Indo-European Languages could have been formed is by originating from a single source, some small group of people somewhere on earth, who then branched out, spread out and influenced other people to speak their language. However, the technical issues of how the languages branched out, transformed from one into another, at what times etc., requires a very close knowledge of Linguistics which most people don't have. Any rational Christian could convince him/herself about the theory of evolution by watching David Attenborough for a couple of hours. But to convince oneself of the linguistic evolution of Indo-European languages, there are no such resources available. Even PhD's in Sanskrit won't know the ABC's of linguistics. It requires a close knowledge of umpteen dead languages and a careful study of how they relate to each other. Given this situation, the only way to convince lay people is by archaeological evidence, which has been hard to come by. There is not yet a convincing archaeological trail of how and when Indo-Aryans entered India. Indian archaeologists have been saying for half a century that they can't find any evidence of such intruders in the 2nd millennium BC. We also can't be sure that the linguists got all the details exactly right to make perfect predictions for when Indo-Aryans might have entered. That is why we have even respectable Indian historians (like Upinder Singh) throwing up their hands and saying "we don't know." There is genuine scepticism about the theory in India, not just from Hindu nationalists. That is why I propose that we should set aside strong positions, and just focus on the practical issue of how to contain the indigenist views to specific pages. This page and all its related pages, like the one on Bryant's book and the pages of other indigenists, can legitimately contain these views. We just don't want them polluting the rest of Wikipedia. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There are many cases where local or national academic traditions hold peculiar views that are not supported in general science. Chinese and Polish anthropologists for example reportedly still believe in the biological basis of race, and some Euro-American archeologists are pushing the solutrean hypothesis claiming that the first americans were europeans who were later exterminated by the ancestors of the Amerindians. Wikipedia may note this when the existence of such local views is supported by reliable sources, but we do not need to accept it as a meaningful view or otherwise cater to it. I disagree both with your optimism about teaching Christians about evolution through David Attenborough, and your argument that historical linguistics is somehow much more obscure than understanding evolution. I think there are plenty of good introductions available, but people just disregard them when they conflict with their ingrained ideologies. Just as they do with the evidence for evolution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
@Maunus: Our page on fringe theories says "it is difficult to distinguish between fringe theories and respected minority theories. A workable definition of what constitutes a fringe theory may not actually be possible. This is an aspect of the demarcation problem that occurs within both science and the humanities." I believe this is the gray area that we are dealing with. I also hold that if Indigenous Aryans had been a fringe theory, the publication of Bryant (2001) with endorsements from Mallory and Witzel, moves it to a "respected minority theory." (This does not mean that I believe in it or that it has any merit. It just means that it is worth discussing.) These sources exist in the literature. So, as Wikipedians, we can't impose our own views and dismiss them. It is a minority view, and it should be represented as such. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
On the contrary, as I have pointed out this is a crystal clear example. Your argument that endorsements on a book moves a theory from fringe to respected minority is absurd. First of all neither of those books actually promote the OIT theory. Both books are attempts to give a balanced assessment of the evidence. And Bryant's personal opinion is that the evidence is inconclusive. By endorsing the book, Witzel and Mallory do not endorse the idea of OIT, they are only saying that Bryant's efforts and arguments are laudable. The second book is actually an edited volume in which both viewpoints are equally represented, and hence does NOT constitute a movement from the fringe to the "respected minority". It is a fringe view considered pseudoscientific and backed by the Indian equivalent of young earth creationists, and it should be represented as such. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment OIT (which is inevitably implied by Indigenous Aryans) is a notion (hypothesis/theory/paradigm/whatever) that used to be taken seriously in Europe in the 19th century – prior to the discovery of the Law of Palatals (see Proto-Indo-Iranian language#Historical phonology), which led (via the realisation that the Indo-Iranian vowel system wasn't the original, Proto-Indo-European one) straight to the development of historical linguistics as a real, methodically stringent science. Not the Aryan migration paradigm is outdated, but OIT. OIT is as respectable now as Afrocentrism (or, by the way, Karl Penka's idea that the Indo-Europeans originated in Northern Europe, which was similarly ideology-driven; it was Penka, by the way, who made "Aryan" into a racial descriptor, not Gobineau), that is, not at all. It's purely driven by politics. Just because a less privileged group engages in pseudoscience (whether driven by nationalism or any other motive) doesn't magically make scholars belonging to a privileged group wrong when they object, nor put the less privileged group in the right just because of their relative lack of privilege. Lack of privilege is no justification to arbitrarily rewrite history. There's no "white"/"black" or "male"/"female" (etc.) science, science isn't relative to social groups; scientific proposals are simply equally right or wrong for everyone. Also, in the perspective that includes prehistory (keep in mind that this whole debate is about prehistory too), it is utterly probable that no ethnic group is completely indigenous to any place as every ethnic group has immigrated at some point to where they live now. Not to mention that 10,000 or even 6000 years ago, there simply wasn't such a thing as "Aryans" in any meaningful sense, just like there were no English or any other familiar ethnic group (apart from really broad categories such as "Australian aborigines" or "Indigenous peoples of the Americas"). Viewed this way, Indigenous Aryans is no less ridiculous than calling Neolithic farmers "French" or "Danish", or cavemen "Anglo-Saxons". Also note that OIT was developped by the same kind of white male 19th-century scholars who came up with the Indo-Aryan migration notion, so the racist/colonial mindset argument just doesn't fly. This tedious canard just needs to stop being taken seriously. Disadvantaged groups need to stop propagating the exact methods that their oppressors use to oppress them, and instead actually learn from history. OIT/Indigenous Aryans is far more "Indophobic" and racist than IAM because it implies that, unlike any other ethnic group, Indo-Aryans are somehow "pure" and "original" without a history of migration. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
See 1.2 for the impact of the discovery of the Law of Palatals. Among European scholars, "Indigenous Aryans" was a discredited notion from as early as the 1870s on, when it became increasingly clear that the original language that Sanskrit goes back to, the last common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, was strikingly different, at least in its phonetics, from Sanskrit and (much like Polynesian within the Austronesian family) Indo-Aryan was but a secondary sub-branch within the Indo-European family, virtually guaranteeing, the structure of the Indo-European family (and also the reconstructed lexicon) considered, the conclusion that the Indo-Aryan language, and with it the Indo-Aryans, must have come from outside. The closest region to India that Airyanem Vaejah, the immediate region of origin of the Aryans/Indo-Iranians (which, take note, is not identical to the Indo-European homeland), has been proposed to lie by mainstream scholars is actually Afghanistan (by none else than Witzel – with predictable reactions by Indocentrists, who do not even seem to realise the distinction between Indo-Iranian and Indo-European: even if the Indo-Iranian homeland were really in South Asia, the Indo-European homeland could easily be somewhere else). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have serious reservations about the term "marginalized", as it implies dishonest intent on mainstream scholars supposedly doing the "marginalizing". Talageri and Kazanas aren't being "bullied" by white academics and need no well-meaning outsiders to jump at their defence. Similarly, creationism, geocentrism or fixism (the denial of continental drift) aren't "marginalized". These notions are simply outdated, disproven, superseded, ruled out by evidence, and similarly haven't been considered credible by mainstream science for many decades or even centuries. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, as honest Wikipedians, we can't discount a careful word chosen by a reliable source without indulging in OR. The derision and mockery with which even well-respected Indian scholars (such as B. B. Lal) are treated do give the appearance of "marginalization." I do understand that some of this comes from the fact that the Indians haven't bothered to understand the linguistic evidence. However, for an outsider watching the debate, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the Western scholars are just crushing the Indians with their might. It is unfortunate, but it has happened repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Of course we can discount it. It is one word used by one scholar. We dont have to give that any weight whatsoever. If it turns out that a majority of scholars were to agree that the OIT view has been "marginalized" then we would have to state that, but Bryant is not the main guy in this disucssion though some people here seem to want to take his every word and put them on a pedestal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I concur with Maunus, who put it very succinctly: "Yes, it is a fringe theory, and what is achieved by being clear about that, is that then we realize that WP:FRINGE applies to the way we represent it in wikipedia. We do not represent fringe theories as if they are equal to mainstream views.".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support the idea that "out-of-India" is a fringe theory in historical linguistics. However, I am not sure what the purpose of this RFC is here. Whether this theory is fringe only affects how much weight it should be given as opposed to other hypotheses on the origin of Indo-European languages, and this talk page is about one hypothesis, not about the language family or a comparison of the hypotheses. Whether this hypothesis is fringe has nothing to do with whether disruptive editing is subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions. A scientific hypothesis is subject to discretionary sanctions as pseudoscience if it is fringe. However, historical linguistics is not a science that is subject to the scientific methods; and this hypothesis is subject to discretionary sanctions anyway because it is about the ancient history of India and is therefore subject to WP:ARBIPA. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Regarding the purpose, please see the comment by Maunus in the Comments section below. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Which comment? There have been so many. A diff or time-stamp would help. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fringe. The sort of narrowly nationalist scholarship endemic in, say, Eastern Europe two centuries ago - or, say, in Kemalist Turkey almost a century ago. That, as far as our article shows, it says nothing about the origins or dating of Hittite - the most obvious problem with any such theory - is sufficient to condemn either the theory or the article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Middle way/neutral

