Talk:Aryan invasion theory

I may be missing something, but surely the talk page is the place to discuss whether the article should be featured or not, not to put a "featured" notice? - Mustafaa 06:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are. From Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates: After a candidate article becomes featured... The nomination statement should be removed from the article's talk page, and replaced with {{featured}}. Markalexander100 06:47, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK... Well, I think the article still has its flaws, but it's certainly unusually detailed and informative. - Mustafaa 06:59, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Talk:Aryan invasion theory/Archive1

Proposal for changes in temp page

I have been long wanting to edit this article which has quite a few strucural problems. I am sure there are many other people who feel the same, considering the caveat of neutrality dispute added. I am putting the changes in a new page Aryan invasion theory/temp because the changes involve change in structure (though the changes in the actual content are few).I would actually like to call this page The Aryan Question with a link to Aryan invasion theory(which can be only on the theory).

My primary problem is that the article talks of pro-invasionists and anti-invasionists, when it means those who oppose a continuous civilisation(people for foreign origin of Aryans) and those who propound a continuous civilsation(people for indigenous origin of Aryans). I think that this gives a fundamentally wrong idea. Actually Anti-invasionists could and should also include those who are for a migration. But then this would lump another two opposing camps together. So I have used other terminologies. Also by this same argument, when one says that the Aryan invasion theory is accepted when one means Aryan migration theory, then one is wrong.

I would like those interested to react and give their views. KRS 11:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite agree that there's any clear difference between AIT and AMT. The Rig-Veda clearly identifies warfare between the Aryans and their initially powerful enemies. Given that their language and culture eventually prevailed this is not likely to have occured without 'invasion' in some sense. They didn't just wander in unopposed - if indeed they did wander in. One could argue that the British took over India by 'migration/incursion', or that the Saxons took over England that way. Very few writers even in the 1880s ever believed that the Aryans 'invaded' India like the Romans invaded Gaul.

The principal idelogical reason for opposition to both AIT and AMT is the implication that the Aryans were non-Indian in origin. Again, there's no real distinction between the two models in this respect. Also, though it's true that many anti-AIT writers wish to equate Vedic culture with Harappan culture, there are very obvious problems with that. It's perfectly possible to argue that a new - but indigenous - culture emerged after the decline of Harappa, but owed fairly little to it.

I do agree that the article has become confused and confusing - too many convoluted caveats and factual errors. The central arguments have been rather lost in accummulation of material. I've been meaning to address it myself, but it seemed a daunting task.

I think the new version should just replace the existing one. After all people are still making modifications to this one. We may lose some valuable corrections if the two are merged at a later stage. Paul

Does the lack of reaction( except for one positive comment in the talk page and two changes in the main page unrelated to the changes I proposed) mean that I can start editing the main page slowly according to the changes proposed by me in the temporary page or does it mean that the changes are untenable/ unreasonable/ too major? KRS 08:07, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. Do it. I've been working on my own revision off-line. You make the changes and then I'll add mine, if necessary, when yours is up. Paul

I think the only way to check would be to actually take the plunge and do the changes in the main article :-). This page has not seen an edit war for sometime. And the page is awfully messed up. So I guess you should go ahead. And maybe one step at a time. Cheers Chancemill 05:02, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)

dont think everybody is sleeping. i wont allow any disputed changes :-).

That's nice to know. And you are? Paul

== THIS ARTICLE IS INCORRECT AND FLAWED IN MANY WAYS!!! THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TAT THE ARYAN INVASION THEORY ACTUALLY HAPPENED. READ THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE AND YOU WILL SEE WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT:

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/aryan_invasion_theory.htm ==

Replacement with temp page

Since the people who responded to my questions above were for the change, I am boldly making the change from temp to main after updating it to reflect a few later changes. Have removed the neutrality notice. Whoever does not agree can feel free to put it back. KRS 14:05, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The current article looks fine, KRS. It may still need some grammatical tweaks but the content seems informative and fairly NPOV to my eyes. -- Derek Ross

Consquistadores and the English

The conquistadores left abundant evidence regarding thier presence, including the massacare of 70 million natives, slaves brought to the old world, destroyed temples, ships over-laden with looted gold that sank just off the coasts, the spanish language, historical documents, weapons/armour and many many more. Most important, a defeated and decimated people never forget thier defeat and destruction. The native south americans wont forget the spainiards, the native north americans wont forget the british/europeans, the alaskans wont forget the russians, the jews wont forget the germans, the south africans wont forget the british/dutch, etc.

I believe we should drop the reference to conquistadores. It makes the article sound like: "Well, we all know the Aryan invasion really happened like in South America, but lets mention migration to shut these other guys up".

In the same vein, the reference to British invasion of India by acculturation is also baseless. The British committed senseless massacres of the Indians and is well documented by both British and Indian authors, the evidence of many cultural and archaelogical artifacts and battles fought are available for anyone to examine.

If a hundered years later, every one in America speaks spanish, that would be acculuturation. If something has to happen with practically no archaeological evidence, it has to be acculturation. As you can see, there actually is a significant difference between invasion and acculturation. This is why practically no published scholar (not even Witzel) speaks of invasion anymore.

Codebytez | Talk 02:00, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think we should drop the link to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html. The article is chock full of inaccuracies and blatant lies. Someone must have a good pro-invasion link (as opposed to migration) that we could use instead. My personal preference would be an English translation of:

Bernard Sergent: Genèse de l’Inde, Payot, Paris 1997

who bases his arguments on archaelogical evidence.

In case, you are wondering, here is what is wrong with the contents of the geocities site:

The general premise of the site seems to be that the Indus valley civilization was semitic in nature; the Aryan invasion pluged India into darkness until it was liberated by the light of Islam.

Ash layers indicate widespread burning down of Indus cities by the Aryans

Indus valley citizens used baked bricks, burnt some of thier dead, and may have performed rites involving fire in thier rituals. The presence of ash does not automatically imply invasion.

Fractured skulls and mutilated skeletons display axe and sword marks due to widespread massacre of the Indus inhabitants by Aryan invaders

Nine years of extensive excavations at Mohenjo-daro (1922-31) - a city of three miles in circuit - yielded the total of some 37 skeletons, or parts thereof, that can be attributed with some certainty to the period of the Indus civilizations. Some of these were found in contorted positions and groupings that suggest anything but orderly burials. Many are either disarticulated or incomplete. They were all found in the area of the Lower Town - probably the residential district. Not a single body was found within the area of the fortified citadel where one could reasonably expect the final defence of this thriving capital city to have been made.

Caste System of Apartheid similar to US South arose when white Caucasoid Aryans crushed the Semitic (`Pani' or Phoenician) & black Dravidian inhabitants.

There are no two types 'Panis and Dravidian' Indus valley citizens.

Discontinuity of pottery, etc

One of the biggest reasons for the invasion to migration transformation was the absence of pottery discontinuity.

Flooding is indicated by the silt deposits and was caused by the deliberate destruction of the indus dam and irrigation system by the Aryans

"...the Indian paleontologist M.R. Shani noticed silt deposits perched many feet above the level of the Indus plain near the city of Hyderabad in what is now West Pakistan. This and other evidence suggested to him that the area's ancient floods had not been mere river overflows but events on a far larger scale. Major tectonic upheavals, Sahni proposed, might have blocked the Indus River from time to time; each such stoppage would have caused the gradual formation of a huge upstream lake that might then have persisted for decades... Raikes's preliminary research not only suggests that the dam-and-lake hypothesis proposed 25 years ago by Sahni is tenable but also singles out an area near Sehwan, some 90 miles downstream from Mohenjo-daro, as the most probable area of tectonic disturbance affecting the city... Both the multiple layers of silt at Mohenjo-daro and the evidence of multilevel reconstruction suggest that the city was flooded in this prolonged and damaging fashion no less than five times and perhaps more... Could such a series of natural catastrophes, rathern than the Aryan invasion, have brought about the collapse of the Harappan civilization?" (Dales, opcit, p. 160). The terms "multiple silt deposits" "reconstruction" "lakes formed for decades" suggest the cities were not flooded by invaders but floods.

Northern Dravidians (eg. the Brahui, Bhil and Gonds occupy isolated tracts of North and Central India showing that the Dravidians were once spread over all of India.

No, we do not know how they got there. They may have migrated from elsewhere to thier present locations, just as Aryan Konkani speakers are present in the Southernmost states of India.

Astronomical Science used by the Vedic ritualists was taken from the Semito-Dravidian Indus valley people as these were compiled during the Indus Valley and are not referred to in the Avesta or Rig Veda

Baseless statement. Also, Semito-Dravidian is an impossible term. Especially, if Dravidian == black.

There is probably lots more, but this should be sufficient. Mostly old statements conceded as obsolete even by Invasionists peppered with statements of how Indus valley civilization was really semitic.

Witzel is now a migrationist, so that only leaves Bernard Sergent as the leading invasionist scholar. Unfortunately, he writes only in French.

Codebytez | Talk 06:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Links

Regarding the propriety of external links: while a lot of crazy people write on this subject, I think it is illuminating, with the backdrop of reasonable scholarship, to open the doors a little to other sorts of pages. For instance, the aryannet.com thing is horrific to me, but I was looking through some of their articles and while a bit demagogic and xenophobic, they present valid information. Should this not be made available, mayhaps with a caveat, that the discerning reader might pluck therefrom what information suits him/her? --LordSuryaofShropshire 17:03, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

I guess most people believe in giving wide latitude to external links since they provide avenues to further investigate an area of interest. "Valid information" could be the key phrase here. I only propose we drop the link to http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html because it does not contribute anything of substance. It is a bad restatement of the invasionist viewpoint with the goal of promoting the Indus Valley civilization as "semitic". In particular, it is attempting to hint that the Indus Valley civilization's great achievements were due to its semitic character. As far as I can tell, this is the authors personal agenda and no scholar agrees that the Indus valley has anything semitic to it. This further confuses an already convoluted issue.

The link to aryanrace, etc. is fine since it is a tangential topic.

I do believe we need an invasionist link, but this one is just so bad that it needs to be replaced.

- Codebytez | Talk 20:55, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I had an opportunity to look over aryanrace.net. Most of the links resulted in 404 Document not found. The only thing I could actually read was the home page, which pretty much suggested that the Aryans are a wonderful people, but dont forget to include Indians; they are Aryan too. I would categorize it as silly rather than horrific. I do believe Konraad Elst's and David Frawley links provide a much better viewpoint of the continuity theory than aryanrace.net. If anything, this site damages the non-invasionist viewpoint. More importantly, this site seems to be a single amateur's opinion/agenda. We cannot possibly provide links to everyone's opinion, so we best stick to links to published books, papers and such, especially since this is an article on a controversial topic that is still producing papers, books and articles.

(I will reserve my "lets kill the aryanrace.net link" proposal until I have had a chance to read through the site.)

-Codebytez | Talk 21:50, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Aryannet is worthless. the links are all down and you are correct that Elst and Frawley present a good enough view. --LordSuryaofShropshire 02:24, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory

Discussion taken from User_talk:Rrjanbiah

There was a discussion regarding the link http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html on the Aryan invasion theory discussion pages. The link was removed since there were no objections. I see you have re-posted the link without engaging in discussion on the Talk: page. I do believe the contents of the said site damage the credibility of the invasionist viewpoint. Michael Witzels links do a much better job of presenting the invasionist/migrationist viewpoint. Why dont we discuss it at Talk:Aryan_invasion_theory. Waiting for your counter arguments! :-) - Codebytez | Talk 14:26, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm running out of time to elaborate my points here. Anyway, see this edit histories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aryan_invasion_theory&dummy=1&diff=3154960&oldid=3119591

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Aryan_invasion_theory&dummy=1&diff=3257350&oldid=3254084

And, I don't find anything wrong with the link http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Hist/fall_ind.html Probably, it may not reflect what you think or believe; but it is still _ontopic_ Moreover, some people seem to dilute the theory/and this page, on behalf anti-AIT sentiments. Michael Witzel's page is bit dull to look up on the subject. So, this link is much necessary here. --Rrjanbiah 04:38, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When a page claims that the Indus valley civilization was that of black sudroids and in the same breath claims that it was semitic, it simply loses credibility and gives the impression that pro-AIT people are kooks who do not know what they are talking about.