I should probably declare my own opinion at this point, in accordance with the imperatives of postmodernism: as I made clear in Bryant (2001) I still remain agnostic – I have not found the available evidence sufficient to fully resolve the issue to my full satisfaction. On the one hand, I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive upon careful scrutiny, but on the other, I have not been convinced by an Out-of-India position, since there has been very little of significance offered so far in support of it. At the same time, I find all the IE homeland proposals offered so far to be highly problematic and unconvincing. Therefore, the entire homeland-locating enterprise, with its corollary of Indo-Aryan origins, despite the increase in the body of data available on the issue, has not advanced much further in my mind than the opinion expressed by Max Müller two centuries ago that the original point of origin is probably “somewhere in Asia, and no more.”

VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • "Middle way" I agree with Kautilya3, Blades and now JJ, that we can take a "middle way" approach without branding it a fringe theory.VictoriaGraysonTalk 18:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I cannot see what is the actual meaning of this RFC, currently the page explains that there is no mainstream acceptance of this theory, like Anatolian hypothesis Paleolithic Continuity Theory and more. Two of your citations links to yahoo groups chatroom(anyone can write). Theory has small acceptance, but still notable. All that needs to be remembered is that any theory or hypothesis don't get represented as facts. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
You may have a point, and provide a nice "middle way": "All that needs to be remembered is that any theory or hypothesis don't get represented as facts." I like that. NB: the "Yahoo group" quotes Mallory's editorial, as far as I know. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Marginal theory yes. I agree with what most of the others have said, it is not a mainstream theory and also not a fringe theory. Some of the elements like dating should not be treated as major view when we are talking about the mainstream view on Wiki, or even mention where they are not even required. Delibzr (talk) 11:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Legitimate Research - Vedic Indigenism is result of a legitimate scholarly research.
Regarding PIE: The basic premise of any science is that it should be refutable. A theory that cannot be falsifiable is not rigorous science as Subhash Kak explains in his book The Wishing Tree. "In scientific and rational discourse the empirical data can, in principle, falsify a theory. That is why creationism, which explains that fossil record as well as evolution by assuming that it was placed there along with everything else by God when he created the universe in 4004 BCE, is not a scientific theory; creationism is un-falsifiable. Building a scientific theory one must also use the Occam's razor, according to which the most economical hypothesis that explains the data is to be accepted."[2]
Why isn't PIE a good science? He says "There is no evidence that can prove or disprove an original language such as PIE. We cannot infer it with certainty since the historically attested relationship between different languages could have emerged from one of many competing models. The postulation of PIE together with a specific homeland in Europe or Turkey does violence to facts. There is no evidence that the natives of India for the past 8000 years or so have looked any different from what they look now. The internal evidence of this literature points to events that are as early as 7000 years ago and its geography is squarely in the Indian region."[2]
He gives a date of 4th/3rd millennia BCE to Vedic Sanskrit. "The Indian evidence, based on archaeology as well as the discovery of an astronomy in the Vedas, indicates that Vedic Sanskrit is to be assigned to the 4th and the 3rd millennia BCE, if not earlier. The Indian cultural area is seen as an integral whole. The Mahabharata war was the epochal event of ancient India. Later astronomers assigned it to 3137 BCE or 2449 BCE. Still another tradition assigns it to 1924 BCE. The main actors in this war belong to generation number 94 in a list that is supposed to begin in 6676 BCE. There is considerable evidence that the genealogies represent a very ancient tradition."[2]
Texts Period Comments
The vedic Collections Pre 2000 BCE By the Sarasvati river argument. Traditionally assigned the period pre-3000 BCE.
The Brahmanas 1900-1600 BCE Because they speak of the drying up of the Sarasvati river as a recent happening.
The Aranyakas 1500-1200 BCE This period followed the Brahmanas
The Upanishads 1900 - 1000 BCE 1900 appears to be the period of the earliest Upanishads. The Bhagvatgita appears to be belong to the end of this period.
The Sutras - These were written in the centuries before the Buddha.
The Puranas Pre 2000 BCE - X The original Purana was coterminous with the Vedas but this later gave rise to the several texts. The Puranas are encyclopaedias of Vedic mythology and spirituality
[2]
Even with the postulate of PIE theory intact, Talageri shows that Vedic Sanskrit is closest to the postulated PIE. He does not say that Vedic Sanskrit is the PIE. He says its is closest to the PIE as compared to all other known languages. He also shows that Vedic Sanskrit is earlier than Avestan. This points to Vedic Indigenism and migration out of India to Iran. [3]
In his book The Lost River - On the trail of the Sarasvati Michel Danino has detailed evidence supporting his view that Gagghar-Hakra is indeed the Sarasvati river of Rigveda, maintaining that the Rigveda was written in North-West India long before the river dried up in 1900 BCE. He also shows the continuity of Indian material and intangible culture from the Harappan to modern times.[4]
Kazanas has proposed linguistic evidence that Avestan is more recent to Vedic Sanskrit and points to a westward migration of Vedic people from Sarasvati river basin.[5]
The detailed argument on all the reasons why the Vedic People indigenism is not a 'fringe' theory but a legitimate disagreement with the Kurgan_hypothesis is given here Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Briefly the evidence of Sarasvati is the strongest evidence, the internal evidence of dating of Rigveda, Mahabharata and other post vedic texts, Avestan being earlier than Vedic Sanskrit; these all are valid evidences raise doubt about Kurgan_hypothesis and point to Vedic Indigenism.
According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That means we don't know about the origins of vedic people nor their period, so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject views of scholars disagreeing with Kurgan_hypothesis as only 'fringe'. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong.[6].
Indoscope (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Disputing Indoscope's claims
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Indoscope. Thanks for sharing your views. Two comments and a question:
  • "The postulation of PIE together with a specific homeland in Europe or Turkey does violence to facts. There is no evidence that the natives of India for the past 8000 years or so have looked any different from what they look now." - That's not a linguistic argument, but a genetic argument. And an irrelevant argument, since the IAMt does not posit the influx of large groups of people;
  • Michael Danino does not present "detailed evidence"; he gives the arguments of Indian reseacrhers, who merely suggest that the Rg Veda must have been the Gagghar-Hakra; by further arguing that the Rg Veda is an eye-witness account, and noting that the Gagghar-Hakra dried up before at latest 1900 BCE, they conclude that the Rg Veda must be older. He also notes that no western archaeologist shares this conclusion. The counter-argument, as given by Witzel and Mukherjee, is very simple: if the the Gagghar-Hakra dried up before 1900 BCE, the Rg Veda account can't be an eye-witness account. Ergo: this one "argument" is not enough to refute the extended linguistic argument.
  • What marks these writers as 'mainstream scholars who present the mainstream concensus'? Remember, this is what Mallory wrote in 2002, when publishing Kazaran in the JIES: "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."