What you and I think or believe is immaterial; we were not around to see what really happened. I did not propose eliminating the link, just replacing it.

If someone has a similar page without the pro-semitic propoganda, we could title it "The Original Aryan Invasion Theory" and happily include it. There must be millions of web pages on this topic. Surely we can find one that states the original theory (in all its goriness) with a measure of credibility.

-Codebytez | Talk 00:10, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid this article needs a POV warning as it stands. It devotes one section to describing the theory and five to arguing against it (including a long section on a different theory, which should really be in its own article); moreover, it completely ignores the genetic evidence, and seriously understates the linguistic evidence. I'm happy to help reverse this over the next week or so, but till then I'm adding the warning. - Mustafaa 06:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

As a previous editor of this page who drastically altered the structure and wording without contributing to the information content in order to make it NPOV and more understandable ( see talk page), I have a few reactions to your views.

You have mentioned - It devotes one section to describing the theory and five to arguing against it (including a long section on a different theory, which should really be in its own article)

I don't think this can be resolved more than what exists now. As it stood earlier there was lots of confusion and I have tried to organise it for more clarity. This is because there are 3 viewpoints here, not 2 to argue against. 1- Aryan invasion theory 2- aryan migration theory 3- Indigenous Aryans theory( for want of a better name) 1 is against 2 and 3, 3 is against 1 and 2, 2 is against 1 and 3. Now some people pit the combined weight of 1 and 2 against 3, some people lump 1 with 2, some people take it for granted that 1 is 2 and 2 is 1, and so on.

Regarding making a separate page for 3, my earlier idea was to keep this page short and make a new page titled the Aryan question or something like that to present all three viewpoints. Maybe you can try that.

I thought I had done my best to remove the neutrality notice. If you still feel that way....All the best for your efforts :-) KRS 08:43, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, I think that the previous section headings were better,mainly because this page is on the Aryan invasion theory and hence other theories are articulated in this page with reference to this. Hence the section headings of alternate theory and new viewpoint and then the aryan question. If you want these headings maybe you should call the page something else/ move it. Could you please discuss your stance on this? KRS 12:07, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I too have noticed - yet hitherto not done much about - the increasing trend of this article towards the anti-AIT view. I still feel "AIT" generally refers to both entry by violence and slow migration, and feel the substantive objections pertain to the continuity theory, which are becoming quite loud here. Unfortunately, this is another article where those who feel they have a stake also tend to a certain POV, which is probably why it's so criticism-heavy. Maybe we should fork the "Criticisms" into a separate article, as was done when the Mother Teresa attacks were getting out of control. Well, just a thought. Probably a lot needs to be rewritten to make it clearer than the anti-AIT/continuity position is basically still a crank view promoted by nationalists, or, in more neutral language, believed by very few serious historians. -- V V 14:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

What you're proposing, then, is bias and blatant labeling in a completely POV standpoint for AIT/AMT. To call them cranks, or imply such, or label them all nationalists, is a seriously unacademic viewpoint. I notice people on this page talking about 'linguistic' evidence as if it is a given that the languages came in as opposed to went out. Things like this betray a preconceived notion. Also, dismissing all supporters of continuity as 'nationalists' is irrational and shows a lack of intellectual ability to tackle an issue and not be ad hominem. Someone earlier talked about anti-AIT/AMT attacking opposition, whereas the mudslinging has been prolific on both sides. We need to avoid making biased categorical statements. Best would probably be to make an "Aryan Question" page with a clear understanding that most believe in AMT but giving fair voice to critics without evasive branding techniques that are very popular for both sides.--LordSuryaofShropshire 16:01, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that AIT "generally refers to both entry by violence and slow migration" - though I also agree that the exaggerated theory of one fell swoop of invasion introducing IE to India is overstated - and agree with KRS and Surya's proposal to avoid that dispute by moving most of this info to "Aryan Question". Speaking from a linguistics-focused background, I would say the linguistic objections to the continuity theory are on their own sufficient to disprove it, and the genetic evidence is against it as well, though it'll take me a while to track down the references; and seeing the state of the linguistics portion of this article before my edits gives me little confidence in its other arguments. - Mustafaa 17:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, after editing the bits I considered to be most POV, I've removed the POV notice I put. If others think I've taken it too far the other way, feel free to fix that... I still think it needs a genetics section to be at all comprehensive, but that will take a bit more work. - Mustafaa 09:23, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Genetic Arguments

Here's a few links to help build up this missing section (all PDF.) Do you guys have any other suggestions? - Mustafaa 21:00, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Genetic evidence on the origins of Indian caste populations (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Bamshad_2001a.pdf)
Mitochondrial DNA analysis reveals diverse histories of tribal populations from India (http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Cordaux_et_al_2003.pdf)
The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal and Caste Populations (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf)
Demographic history of India and mtDNA-sequence diversity (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_1995_v56_p979-992.pdf)

And [1] (http://www.dalitstan.org/sudrology/arya/iyergene.html) is totally POV but may be useful for tracking down references. - Mustafaa 21:02, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The genetic studies above only suggest various distances among groups and nothing more. Given the amazing uniformity of the human genetic profile, the extreme diversity of the Indian population and the small sample sizes used in the study, I would not consider the studies conclusive.

Sentences such as "whether specifically, the linguistic relatedness of Indo-European speakers remains open to debate" suggest that the ones who conducted the study do not believe the genetic evidence is an authorative arbiter of the Aryan question. I dont believe anyone claims Indians are a genetically uniform (or "pure") people.

Genetic data, while interesting is inadmissible as evidence for or against AIT. Various genetic injections into the Indian subcontinent have occured constantly due to invasions and migrations throughout the millenia and Indians themselves have moved around and mixed among themselves. After all, the Indus valley civilization is supposed to have occurred after a migration into the Bolan pass at 9000 to 7000 BC. The first 'Out of Africa' human migration of 64000 years ago would mean that proto-austric humans existed before this migration. The excavations of pre-1500 BC skeletons in Indus valley civilizations were also "mixed".

Various conclusions in the papers such as the middle castes being closer to west Eurasians rather than upper castes, etc. is incompatible with the claim of the Aryans establishing the caste system. While the studies present evidence that the Indians are a mixed people, it does not prove or disprove that the mixing occurred at around 1500 B.C.

However, the article may benefit from mentioning that genetic studies have been conducted and all sides claim it supports thier position (and perhaps links to the studies) -- Codebytez | Talk 16:23, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

Rule of Thumb

'the area of highest linguistic diversity of a language family is usually fairly close to the area of its origin'

According the the Indian Census of 1961, there were about 1500 dialects and 110 languages in India. Recently, the number of bonafide languages has been put to around 398 [2] (http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India). (Unfortunately, I could not find a IE/non-IE split #s). The numbers should be higher if all of the sub-continent is included. Europe on the other hand seems to have about 225 languages [3] (http://www.ecml.at/edl/default.asp?t=celebration) Seems to me, there is a greater linguistic diversity in the Indian subcontinent.

Not that this proves anything, since the rule of thumb only takes into consideration languages spread by colonial expansion over a relatively short period of time (500 years). I find it hard to apply it equally to linguistic distributions that may have occurred 3500 years ago.

The U.S had a relatively uniform linguistic profile until the importation of slaves and the advent of immigration. Linguistic variance seems to be more likely due to the introduction/mixing with other populations than being closer to the point of origin.

In addition, one should consider that political boundaries, geography and ease of travel, trade activity, the inherent ability of the language to change, etc. are more likely to be the reasons for uniformity of language rather than "point of origin"

-- Codebytez | Talk 16:58, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

- - You say, 'according the the Indian Census of 1961, there were about 1500 dialects and 110 languages in India', comparing this with the fewer languages in Europe. You conclude that 'there is a greater linguistic diversity in the Indian subcontinent.' With respect, this indicates a complete misunderstanding of what is meant by 'linguistic diversity'. The number of 'languages' is irrelevant. Firstly there is no clear definition of what constitutes a 'different' language (some people insist that Scots is a different language from English). But more importantly, the question concerns structural diversity within the I-E group as a whole. Probably all Indian I-E languages derive from Vedic, the I-A sub-section of the Iranian subsection of I-E. There is relatively little structural diversity here. There is much greater diversity within I-E in Europe than in India. That's simply a fact. Paul

Speakers of Konkani from Goa, Karnataka and Kerala states of India barely find each other intelligible (rather like Scots and English). Yet, they are classified as a single language. Unless you've lived in these regions for a while, you are unlikely to know this fact. The most objective metric for diversity would be the number of sound changes per 100 kilometers (or such). Until someone enumerates the sound change results for a few thousand words, we cannot claim greater IE diversity in Europe as simply a fact. None of us here possibly know the vareity of a given IE branch or region since we do not really speak all IE languages. So barring the laborious sound change evidence, we only can rely on other objective metrics such as number of languages or dialects. Not to be dismissive, but Probably all, relatively little, much greater are subjective, i.e., this is what I think arguments. As usual, if anyone knows of any such data, it would save us all a lot of typing :) Codebytez | Talk 04:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Codebytez, this is not 'subjective'. Any one individual does not have to speak all these languages because this is not about personal feelings or opinions, but about the science of linguistics. This can be challenged for sure, but you have to challenge the modelling of liguistic categories. The 'number of sound changes per thousand meters' has nothing whatever to do with this. We can be fairly confident that all I-A languages derive from Vedic. Paul

It depends what you mean by "diversity". In a historical linguistic context, however, the kind of diversity being looked for isn't just number of languages (whaterver that means!) but how different they are from each other, since the amount of difference generally indicates the time depth. In terms of different branches of Indo-European, Europe has Italic, Germanic, Celtic, Slavic, Baltic, Albanian, and Greek; India just has Indo-Aryan and maybe Dardic.

The rule certainly isn't infallible, but it works most of the time; other good examples of the rules are Romance languages (Sardinian is the first branch, and the Italian "dialects" would be considered separate languages anywhere else); Slavic (contrast Russia with the Balkans); Bantu (highest diversity in Cameroon); Turkic (highest diversity in Central Asia rather than Turkey); and Austronesian (highest diversity by far in Taiwan; the Formosan languages are as different from each other as from other Austronesian languages). - Mustafaa 21:33, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that linguistic "diversity" is rather difficult to quantify. All of the Indo-European languages in India are fairly obviously members of a single family, and also quite closely related to the Iranian group. Moreover, simply counting the number of languages spoken in India will not give you an accurate picture; at least half of them are Dravidian languages, and we know those are spoken nowhere else. Smerdis of Tlön 19:00, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Officially, there are 26 dravidian languages. Out of 398 that's a small slice. Does anyone have a reference to the actual number of Dravidian languages? Codebytez | Talk 04:58, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Point of Origin

The point is, that if point of origin is a valid argument, then the alleged Aryan homeland, namely western Iran/northern Anatolia should have the largest variety of IE languages and the furthest points, western/northern europe and the Indian subcontinent must have the least. In reality, its the opposite. All I'm saying is while Linguistics is great at describing the structure and relationships between languages, any conclusion drawn using the discipline is simply a semantic jump that can rarely stand on its own.