Nevertheless, thanks for sharing the sources again. As you may have noticed, i'm going through the article, trying to give a fair account of the various arguments. Kak and others will be added too, in time. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Indoscope: All research is "legitimate" unless it violates the laws or ethical practices. So, the question is not whether the research was "legitimate," but whether its conclusions are sound. As Wikipedians, we are not allowed to judge that. Rather, we are asked to report scholarly consensus. Unpublished articles, or articles published in non-mainstream venues (e.g., iUniverse or Aditya Prakashan), which haven't gone through peer review and editorial oversight cannot be used. So, please find reliable sources for the material you want to include. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
iUniverse is a self publishing company and that book was actually published by Munshiram Manoharlal publications in 2001[10]. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Kindly read my quoting of Upinder Singh above. Conclusion is we don't know. That is what I have been saying along. There is a dominant view common amongst mainly Europeans and Americans and there is 'another view' common amongst Indian scholars and some European and American scholars. There is no consensus . Both would be legitimate in their own right if their research is not done with any ill will. Ashok Aklujkar says about Kazanas "I do not know what a researcher living in Greece would gain by risking his scholarly integrity or believability for reasons of Indian politics." "Dr. Kazanas has responded to Professor Witzel's comments, in what I, as someone knowing a thing or two about linguistics, consider a scientifically defensible or plausible way. Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..[7]Indoscope (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding User talk:Joshua Jonathan's statements above:-
  • Kak - He has presented astronomical, linguistic and archaeological evidence in support of what he is saying. I have detailed it above and also in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. I don't want to repeat all that on every page. Please read from the talk page.
  • Danino - He has not limited him self to only Indian scholars that is misstatement of facts he also mentions several western archaeologist in his book. please read The_Lost_River. Regarding Rigveda being older than Harappan sites I have given many papers at Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Please refer to those. No mention of bricks, vedic alters being more primitive to the fire alters found in Harappa. Sarasvati a major Rigvedic river having dried around 1900 BCE about the same time of late Harappan civilization period etc. Talageri shows that Vedic Sanskrit is older than Avestan. That is also mentioned above.
  • Regarding mainstream model read this by Kazanas.Indoscope (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hallo Indoscope. I did not ask what these people wrote, or if they presented any arguments for their views; I asked you "What marks these writers as 'mainstream scholars who present the mainstream concensus'?" According to Witzel, "the historical absurdities" of Kak are not taken seriously by academic scholars. Danino has 7 (seven) citations at Google Scholar. Kazanas is also dismissed as a "scholar" by both Mallory and Witzel. The "article" by Kazanas which you refer to is a self-published litany against mainstream scholarship:
"Most academics, indoeuropeanists, indologists, sanskritists, historians et al, with the notable exception of archaeologists-experts in the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, adhere to the AIT (=Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) as regards India, not because they have actually examined the data and arguments for it but because it is easier to repeat mechanically what “authorities” like Gimbutas, Mallory, Parpola, Witzel et al, say or have said. In fact, the AIT has no data at all to support it and not one argument in its favour will hold water."
So, what establishes them as mainstream scholars? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Kazanas has taught in London and Athens and since 1980 has been Director of Omilos Meleton Cultural Institute. He is very much from the western Indo-European camp. He has only later in his career realized that what he had been teaching for so many years was perhaps not correct to start with. Based on his research he no longer subscribes to the Aryan Migration Theory. He is a western academician who has nothing to gain from risking his own career by not agreeing with the AMt unless his own research leads him to doubt it. He has nothing to gain from siding with the so called "hindu nationalists" as Witzel et al try to portray anyone who disagree with them. According to Aklujkar, Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..[7]Indoscope (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Bergunder 2004.
  2. ^ a b c d Kak, Subhash (May 7, 2008). +preview&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KNLJVIHMCeHbmgXSuILgBg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20wishing%20tree%20kak%20preview&f=false The Wishing Tree: Presence and Promise of India. iUniverse. pp. 10–16. ISBN 0595490948. Retrieved 29 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)
  3. ^ Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.
  4. ^ Danino, Michel (May 2010). The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati. Penguin Books. ISBN 0143068644.
  5. ^ Kazanas, Nicholas. "Ṛgvedic All-Comprehensiveness omprehensiveness omprehensiveness" (PDF).
  6. ^ Singh, Upinder. [http://books.google.co.in/books? id=H3lUIIYxWkEC&pg=PA184&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false A History of Ancient and Early Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century]. Pearson Education India. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0. Retrieved 28 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help); line feed character in |url= at position 33 (help)
  7. ^ a b Aklujkar, Ashok. "Letter to S Farmer" (PDF). www.omilosmeleton.gr. Retrieved 29 January 2015.
  • Not Fringe. Madhukar Keshav Dhavalikar, B. B. Lal, Klaus Klostermaier are all qualified historians, archaeologists and have spent years on the study of this topic and published their work in support of this theory. Saying that there is no support in academic literature is inaccurate. It is a debatable subject and it is justly still being actively researched. Just like Aryan Invasion theory now stands destroyed and has moved to Aryan migration theory. --AmritasyaPutraT 17:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is some support in some literature, but that does not make it a mainstream theory:
User:Joshua Jonathan You seem to time and again quote what Witzel has said about so and so scholar rather than what critical review has been done of their work. This what has been described by some scholars as Witzelian prism. Calling someone a 'hindu nationalist' or 'hindu sympathizer' is not a critical review of scholarly work. Regarding Sarasvati the reply is Michel Danino's book The_Lost_River. Indoscope (talk) 12:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
"Witzelian prism"? What a nice neologism. I guess you invented that one yourself? You're a scholar, whose groundbreaking work on "Witzelian prism" is about to be published? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
That's Talageri, Witzels nemesis. Never the less since you are interested in this topic some people made a dossier on Witzel's slanders you can read here. Please quote critical reviews of the scholar's being quoted not what Witzel said, that mean nothing to a scholar and nothing to a Wikipedia editor. Witzel is just one of the scholars not the only one that matters especially when he is only slandering people. Indoscope (talk) 12:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, great. An anonymous "compilation done by several concerned netizens", hosted by the Indic Studies Foundation.
NB: did you notice they've got a link to "Aryan Migrations Theories"? I clicked it hopefully; it gives a document with an old version of the Wikipedia-article on Indo-Aryan migration.
This one's also interesting: "Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes from Indian History", from the founder of the Indic Studies Foundation. Published by Lulu, that is, self-published. Sounds promising.
Also nice: the chronology project: Papers presented at Distorted History seminar at HEC2007, "Adi Shankaracharya’s 2515th birth anniversary celebrated (May 14,2006)", "Did Buddha live in 17th century B.C?", VEDIC CULTURE AND ITS CONTINUITY: NEW PARADIGM AND DIMENSIONS.
But seriously, when are you going to answer the questions I raised? What makes the scholars your refer to 'mainstream scholars'?
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