Aryan Relics

I see that the line the total absence of Aryan relics... has been deleted. The fact of the matter is, there is no bone, artifact or piece of pottery exhibited in any museum that has been definitely proven to belong to the Aryan Invaders of 1500 B.C. (If there was such an article, we wouldnt be debating anything here, would we?) I do think that line is relevant and should be reinstated.

BTW, does anyone know why no one has bothered to exacavate the route from western Iran to Afghanistan? Any archaeological signs of the route taken by Aryan travellers (wheels/ horse bones) should be sufficient to put this matter to rest.

Codebytez | Talk 02:00, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"The point is, that if point of origin is a valid argument, then the alleged Aryan homeland, namely western Iran/northern Anatolia should have the largest variety of IE languages and the furthest points, western/northern europe and the Indian subcontinent must have the least." Before the Turks got there, that area had Greek, Anatolian, Armenian, Iranian, and Celtic (in Galatia). The only area that can really compare nowadays is the Balkans next door (Greek, Albanian/Illyrian, Slavic, Romance). Much of that diversity has been inconveniently obliterated by subsequent events, but it is nonetheless observable. India, by contrast, only has one branch of IE, unless you count English. Mere number of languages isn't the point; on a dialect continuum, drawing lines between different languages is pretty arbitrary anyway. - Mustafaa 05:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Greek/Armenian/Iranian/Celtic?. Surely, you dont count languages that are not indigenous. If not, New York City is the Aryan homeland. Codebytez | Talk 23:25, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, Celtic certainly isn't indigenous. Greek I would consider close enough to Anatolia to count, and Armenian certainly is indigenous to Anatolia (much more so than it is to Armenia!) Iranian can be disputed, but there's a good chance they've been in SE Turkey longer than they've been in Iran itself (where the Elamites. among other groups, preceded them). Of course, "indigenous" is a relative term; in the sufficiently long run, only Africans are ever indigenous! Later invasions can, of course, cause difficulties; that's part of the reason this method is not infallible. However, even these can often be detected - if you see a relatively tightly knit language family spread across a large area, as Turkic (or English!) is, then you know some sort of invading has been going on... - Mustafaa 06:03, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Good arguments. However, my objection is that the point of origin is offered into evidence as if it is an empirical formula. As we all know, New York City has the maximum density of world languages in a relatively small area. Are we to conclude that NYC is indeed the origination point of all world languages? In the 1640s there were 18 spoken languages in New York (then called New Amsterdam) when the population was around 1000. Economic opportunity, invasions, political and geographic boundaries, natural disasters, relegious persecution, etc. have far more influence in language distribution than point of origin. Point of origin arguments are not based on hard science nor rooted in empirical truth. Until the logical, scientific or mathematical basis for point of origin is stated, it is inadmissible as evidence for/against AIT. Sometimes yes, sometimes no does not qualify. Codebytez | Talk 19:44, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Sometimes yes, sometimes no" applies to virtually any historical principle. If you are concerned about its foundation, though, perhaps the best solution is to cite the linguists themselves rather than letting me argue the case, eg Lyle Campbell (Historical Linguistics, Edinburgh U. 1998, p. 352):

The other technique, called linguistic migration theory, looks at the classification (subgrouping) of the family and the geographical dispersion of the languages, and, relying on a model of maximum diversity and minimal moves, hypothesises the most likely location of the original homeland. The underlying assumption is that when a language family splits up, it is more likely for the various daughter languages to stay close to where they started out and it is less likely for them to move very far or very frequently. Therefore, turning this process around, if we look at today's geographical distribution of related languages, we can hypothesise how they got to where they are now and where they came from. This procedure deals nopt with the actual geographical spread of the languages within the family, but rather with the distribution of members of subgroups in the family. The highest branches on a family tree (the earliest splits withing the family) reflect the greatest age, and therefore the area with the greatest linguistic diversity - that is, the most representatives of the higher-order subgroups - is likely to be the homeland. This is sometimes called the centre of gravity model (after Sapir 1949:5). Lower-level branches (thopse which break up later) are also important, because they may allow us to postulate the direction of later migrations or spread of members of the family. In this model, we attempt to determine the minimum number of moves which would be required to reverse these migrations or spreads to bring the languages back to the centre of gravity of their closest relatives within their individual subgroups, and then to move the various different subgroups back to the location from which their later distribution can be accounted for with the fewest moves. In this way, by combining the location of maximum diversity and the minimum moves to get languages back to the location of the greatest diversity of their nearest relatives, we hypothesise the location of the homeland.

And for balance, a quote from the section on "Cautions concerning linguistic homelands migration theory":

(p. 359) On the whole, the inferences afforded by this method are strong, and few documented cases fail to conform. In principle, however, it is not difficult to imagine rather straightforward situations in which linguistic migration theory would fail to produce reliable results.

Well, there you go... his explanation of the reasoning is hopefully clearer than mine. - Mustafaa 07:39, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the title and some of the content of the section that was previously called 'Theory that the IE languages originated in India'. I think there is a lot of confusion between the 'Aryans' and 'Proto-Indo-Europeans', confusion that persists throughout this whole article (and has also been introduced into the Aryan race one). It's true that some Indians adopt what they call 'OIT' (Out of India Theory) - the claim that IE originated in India, but others simply claim that IE entered India much earlier than proposed and that Vedic/Aryan identity developed within India, possibly alongside the IVC. Paul

"the area of highest linguistic diversity of a language family is usually fairly close to the area of its origin": Can anyone provide any supporting evidence for this "rule of thumb"? It seems like most linguists take this on its face value, but I haven't seen any conclusive supporting evidence. Also what exactly do they mean by "linguistic diversity"? Are French and Spanish more linguistically diverse from each other than Telugu and Gujarati?

Influence in Religion

This article is about the Aryan invasion theory, not the Aryan invasion. The Aryan invasion, if it happened, may well have influenced religion. The Aryan invasion theory has not influenced religion- it has influenced the study of religion, viz. theology. So the section should be called Influence in theology. Incidentally, neither of the existing "sentences" in this section is a grammatical sentence. Markalexander100 06:51, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:68.251.112.161's contentions on Aryan invasion theory#Genetic Evidence on caste system and its origins

This study and its 2004 follow-up have many structural problems. I see that my previous article was revised without a discussion. But here is a brief summary of the problems with these studies:

- The Correleation = Causation Bias: The authors assume because of genetic similarities between Europeans and certain Indian populations, that Europeans invaded India and not vice-verse. In fact all extensive genetic studies have shown the opposite. "Contrary to established thinking, it appears that our human ancestors took a more southerly route out of Africa, traveling east across the Red Sea into what is now Yemen, and then through India and all the way to the far reaches of Australia, before they swung up into Europe." [4] (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/feature/feature.html).

- Limited Geographic Scope: The study sample was limited to one Indian southern state Andhra Pradesh. A better sample would be drawn on random from all regions of India.

some (incomplete) comments on the genetics section

Some other studies:

‘There is much greater homogenization in terms of morphological and genetic traits at the regional level’, says the report. For example, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu (esp. Iyengars) share more traits with non-Brahmins in the state than with fellow Brahmins in western or northern India. (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: N. V. Subramaniam: “The way we are. An ASI project shatters some entrenched myths”, Sunday, 10-4-1994. about a report by Kumar Suresh Singh) (...)Kailash C. Malhotra: “Detailed anthropometric surveys carried out among the people of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bengal and Tamil Nadu revealed significant regional differences within a caste and a closer resemblance between castes of different varnas within a region than between sub-populations of the caste from different regions. .... “A more detailed study among eight Brahmin castes in Maharashtra on whom 18 metric, 16 scopic and 8 genetic markers were studied, revealed not only a great heterogeneity in both morphological and genetic characteristics but also showed that 3 Brahmin castes were closer to non-Brahmin castes than [to the] other Brahmin castes. P. P. Majumdar and K. C. Malhotra (1974) observed a great deal of heterogeneity with respect to OAB blood group system among 50 Brahmin samples spread over 11 Indian states. (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: K. C. Malhotra: “Biological Dimensions to Ethnicity and caste in India”, in K. S. Singh: Ethnicity, Caste and People, Manohar, Delhi 1992, p. 65. Reference is to H. K. Rakshit: “An Anthropometric Study of the Brahmins of India”, in Man in India #46; and P. P. Majumdar & K. C. Malhotra: OAB Dynamics in India: A Statistical Study, Calcutta 1974. )

The anthropology of Harappan skeletons has shown a substantial similarity with modern populations from a nearby area (Dutta , 1984)

Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar four thousand years ago. (David Frawley, Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory)

(...) two recent articles in Current Biology (London), vol.9, nrs.22 and 24, by T. Kivisild et al. ("Deep common ancestry of Indian and Western-Eurasian mitochonrdial DNA lineages") and by Todd R. Disotell ("Human evolution: the southern route to Asia"), about genetic connections between India and "Western Eurasia". One finding is that during or before the Ice Age, a group of human beings migrated from Ethiopia and Somalia through Yemen and Oman to Gujarat and into India. The more important finding for our present purposes is that for the parameters studied, there is no north/south or Aryan/Dravidian divide in India; that one of the lineages showed a common origin between Indians and West-Asians in ca. 53,000 years before the present (this may be the spread of homo sapiens outside Africa, hence not very informative about more recent splits in the human family); that the West-Asian connection was highly minoritarian in the Indian gene pool, indicating only a small contribution by invaders from the West; and that the youngest split indicated by the genetic material dates to ca. 9,300 years BP. This neatly fits the earlier findings of non-genetic (morphological) physical anthropology, viz. that the population type of northwestern India has remained the same for at least 8,000 years. Also: "Recent work suggests that the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,00 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed." In deference to established indological opinion, they make a perfunctory nod toward the "supposed" Aryan invasion, only to state that they have found no evidence for this popular supposition...There is no trace of their descending on India after 8000 BC, since when the skeletal record shows the same population living in the Indus basis as lives there today. (Koenraad Elst)

An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al state that there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some degree. (David Frawley Update on the Aryan Invasion Theory)

Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations are between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation (Roychoudhury et al 2000).

Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa,"

One of the major points that Oppenheimer harps on is that India is the major node in Eurasia. He argues that the origin of most Eurasian haplogroups can be found in the subcontinent.

In a trail blazing work prominent geneticist Stephan Oppenheimer has convincingly argued that all the non African peoples of the world have descended from the first Out of Africa Eve mtDNA strain known as L3 and the first Out of Africa Y chromosome line labeled as M168. Moreover, South Asia and in particular India has been a major location of flowering for L3 and M168 as they spread through out the rest of the world about 90,000 years before present. The story according to Oppenheimer (2003) is as follows. The African people carrying L3 and M168 left that continent across south Red sea across the southern part of the Arabian peninsula towards Pakistan and India. On the maternal side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India the birthplace of Nasreen is uncertain tentatively placed by Oppenheimer in southern Iran or Baluchistan. Manju and Rohani (should be Rohini), Nasreen's most prolific daughter both born in India are the progenitors of all non African peoples.

The story on the paternal side is a lot more complex. M168 had three sons, of which Seth was the most important one. Seth had five sons named by Oppenheimer as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishnna. Krishnna born in India turned out to be the most prolific of Seth's sons. Krishnna through his son Ho, grandson Ruslan through Polo, and great grandson M17 through Ruslan, played a major role in the peopling of South Asian, East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (see Appendix 2, p. 374-375 of Oppenheimer 2003). Oppenheimer (2003) has this to say about M17 and his father Ruslan:

"For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity *characterizes* its presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India', (p. 152)."

"Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia (p. 153)."

Indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia.