  • Comment: I come to this discussion from Wikipedia:WikiProject Linguistics; I have no dog in this fight, or horse in this race, so to speak — no prior knowledge of this theory or its validity. However, let me give some general comments: despicability or non-despicability, honesty, dishonesty, or ulterior motives, of the indigenous Aryan–theorists themselves is irrelevant, as such, to Wikipedia and its coverage of the theory. Wikipedia only cares about what secondary sources say, and what evidence for or against the theory they point to, not what we as editors think. The same holds for "climate deniers" and "so-called creation scientists": despicability is irrelevant, as the Borg might say. No view can be excluded for the despicability or dishonesty of those who promote it, only because reliable sources point to evidence against it or lack of evidence for it.
Therefore, I have to concur with @VictoriaGrayson: regarding the way opposition to this theory is being expressed. "Fringe" is not a value judgment expressing the despicability, dishonesty, and ulterior motives of those who promote a theory, but simply a statement about evidence or lack of evidence. — Eru·tuon 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I dont think anyone is talking about despicability at all. And I don't see how what you are saying agrees with what Victoria is saying, since she is not making any sensible claims about evidence. What you are saying about the term "fringe" is also rather irrelevant, since in a wikipedia context fringe describes the standing of a point of view relative to the mainstream within the relevant field. Motivation is also relevant since in some cases scientific consensus is challenged on spurious grounds by ideological movements with funding from ideologically based sources, this is for example the case for the Infinity Foundation which is the Hindu equivalent of the Creationist Christian Discovery institute which has made it its mission to muddle scientific debates about the origin of life by injecting money into select pseudoscience. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
So, we have to phrase it in a neutral way, and also refrain from interpretations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Basically; but I should probably clarify that despicability et al. are relevant, but only insofar as reliable sources mention them. If Indo-European expert X says indigenous Aryan–theory is based on Indian nationalism, and gives Y and Z as evidence, this can be reported in the article. On the other hand, if editor X personally finds indigenous Aryan–theory to be based on Indian nationalism, this is irrelevant; and in addition, the judgement that the theory is based on Indian nationalism does not justify excluding a clear and accurate description of indigenous Aryan–theory, and the evidence or lack of evidence for and against it, from Wikipedia. — Eru·tuon 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Luckily, there is no shortage of such statements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fixing the date of the Bharata war

I just added the following:

"Elst notes that "In August 1995, a gathering of 43 historians and archaeologists from South-Indian universities (at the initiative of Prof. K.M. Rao, Dr. N. Mahalingam and Dr. S.D. Kulkarni) passed a resolution fixing the date of the Bharata war at 3139-38 BC and declaring this date to be the true sheet anchor of Indian chronology."[11]

I've read about that, I've seen a webpage, but where?... @Kautilya3:@Bladesmulti: any idea? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is a fairly traditional date for the Mahabharata war. Google hits: [12]. I don't think it matters much how many historians pass a resolution about it, but the archaeological evidence unearthed by B. B. Lal gives something like 900 BC for that date. I can dig up the reference for that. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Some useful slides from B. B. Lal: [13]. These are of course inconvenient for the traditionalists. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Nice that Lal gives a conventional date ;) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Scholar works by Nicholas Kazanas & poor old shrikant talageri, seems someone has it in for him.

Use Nicholas Kazanas information published free on his website, reading N.kazanas work Indigenous Aryans is like opening up a swiss army knife, He backs his work up with archaeology and of course his Top profession of a Proto Indo aryan Lingustic scholar, he is by far one of the biggest Thorns in witzels Aryan theory and has made his written his heated debates public on his page to witzel and the others, all information and details can be found in PDF form and of course his books are all linked.

http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/en/indology_en.asp

Watched shrikant talageri Video on youtube about his information on a indigenous aryans, I can see why he spent some time clearing his name in the video, seems someone is out to dismantle his book on this wiki page set up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rigveda:_A_Historical_Analysis You will also notice the Spoof i.p trolling the talk page, which has a dispute on the image use.

Here is Shrikant Talageri On youtube clearing his name and giving examples to his work. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J63Udr_cuaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2tWy9WJ7mw

his book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rigveda-Avesta-Evidence-Shrikant-Talageri/dp/8177420852 which debunked avesta was a good read, i see some idiots have gave him a lower rating just because he's a indian, that shows how messed up the world is.92.236.96.38 (talk) 04:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Caplock

These are not reliable sources as per Wikipedia policies. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Did you mean Nicholas Kazanas the greek European sanskrit scholar books are not a reliable source? Or the PDF he has personally written is not a Reliable Source published on his own website? Also If indian scholars are noted by western scholars as Hindutva and right wing on the Aryan Theory page then why cant The indian scholars name witzel as a person with a Neo-colonialist mindset?92.236.96.38 (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Caplock
Self-published sources are not reliable sources. If they are published books, the reliability depends on how and where they were published. Kazanas is also not reliable by his area of expertise: knowing Sanskrit doesn't qualify one to write about historical/prehistorical matters. Indian scholars are free to name Witzel whatever they want, and those statements can be included here if they are published in reliable sources. I gave a link to the definition of reliable sources, which you are required to read in order to proceed with any further discussion. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Kazanas and Talageri are very clear fringe scholars in the field of indo-european linguistics and prehistory. Not reliable sources, except for their own arguments in so far as they are notable.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I want to see the word Neo colonialist and Neo colonialism used more, i would also like to see less of witzel as it seems more counter productive

I understand the method of writing "The so called aryans" in this wikipage But why not use The word Necolonialism and Necolonialist? Neocolonialism was spread by colonialism and was introduced to the world by the foundations of Neocolonism, to such a point in which the word it's self ARYAN was invented by Coloinlist.

If Hindutva is noted as a indian who defends his history then a Necolonialist should be noted for people who oppose the indian view on Indigenous Aryans.

Example: The idea of "Indigenous Aryans" is supported with specific interpretations of current archaeological, genetic, and linguistic data, and on literary interpretations of the Rigveda. Standard arguments, both in support of the "Indigenous Aryans" theory of today, and in opposition the Old out dated Necolonilal works of The Indo-Aryan Migration theory.92.236.96.38 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Caplock

If you want to have specifiec words mentioned more then first you will have to provide some reliable sources about this topic that use that word in the way you suggest. If you want to see less of Witzel, then you will have to provide some reliable sources that relies mostly on other scholars. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

@Maunus: Some explanation please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I am removing the NPOV tag since the discussion seems dead. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 2 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. I don't see this debate going anywhere. There is some consensus that the current title is not ideal (with a couple of dissenters), but with no agreed target or even agreement on the scope that the target would cover, I think it has to be left as is right now. Suggest that if people are interested they put their heads together and come up with a consensus on what the new title might be, and then push another RM on that. Thanks (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 09:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