See [5] (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/) and [6] (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/realeve.html)

Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen report on their study of the migration of genetic traits (with reference to AIT advocate Asko Parpola): “Parpola’s suggestion of movement of Proto-Rg-Vedic Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley by 1800 BC is not supported by our data. Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era.”(Hemphill & Christensen: “The Oxus Civilization as a Link between East and West: A Non-Metric Analysis of Bronze Age Bactrain Biological Affinities”, paper read at the South Asia Conference, 3-5 November 1994, Madison, Wisconsin; p. 13. ) The inflow which they do find, around the turn of the Christian era, is apparently that of the well-known Shaka and Kushana invasions. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy reaches similar conclusions from his physical-anthropological data: “Evidence of demographic discontinuities is present in our study, but the first occurs between 6000 and 4500 BC (a separation of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations of Mehrgarh) and the second is after 800 BC, the discontinuity being between the peoples of Harappa, Chalcolithic Mehrgarh and post-Harappan Timargarha on the one hand and the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age inhabitants of Sarai Khola on the other. (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. On p. 42, Kennedy quotes the suggestion that “not only the end of the [Harappan] cities but even their initial impetus may have been due to Indo-European speaking peoples”, by B. and F. R. Allchin: The Birth of Indian Civilization, Penguin 1968, p. 144. ).....“Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. )

Archaeogenetics: The skeletons of Timargarha (“Vedic Aryans”) are similar to the the ones of the ancient Harappans. The Indus-Valley population appears, on the available evidence, to have remained more or less stable to the present day.”There are no indications that the racial composition and distribution of the Indian population has substantially changed since the start of the IE dispersal, which cannot reasonably be placed much earlier than 6,000 BC.(K. Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate)

Limited study: The Bamshad study is limited to one single Indian state, Andrah Pradesh. It is also limited to a small sample size of people.

Michael Bamshad also wrote in 2004: In India alone, for example, thousands of different castes/sub-castes and ~450 tribal groups comprising approximately one-fifth of the world population have been documented, but molecular genetic data are available for only a handful. Indeed, much of the genetic data available on many populationsis limited to genotypes of the mitochondrial genomeand the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome. But assessments of patterns of variation based onsingle-locus analyses fundamentally lack power. What is needed instead is an unbiased sampling of variation (for example, through resequencing) across the genome from individuals in well-characterized communities sampled from contiguous geographical regions throughout the world.(DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE, Michael Bamshad et al, 2004)

The Michael Bamshad et al (2001) study:

The coalescence estimate of Indian haplogroup-M haplotypes is 48,000 ± 1500 yr, suggesting that Indian-specific mtDNA haplotypes split from a proto-Asian ancestor in the late Pleistocene.

This does not agree with other studies. The "M" group is said to be the earliest "out of Africa" group. The earliest out of africa goes back to some 120 -> 170 K years, depending on who writes what. The timeline doesn't agree. The earliest "out of Africa" group WAS the wrongly termed "proto-Asian ancestor". It can't be "proto" anything as in the context it is an artificial and theoretical concept. This claim of "proto-" ASSUMES an existence, unproved and undefined earlier group of people. It is a totally unsubstantiated claim and belongs with the fairies. [7] (http://www.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk/genetics/mtDNAworld/one.html)

Slide no3 indicates the first haplogroup-M. The following slide shows Australia and refer to Mungo Man, older than 40K years. Population in Australia is argued to go back to about 60 -> 65K ago, and are indeed related to people in India. This places early HS (Homo Sapien) in India before the attributed date in the study.

Therefore, to resolve further the relationships of Europeans and Asians to contemporary Indian populations, we defined the identities of specific mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes. ...... defines a haplogroup ... M,... (...)Most of the common haplotypes found in Telugu- and Hindi-speaking caste populations belong to haplogroup M...

This is absolute CRAP! Table 2 makes this a lie, it shows a similar Dravidic % (if that table can be understood at all)!

Haplogroup M is but ONE of MANY haplogroups all people have. It is totally BOGUS to claim anything on a single haplogroup alone. It is far, far too narrow a comparisonto be of any value. FACT: ALL people (as a group of people) share haplotypes. To what extent is the guide, is the one that indicates, in the case of mtDNA, a maternal migration and admixture of people. Focusing on a single haplogroup HIDES a lot of admixture of other groups.

The proof is this. In fig 2 notes it says "ancestral to haplogroups B, F, H, T, J, V, and U ". The "U2" is a sub group of U.... which is a subgroup of V, IIRC.

Also "About 99% of European mtDNAs fall into one of ten haplogroups: H, I, J, K, M, T, U, V, W or X" - (Torroni et al. 1996a). So from this we see that the common "European" hap-groups are, H, J, M, T, V, U at the very least. Note "H" is also an African hap. The other haplogroups identified in fig 2 notes B, F belong to Mongolian -> Siberian areas, while others point to China and Asia in general.

Table 2. MtDNA Haplogroup Frequencies in Dravidic and Hindi-Speaking Indians

God only knows what they intend to show with this table. The % in "()" are error margins. These error margins are often as large as the claimed incident of haplotype. But there are TWO very serious erroneous claims! There are NO haplogroup known as "asian" (after all INDIA is in ASIA). There are NO haplogroup known as "West Eurasian"!! It is wrong to show BOTH the top level haplogroup AND the sub-groups as well - they are already in the top level count! This on its own renders the table USELESS, even IF one was able to decipher what they hell they try to show with it.

It is also possible that haplotypes with an older coalescence were introduced by Dravidians, This claim is pure fluff and raw speculation.

Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers ... How odd!! Up to this point they speak ot mtDNA which is NOT part of the nucleus of a cell, as an autosome is (part of the non-sex chromosomes). Then they go on and say "The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes...." is that intended as "caste Y" or "Y-chromosomes" - I'll assume the latter. Strictly speaking there is no "Y-chromosome", as it is only counted as HALF a chromosome - and this is one "half" that cannot and is not called an "autosome".

The autosomal Alu and biallelic Y-chromosome polymorphisms, in contrast, have a slower rate of drift than Y-chromosome STRs because of a higher effective population size, and their mutation rate is very low. Thus, the Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms and autosomal Alu markers may serve as more stable markers of worldwide population affinities.