Indigenous Aryans → Out of India theory – The topic is more generally know as OIT --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This topic is more generally known by its proponents as the OIT. It should be under the more generally known name. Alternatively, it could also be moved to Indian Urheimat theory. --Calypsomusic (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - Where is it known as OIT? Where is the evidence for it? On the face of it, this is a frivolous RFC and seems like a waste of everybody's time. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment this article is not about Aryans indigenous to whatever Aryan homeland exists, therefore the title is misleading, since it is about Aryans originating in the Indian subcontinent, a subtopic, based on where one figures the Aryan homeland is located. One could talk about "indigenous" ones from the North of Europe (as proposed by the Thule Society) or Persia as well. "Aryan" is not a topic restricted to language. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Support move somewhere - the title is nonsensical, Aryans are of course indigenous to somewhere - the question is where. Taking "Indigenous Aryans" as a shorthand for OIT already assumes the Indian subcontinent as the area in which Aryans are allegedly indigenous. A better title might be "Indo-Aryan migrations debate" - but such an article would have to include both theories and dedicate more attention to the mainstream theory than to the minority theory. The real problem here is the fact that this article is a POV fork concentrating on a minority theory within a broader debate. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Maunus, such a change would not be appropriate. See the section Scenarios, where we mention 4 of them, out of which only one is "OIT". "Indigenous Aryans view" is used widely in academic discussions. The only change that we might do is to add a "view" or "theory" at the end of the phrase. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Concentration on a minority theory does make an article a POV fork. Wikipedia has many articles on minority (and outright fringe) theories, quite rightly, including other IE urheimat theories, such as the (minority) Anatolian hypothesis and the (fringe) Armenian hypothesis. One could equally well object to those titles as they don't say what they are hypotheses of. The problem with switching to OIT, as Kautilya3 says, is that there are hypotheses which form part of this model in which the very existence of IE is denied, or its entry into India is pushed back to some very ancient period. Paul B (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
What makes it a POV fork is not the topic, but the fact that it has and continues to be a page where the fringe view is is given undue weight relative to the arguments against it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see how. Apart from the fact that the various views have to be described, the preponderance of commentary is clearly critical. Paul B (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't think that there are any of these writers who deny that there is a relation between Sanskrit and modern languages, some of them just deny that linguistics should or could be used to answer these historical questions, or that parts of IE language studies are pseudoscience. OIT or IUT (Indian Urheimat theory) is also not perfect, but probably still better than IA. Calypsomusic (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Note that there are much more google results for OIT or IUT than for IA (even though IA includes many wiki results). --Calypsomusic (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
OIT is just one viewpoint among many. You might want to read the article first before proposing changes. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment what is certain is that the current title makes little sense. Even though that might be the phrase used in academia, WP:COMMONSENSE suggests to me that the title should be a comprehensible one. I haven't made up my mind as to the POV fork business, but it seems to me that if this article is to exist, its title should indicate that it concerns a hypothesis, and not established fact. "Indo-Aryan Migration theory" or something like that would seem to do the job. Kautilya, to address your (valid) objection; the first paragraph, which defines the topic, could be used to make the distinction from the widely accepted view, which may also address some of the concerns of the people who feel this is a POV fork. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • This is not a POV fork, at least not now. We have reliable sources that say that the Indigenous Aryans theory should be given a legitimate place in the debate. So, this page has well-justified credentials, but only as a minority view (or a fringe theory, in WP terminology). "Indo-Aryan Migration theory" is in fact the name of the mainstream theory. So, we can't use that here. I don't see why you say that the current title is not comprehensible. It is the theory that the group of people or culture that we call "Aryans" are indigenous to India. We could easily change it to "Indigenous Indo-Aryans" to put India into the title. I would actually prefer to add "theory" at the end, because that is what this actually is. But let us not do both. "Indigenous Indo-Aryan theory" is quite a mouthful. Kautilya3 (talk) 08:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

LoL

It's the mix of ingredients that gives the most extraordinary taste! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I had a great laugh reading the discussion on the talk page. So much heated discussions on a historically "dead" topic? Nowadays, no researcher or professor of History wastes a single minute on this "Aryan Theory". As a result, politicians and theologians are now writing on this topic.

1)If Mughals, Kushans, Greeks, Huns, Scythian can come from outside, why not "Aryans"?

2)If they came, did they come once or in many waves/ chains?

3)Is every coming - invasion or migration or intrusion or sneaking? Who can confirm absolutely? This debate will have no end.(BTW, Invasion theory is almost dead now)

4)The impact of the "Aryans" (meaning just "Noble" in Sanskrit) on India, as viewed by most historians, is mainly on culture and language rather than on the formation of a race or nation.

5)No race on this earth is pure. Every race is now a mixed race. The sooner understood, the better.

Thank you. :-):-):-)Ghatus (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Point 4, "The impact of the "Aryans" [...] on the formation of a race or nation" is the most interesting point. The Kuru Kingdom is most relevant in this respect, since that's the place and the time when the "Vedic fold" was formed, which has enveloped most of India, it's culture, and it's societal organisation. Although "the Aryans" form the starting-point in many narratives on India, the Kuru Kingdom is the real turning point, as far as I can see. These two sources were highly informative for me, on this topic:
Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Culture and language rather than race or nation? Ghatus, my friend, you have some reading to do on nationalism. You might start by reading the History section of Hindutva that I wrote a few days ago. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:51, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I liked the picture. hahaha.Ghatus (talk) 11:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
It's funny, it just popped-up in my mind. But actually it's a very strong image for the strenght of India, and the value of diversity. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the nationalists would do well to read Girilal Jain's Hindu Phenomenon. Abebooks has a few copies for throw-away prices. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
@Kautilya3, yes I read it. What's your point?Ghatus (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
The point is that Hindu nationalism is a form of ethnic nationalism. So, culture and language have everything to do with it. In fact, Hindu revivalism, which is a close relative of Hindu nationalism, only cares about culture, language and religion, and nothing about nationalism. So, yes, the Aryan debate is quite central to both the groups. If the Vedic people came from the outside, then their culture, language and religion are "foreign", not indigenous. This strikes at the heart of the ideology. But I think there is no reason for them to worry because nobody has claimed that the Vedas themselves were composed outside India. And, I also believe (a minority view) that the Vedic religion is not particularly central to Hinduism. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3 The story of India-
"My heart, awake in this holy land of India; it is a place of pilgrimage for nations to mingle in a confluence of humanity. Nobody knows who urged them yet they came from different lands and merged in a single body – the Aryans, the non-Aryans, the Dravidians, the Chinese, the Scythians, the Huns, the Pathans and the Mughals – all of them like so many separate streams flowing irresistibly to lose at the end of their journeys their individual identities in one vast sea. Now the West has opened up its gates, all are collecting its prized gifts and the same irreversible process of mutual exchange and assimilation is taking place once again in that holy confluence of humanity."- Bharat Tirtha, (a poem by Rabindranath Tagore, says it all about India's past).Ghatus (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Wauw! That's great. In more than one way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Ghatus. Beautiful sentiment! Kautilya3 (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3 Believe me, after studying India's past as a student of History for years and going through all kinds of narratives-historiographies-ideologies-interpretations , I reached this conclusion. But, it does not mean that we should sugarcoat/hide any bitter incident or conflicts of the past. History must be told as it happened. Actually, there is no good history or bad history - only HISTORY.Ghatus (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan, @Kautilya3, Swami Vivekananda echoed the same thought,

"I am thoroughly convinced that no individual or nation can live by holding itself apart from the community of others, and wherever such an attempt has been made under false ideas of greatness, policy or holiness-the result has always been disastrous to the secluding one.... The fact of our isolation from all the other nations of the world is the cause of our degeneration and its only remedy is getting back into the current of the rest of the world. Motion is the sign of life."

He added,

"occultism, and mysticism... these creepy things; there may be great truths in them, but they have nearly destroyed us.... And here is the test of truth - anything that makes you weak physically, intellectually and spiritually, reject as poison, there is no life in it, it cannot be true. Truth is strengthening. Truth is purity, truth is all-knowledge.... These mysticisms, in spite of some grains of truth in them, are generally weakening.... Go back to your Upanishads, the shining, the strengthening, the bright philosophy, and part from all these mysterious things, all these weakening things. Take up this philosophy; the greatest truths are the simplest things in the world, simple as your own existence."

"I would rather see everyone of you rank atheists than superstitious fools, for the atheist is alive, and you can make something of him. But if superstition enters, the brain is gone, the brain is softening, degradation has seized upon the life.... Mystery mongering and superstition are always signs of weakness." (From Lectures from Colombo to Almora by Swami Vivekananda and Letters of Swami Vivekananda)

I know I am becoming philosophical, but these are universal truths. You can't change your history.Ghatus (talk) 12:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Genetics

Before we start inserting the genetics-arguments, we should first evaluate the value of those studies, and reach an overview of reseacrh worthfull of inclusion. Genetics have too often been used already to push a point of view.
For what I know about it: genetics show an influx of female DNA up to ca 50,000 years ago; there-after, there's no influx of matriarchal DNA, but there still is influx of male DNA. This is perfectly in line with the IAMt, and the basic facts of Indian history: a continuous influx of non-Indian armies - armies consist mainly of man, remember?
The IAMt proposes that male elites migrated to India, married local woman, who took over the Aryan languages, and whose children also were "Aryan" in this respect.
By the way: this info is better at place at Indo-Aryan migration debate. But first an overview at a talkpage of relevant research, including the research which makes clear that there's always been an inlux of male DNA. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's the section: Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_theory#Reviewing_the_Genetics_literature. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Missing citations

The following citations are missing at the moment:

  • Kazanas year unknown
  • Kak 2008
  • Witzel 2011

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take care of it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Genetics of Aryans

Section contributed by User:DMR Sekhar [14]. Copied here for discussion

"The word “Arya” is found in Sanskrit text, Rig Veda (1500-1200 BCE) which is cognate with Aryan in English. Sanskrit is a refined Indo – European language a proto of which might have entered India around 2000 BCE[1]. Incidentally West Eurasians carrying R1a haplogroup genetically mixed up in a major way with Native Indians around 2000 BCE ,[2-6]and it may be assumed that proto Indo European languages were brought into India by the migrating West Eurasians. The migration of West Eurasians might be in several waves both minor and major. As such Sanskrit contains Dravidian loan words.
There are genetic studies that tried to suggest that R1a haplogroup is of Indian origin but Klyosov, AA and Rozhanskii wrote[7], “Some studies alleged that the most ancient common ancestors of R1a haplotypes were Indian; however, the results were flawed by erroneous calculations of timespans using incorrect “population mutation rates” (see their descrip- tion and discussion in Klyosov, 2009a, 2009c, and references therein), which routinely converted the actual 3600 - 4000 ybp (“Indo-European” R1a1 in India) into 12,000 - 15,000 ybp. This was erroneously claimed as the proof of “origin of R1a in India.” Furthermore, high percentages of R1a in some regions in India or in some ethnic and/or religious groups (such as Brahmins) were incorrectly claimed as the proof of the origin of R1a in India (Kivisild et al., 2003; Sengupta et al., 2006; Sahoo et al., 2006; Sharma et al., 2009; Thanseem et al., 2006; For-narino et al., 2009). The application of the flawed approach resulted in confusion amongst researchers in the field of human population genetics over the last decade.” Klyosov, AA and Rozhanskii also show that the original R1a carriers migrated from Siberia. Underhill et al conclude[8], “Our phylogeographic data lead us to conclude that the initial episodes of R1a-M420 diversification occurred in the vicinity of Iran and Eastern Turkey, and we estimate that diversification downstream of M417/Page7 occurred 5800 years ago…..”
Thus Vedic Aryans are a genetic mix of Native Indians and West Eurasians for example Ved Vyasa the splitter (read editor) of the Vedas himself is born to Satyavati (a fisher woman,probably Bhil Meena. Meen means fish) and sage Parashar. Naturally Vedic Aryans inherited the culture/language of both Native Indians and West Eurasians. Hence it is futile to argue for “Indigenous Aryans”.
[1] Bouckaert, R., Lemey, P., Dunn, M., Greenhill, S. J., Alekseyenko, A. V., Drummond, A. J., Gray, R. D., Suchard, M. A., & Atkinson, Q. D.*, Mapping the origins and expansion of the Indo-European language family. Science, 337:957–960. http://language.cs.auckland.ac.nz/ , 2012.
[2] Michael J. Bamshad et al, Nature, 395,651-652, 1995.
[3] R. Ramachandran, The genetics of caste, http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1812/18120840.htm
[4] Reich, D. et al, Nature 461, 489-494, 2009.
[5] Priya Moorjani et al, The American Journal of Human Genetics, 2013. See: http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/2013_AJHG_Priya_India_Date.pdf
[6] Elie Dolgin, Indian Ancestry Revealed, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090923/full/news.2009.935.html?s=news_rss
[7] Klyosov, AA and Rozhanskii, IL, Advances in Anthropology, 2012. Vol.2, No.1, 1-13, Published Online February 2012 in SciRes , http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/aa.2012.21001
[8] Underhill, PA et al, The phylogenetic and geographic structure of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a, European Journal of Human Genetics1–8, 26 March2014.


-- Kautilya3 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

@DMR Sekhar: This section is a bit incoherent. It also doesn't belong here because the discussion of genetics is being included in the Indo-Aryan migration debate page. Joshua Jonathan has studied the evidence. So, I will wait for him to comment. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 07:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The material I posted is purely scientific information that clearly shows that R1a carriers (West Eurasians whom we may call pre Vedic Aryans) are from Siberia who came to India via the vicinity of Turkey/Iran. The new research in population genetics on India precludes any possibility of Indigenous Aryans. May kindly refer to any unbiased scientist if need be. Editors of wikipedia should ensure correct and recent information to its readers which they deserve. Also the word Arya is not a meaningless term. The area ruled by Aryans was known as Aryavarta (the abode of Aryans, in North India above Vindhya mountains) in the same way Moghuls called their area of rule as Hindusthan.
DMR Sekhar (talk) 16:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
I do agree that this information does not really belong here, but at IAmt. The summary of Klyosov seems to be correct; the part after "thus" reads more like a personal conclusion, I think. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the following,
"Incidentally West Eurasians carrying R1a haplogroup genetically mixed up in a major way with Native Indians around 2000 BCE ,[2-6]"
At least Reich et al., but certainly some other researches, seem to state the opposite: no mass-migrations, that is, no 'mixing-up in a major way'. I think those sources have to be rechecked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why the debate

I started thinking about writing a clear Introduction section for the page so that it is clear what is being talked about. Here are some stray thoughts:

The theorization during the colonial times went something like this:
The people that wrote the Rigveda and the succeeding vedas were a people called "Aryans". They were Sanskrit-speaking, came from somewhere North or somewhere West, brought with them the Vedic religion, conquered and enslaved the Dravidian-speaking natives, and established Sanskrit as the lingua franca in India. Hinduism is an outgrowth of the Vedic religion. So, the Dravidians are the only natives of India and the Aryans were the colonizers that came to dominate India.
This narrative was obviously found threatening, if not insulting, by the Indians. Hence the counter-reaction to prove that the "Aryans" were indigenous to India.
The reality is quite different. The linguistic evidence shows clearly that Sanskrit or some antecedent of Sanskrit arrived in India from somewhere West or North. Only small groups of people might have migrated. The migration might have happened over several centuries or millennia. The new arrivals in Mehrgarh in 7000-5000 BC might have been Indo-European speakers for all we know. The IE-speakers might have been part of the Indus Valley Civilization all through. These people might have maintained contact with their erstwhile home(s) and imported technologies like the horse and the chariot as they developed. After the IVC declined, they could have migrated West and East. The people that migrated East (to upper Saraswati valley) composed the Rigveda. The people that migrated West (for all we know) composed the Avesta, along with whoever might have been living there previously.

Am I right in thinking that the available evidence allows all these possibilities? If so, the whole debate seems pointless, arising from excessive and premature theorization. Both the "Indo-Aryan migration theory" and the "Indigenous Aryans theory" could be right and we don't know enough to decide either way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The "debate" is a "fabricated" one. You are right there is sufficient ambiguity to decide either way at first sight. And the assumption of "insult" is misplaced. Let's assume conclusively that around 5000 BC some learned men migrated peacefully. After 6k-7k years later, today, how do we address them? My friend's father migrated from a neighboring country. My friend is not a migrant. Some say, this Aryan "invasion" was propagated to demean and discourage the ruled citizens. When the "invasion" theory flopped badly it was migrated to migration theory. And what do we know of it? It is as ambiguous as it could be. The counter theory is basically an attempt to raise fair discussion about why such a theory is implausible. If there is no "outbreak" of Aryan invasion/migration theory what would Indigenous Aryans (theory) be doing? And with an entire set of pointers directed towards the incompleteness in the invasion/migration theory, which we, for our convenience, group together and label as Indigenous Aryan theory, how credible does it remain? --AmritasyaPutraT 09:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems that you are talking about the past whereas I am talking about the present. (The past is only useful as an explanation for the present.) My whole point is to say that "Aryan" is a meaningless term, which I avoided in my second paragraph. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The credibility of the Indigenous Aryans theory has been discussed before, with a clear outcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I just read it again; a part of it seems unlikely to me:

"The migration might have happened over several centuries or millennia. The new arrivals in Mehrgarh in 7000-5000 BC might have been Indo-European speakers for all we know. The IE-speakers might have been part of the Indus Valley Civilization all through. These people might have maintained contact with their erstwhile home(s) and imported technologies like the horse and the chariot as they developed. After the IVC declined, they could have migrated West and East. The people that migrated East (to upper Saraswati valley) composed the Rigveda."

here's what seems more likely to me:

"The migrations might may have happened over several centuries, involving multiple groups. The new arrivals in Mehrgarh in 7000-5000 BC might have been Indo-European speakers for all we know. The IE-speakers might may have been part of co-existed with the Indus Valley Civilization all through for some time. These people Vedic people might have maintained contact with their erstwhile home(s) and imported technologies like the horse and the chariot as they developed. After the IVC declined, they incorporated local inhabitants, and some their customs and culture, who adapted a pastoralist lifestyle. The resulting culture they could have migrated West and spread over north-west India and further East. The people that migrated East (to upper Saraswati valley) An alliance of some of those Vedic groups composed the hymns of the Rigveda, which were codified, while The people that some people migrated West (for all we know) and composed the Avesta, along with whoever might have been while mixing with the people living there previously."

"Adapted," that's the term! It implies a mixing of peoples and cultures, but not necessarily forceful, and not even necessarily dominated by those "Aryans," but by local people, for whom it was profitable to take over this lifestyle. Who knows, maybe "the Aryans" were soon dominated by the locals, meanwhile seeing "their" own culture "triumphate." Notice also, ironically, that in this scenario both the IAmt and the indigenist scenario is "correct." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Re-reading my own draft article Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda helped clarify some datelines for me. Kuzmina states that the Indo-Europeans broke up into separate branches only after they obtained wheeled transported, which may have happened in 4000 BC. So, it is unlikely to find any Indo-Europeans in the vicinity of the IVC prior to that. Secondly, she points out that the horse was domesticated in steppes around 4000 BC, but it is found in India only after 2000 BC (1700 BC, the earliest known horse remains). So, no Indo-Europeans came to India between 4000-2000 BC, because if they did, they would have brought their horses. There are no horses on the Harappan seals either.
Now, the Mature Harappan civilisation disappeared by 2000 BC, which means Saraswati must have started drying up before then. So, there is no way that the Vedic Saraswati could be the grand old Saraswati. So, why does the Rigveda praise Saraswati as if it is the grand old river? I think the only possibility is that the Late Harappans had a memory of the grand old Saraswati and they composed the Rig Vedic verses of Saraswati. So, the immigrating Indo-Aryans must have converted the Late Harappans to their religion pretty fast. That seems like the only way to solve the problem.
Funny, that is exactly what you said above! Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. The story of Mahabharata shows the Late Harappan element of the Vedic civilisation pretty clearly: the second map here. The main families were the Kurus in Haryana and the Yadavas in Gurajarat. The horse-drawn chariot allowed them to travel through the desert pretty easily. The Kauravas, the losers, had more connections with the West, Gandhara. The Pandavas, the winners, had more connections with Panchala to the east as well as Gujarat and Sindh. So, one interpretation of the Mahabharata war is that the "indigenous Aryans" beat the "immigrant Aryans." - Kautilya3 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
That's a fascinating idea. Also because Kuru-Panchala was the origin of "orthodox" Vedism. But then, the Mahabarata of course reflects the ideology of this area. So, what was the religion of the Kauravas, or their specific interpretation of Vedism? Also, don't forget that the period of the Mahabarata-war is alter than the immigration of the "Aryans"; the Mahabarata may not reflect India at the time of the immigration. Nevertheless, it's a fascinating idea. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
No, I wouldn't be to sure that the Kauravas are the "immigrant Aryans." Rather, that they may yet another "immigrant group," a new "constellation" which appeared at the scene after the vedic culture moved east. Anyway, Kuru-Panchala no doubt incorporated "indigenous" elements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I was stating two separate ideas: (i) both Kauravas and Pandavas had connections to the other Late Harappan elements, (ii) but, comparatively, Pandavas had more connections to Late Harappan elements, as well as eastern Gangetic elements. The patriarchy of Kauravas and the exact opposite of Pandavas is quite stark in Mahabharata. (For instance, we rarely hear about Kaurava women except for their submissiveness. In contrast, the Pandava women are matriarchs.) Kauravas give the impression of being sticklers to Dharma, whereas Pandavas have more a sense of "ends justify the means." When they are in doubt, Krishna exhorts them to break Dharma to achieve victory for the "good of mankind." The story portrays Pandavas as representing the "Greater India" whereas Kauravas are portrayed as an extremist fringe group who happen to hold the power. Their only real allies are from Gandhara and Anga (Bihar), the latter being portrayed as defectors. (I suppose the Biharis were selling them iron weapons for money and the Greater India didn't approve of it.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Need citation, looks like editorial opinion

This sentence in first paragraph needs citation, looks like original research:

"The idea of "Indigenous Aryans" also implies a migration "Out of India" to Europe and east Asia. The mainstream view as accepted by historical linguists is that the Indo-Aryan languages originated outside of India."

Hmullur (talk) 08:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean the first sentence, or the second sentence? Regarding calling the second sentence "original research," please see Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
By the way, how do you know the term "original research"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Nice question! Hmullur the lead is a summary of the article. You need to read the full article for details. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

lead

@Kautilya3: what you meant by saying "unxplaibed deletion"? When I described that before this new edit(that doesn't support information) lead only included "historical linguists" as archaeologists have conflict with the theory and many scholars saying that there is no archeological proof. We have whole section at Indo-Aryan migration theory for submitting that language shift is possible without physical migration. And we are emphasizing that Indo-European languages were originated outside India, which is department of linguists, not archeologists. Capitals00 (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Read Anthony and Papola, bot archaeologists. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
No, Parpola is a linguïst. Never mind, Anthony is an archaeologist. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
@Capitals00:, I wrote a message on your talk page about your edit summary that I missed at first. Anyway, your edit summary was no good. There are archaeologists among the Indigenous Aryanists, but they are WP:FRINGE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

"The Mahabharata War is dated at 3139 BCE, while various dynasties are dated more than a millennium earlier"

This has me confused at first, as the examples are, eg "1641-1541 BC – Nandas, conventionally dated 345–321 BC;" - so not a millennium earlier than the war, as I read it at first, but a millennium earlier than conventional dating, right? That needs rewording. Doug Weller talk 10:37, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Highly opinionated introduction

The introduction defines this theory as a "political" theory (thus negatively priming the reader looking for scholarly arguments), and refers to Out-of-Europe (OOE) theory as "mainstream" without the quotes. The main "political" argument of the Out-of-India (OOI) proponents is not political, but factual. Europe dominated the world's knowledge management for the past several centuries, and made its theories the mainstream. Living in a largely subjugated state, Indian scholars had no opportunity to develop and maintain theories that were indigenous (and perhaps more factual) about world history. Given that there is an asymmetry in the amount of literature between the OOE and OOI schools, the least one can expect is to make the introduction NPOV and not classify this theory under "Hindu Politics" -- it brushes away any scholarly alternate theories using a political broomstick. -- Fgpilot (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not a scholarly alternative; it's fiction. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:37, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm adding a NPOV-language template at the beginning. Looks someone has written this with some vengeance :) Crawford88 (talk) 06:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Crawford88: I've removed it as you haven't mentioned any specific issues that are violations of our NPOV policy. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Fgpilot: Please look in the archives for the "RfC" that settled the issue. We will not discuss it all over again. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
@Crawford88: No use pointing here, you added the template and you need to explain what you mean yourself, not tell others to read the page. I can't tell what you are objecting to. Doug Weller talk 10:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Quote? [T]he Indian civilization must be viewed as an unbroken tradition that goes back to the earliest period of the Sindhu-Sarasvati ...

@Joshua Jonathan: what happened here? This is a fragement of an earlier edit of yours but with the context gone. Doug Weller talk 10:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: sorry for respondng so late; the question was first not clear to me. But I guess that someone (me?) edited the text, and shortened it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Doug Weller talk 09:22, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Super weird layout

I think this page needs restructuring. Criticisms and arguments by opponents and proponents are all jumbled up in an illegible way. Can someone do the dirty work? Any takers? Crawford88 (talk) 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Questionable

Regarding the removal of this link per WP:QUESTIONABLE: the whole Indigenous Aryans "theory" is fringe, and propagated by questionable sources; so removing a link to a a variant per WP:QUESTIONABLE is not appropriate. Note also that this is not a source, used to reference info in the article, but an external link. See also Wikipedia:External links: " External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The whole Indigenous Aryans "theory" is fringe, and propagated by questionable sources: Doesn't imply you can flood with more bogus material. You are welcome to cleanup this one though.
  • See also Wikipedia:External links: See "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." under WP:ELNO. :A website with citations to Jatland.org is definitely not WP:ELYES. Infact, it amounts to WP:ELPOV Crawford88 (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed: "articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." This Wiki-article is about Indigenous Aryans, a viewpoint which this site is presenting. Regarding WP:ELPOV: you mean that there should be more links which make clear that IA is rubbish? But if it is just this Jat-belief: one link to represent this particular interpretation is not too much, given "avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views". Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "This Wiki-article is about Indigenous Aryans, a viewpoint which this site is presenting": Nice cherry-pick. The side which the quoted site is picking is really irrelevant.
  • "But if it is just this Jat-belief: one link to represent this particular interpretation is not too much": This article has 'multiple POVs', and the quoted website, apart from the unscholarly nature of it is biased towards one such POV. Secondly, the website doesn't provide jat belief, rather quotes a storm-front tier website for the opinion.
Crawford88 (talk) 07:13, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm... "Storm-front tier"; that's a good point; I've removed it. We could add the original page (www.jatland.com/home/Origin_of_the_Jats) of course, but that seems to be a storehouse of, ehm, not even fringe theories, but totally outlandish claims. Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Crawford88 (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Genetic Studies Disprove Indigenous Aryans

Indigenous Aryans is a lie laced theory. Please see "How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate" The Hindu, June 19, 2017. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DM Rathna Sekhar (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a very informative article. Chris Fynn (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The Hindu article by Joseph was an opinionated piece. For a rather complete treatment of the subject see, an article by Razib Khan, in Indiatoday: Aryan wars: Controversy over new study claiming they came from the west 4,000 years ago. Crawford88 (talk) 04:35, 4 August 2017 (UTC) NarasMG Also see rebuttals to Tony Joseph (A.L. Chavda and Rajeev Srinivasan)--NarasMG (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Indigenous Aryans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


Levant and China

@Paul S: can you explain why your personal opinion of "clearly wrong" should trump well-sourced content [15]? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I have just requested protection. @Paul S: don't make unexplained reverts unless there is already explained vandalism or copyvio. Lorstaking (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Paul gave the following edit-summary:

IE spoken in China or Palestine? "Sourced content" or not it's clearly wrong.

changing (emphasis mine)

The Indo-Aryan Migration theory posits a migration of Indo-European-speaking people from the Pontic Steppes into Europe, the Levant, south Asia and east Asia. It is part of the Kurgan-hypothesis/Revvised Steppe Theory.

into

The Indo-Aryan Migration theory posits a migration of Indo-European-speaking people from the Pontic Steppes into Europe, south Asia and central Asia. It is part of the Kurgan-hypothesis/Revvised Steppe Theory.

While "central Asia" is a correct addition, the removal of Levant is incorrect, while east Asia is partly incorrect. Indo-Aryans did migrate to Mitanni, and to Inner Asia. I'll correct the last name. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
"Levant" to me means Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Mitanni is a bit too far to the East, but it's not worth arguing about. "East Asia" was the main problem as this suggests to almost all readers that IE speakers were in China, Korea or Japan. Paul S (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent developments are missing

There have been many recent developments in the OOIT model which seem to be missing from this article. Recent geological research (Clift et al, Evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River, 2012; Singh et al, Himalayan river morphodynamics, 2017; Sarkar et al, Climate change and decline of Bronze Age Harrapan civilization, 2016) has shown that the Ghaggar-Hakra paleochannel flourished during the IVC era owing to the intensification of monsoon. The decline of monsoon caused the river to dry up, thus causing the de-urbanization of IVC. These papers also indicate that the Ghaggar-Hakra can be identified with river Saraswati, which dried up before the migration of steppe peoples into India. Not only that, but the gradual drying up of Saraswati is recorded chronologically; the oldest mandalas of Rig Veda point to a grand river that flowed from the mountains into the sea, whereas later mandalas as well as later texts such as mahabharata describe a river that is not as grand anymore and is partially drying up. These findings have been complied and presented by Nilesh Nilkanth Oak (see 21 min mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctH7SW0_TFA). If migrants from outside borrowed indigenous knowledge of the history of river Saraswati, their texts would not describe the gradual drying up of saraswati in the chronological order of the texts. I think these recent developments need to be included.

While there may have been genetic input from the steppe, this does not prove that Sanskrit was not native to India. For instance, Buddhism traveled from India to China, Japan and other places without leaving a genetic trace. IVC was engaged in global trade; it is possibly that PIE spread through IVC trade networks. As to the linguistic continuity of the Indus script and the Brahmi script, there is evidence of an Indus-Brahmi transitional script from Bet Dwarka (https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/archive/arc0001/9900162/2.2/data/0-data/jgofscd/htdocs/marinearc/dwarka.html). These finding strongly suggest that IVC was Vedic. Whether anyone agrees or not, I think these should be included in a page about Out-of-India model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.50.180.203 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Please... See WP:OR, WP:FORUM and WP:RS. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:03, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I've added Lal (2015) to the Further reading section, though. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
I also added this link: The Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st Century Science Debunks 19th Century Indology. It looks like some of your "recent developments" come from this article. Interestingly, the author, A.L. Chavda, is described as "a theoretical physicist whose research interests include dark matter, dark energy, black hole physics, quantum gravity, and the physics of the very early universe." Not exacrly a qualified indologist, linguist, or historian... Not the kind of sources that qualify as WP:RS here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
The real research-questions are:
  • was there a pre-proto-IE-Urheimat in the Caucasus?
  • How did the Corded Ware Culture contribute to Sintashta, and the IE-migrations into India? That is, Yamnaya was R1b, CWC was R1a, India is R1a; yet, (northern) India is IE-speaking.
Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indigenous_Aryanism/Archive_3&oldid=1142484408"