Fact is that Y-chromosomes are rather prone to drift, and are NOT good for long term studies. Hell the oldest Y-chromosome "Adam" is only 80K years, while the mtDNA Eve is about double that. This means certain lineages of Y-chromosomes have disappeared completely. See: [8] (http://www.ramsdale.org/dna13.htm)

A human has 23 PAIRS of chromosomes, only ONE is not an autosome, chromosome 23 and it is the sex chromosome of XY or XX. Some count this as TWO chromosomes X AND Y. The Y-chromosome has a portion that is re-mixed at every passing, and an offspring (male only) has merely a 25% chance of inheriting the fathers same genes. See fig 1, it is the top half, the important bits of a person's physical makeup. The rest of it is what makes a person a male, produces more testosterone than oestrogen... etc etc....

The study mentions 5 CLASSES of casts, the 5th being the "untouchables". Yet the study itself only recognises 3 CLASSES of humans, but that claim is contradicted in the Abstract, where it says "...265 males from eight castes of different rank...." -the sample size and composition. BUT then they also go on to say they compared them to ".....and other Indians." among others!! It therefor cannot support anything claimed for it, as it crosses the class boundaries. The study is LIMITED in geographic scope, otherwise appears to have a reasonable numbers purely - I would have liked family connection to be far more remote than the study's criteria was.

Conclusion: The study is seriously lacking in that it does NOT show, rather than what it DOES show. A study WITHIN "classes" always shows a greater genetic diversity than there ever is BETWEEN "classes". This is missing as the three groups have been averaged to make the diversity disappear.

There is a division based on language - a serious danger exists that it is understood by some that a "language" is inherited or "genetic based".... or that it is an "ethnicity" therefor classification as "Ubermenchen" or not is justified on the basis of language.

The abstract says: "For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians." - this does give a hint of the least difference is BETWEEN groups. That is to say "most similar to each other"!! But the claim "most similar to Asians" is not rocket science either, as (1) India IS part of Asia. (2) that was "the road" early migration took to the rest of SE and E Asia, Australia and PNG and therefor NZ as well (though via a much longer road). A road that began in Africa and eventually ended up in the Americas and Australasia.

Also, even though the Bamshad study is more constructed to support a theory, than to illuminate the facts, some of the conclusions reached in the Bamshad 2001 paper are not mentionned in the article:

The distance between Europeans and lower castes is larger than the distance between Europeans and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste- European distance.

This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya (an upper caste), whose members served as warriors, are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data not shown).

This pattern is further accentuated by separating the European population into Northern, Southern, and Eastern Europeans; each caste group is most closely related to Eastern Europeans.

Unlike the mtDNA papers, there are those who dispute the exogenous origins of the haplogroups in question, so I tend to think that a predominantly indigenous (that is, lineages extent in South Asia prior to 10,000 years ago) narrative is more probable (that is, the case for mtDNA being indigenous is stronger than that of the Y being exogenous).

The similarities between upper castes and Eastern Europeans should not be overplayed; it really depends what locus you look at. Some loci (especially on the Y) appear to be very similar to Eastern European populations among upper castes, while some autosomal loci do not.

some references:

Important references are the studies of Kivisild et al. They include a lot of relevant information that cannot be summarized here. See the links. Then there are also studies by Metspalu, Hemphill, Kennedy, etc.

Kivisild et al 1999, Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages [9] (http://jorde-lab.genetics.utah.edu/elibrary/Kivisild_1999.pdf)

Kivilsind et al 1999b, The Place of the Indian mtDNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World [10] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild1999b.pdf)

Kivisild et al 2000, An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond [11] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2000.pdf)

Kivilsid et al 2003a, The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India [12] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf)

Kivilsid et al 2003b, The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal

and Caste Populations [13] (http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2003_v72_p313-332.pdf)

Mait Metspalu et al, 2004: Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans [14] (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/5/26/abstract) and [15] (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=516768)

Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa," See also [16] (http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/) and [17] (http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/realeve/realeve.html)

Science Forum [18] (http://www.groupsrv.com/science/viewtopic.php?t=17070&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

Koenraad Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate [19] (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/)

N.S. Rajaram [20] (http://www.atributetohinduism.com/articles_aryan_invasion_theory/35.htm)

--Ilyacqd 15:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Judging dead people by appearance is not always accurate

mtDNA of Scytho-Siberian skeleton Human Biology 76.1 (2004) 109-125

Genetic Analysis of a Scytho-Siberian Skeleton and Its Implications for Ancient Central Asian Migrations

François-X. Ricaut et al.

Abstract The excavation of a frozen grave on the Kizil site (dated to be 2500 years old) in the Altai Republic (Central Asia) revealed a skeleton belonging to the Scytho-Siberian population. DNA was extracted from a bone sample and analyzed by autosomal STRs (short tandem repeats) and by sequencing the hypervariable region I (HV1) of the mitochondrial DNA. The resulting STR profile, mitochondrial haplotype, and haplogroup were compared with data from modern Eurasian and northern native American populations and were found only in European populations historically influenced by ancient nomadic tribes of Central Asia.

...

The mutations at nucleotide position 16147 C→A, 16172 T→C, 16223 C→T, 16248 C→T, and 16355 C→T correspond to substitutions characteristic of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a (Richards et al. 2000). The haplotype comparison with the mtDNA sequences of 8534 individuals showed that this sequence was not found in any other population.

...

The N1a haplogroup was not observed among the native American, east Asian, Siberian, Central Asian, and western European populations. The geographic distribution of haplogroup N1a is restricted to regions neighboring the Eurasian steppe zone. Its frequency is very low, less than 1.5% (Table 6), in the populations located in the western and southwestern areas of the Eurasian steppe. Haplogroup N1a is, however, more frequent in the populations of the southeastern region of the Eurasian steppe, as in Iran (but only 12 individuals were studied) and southeastern India (Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh territories). More precisely, in India haplogroup N1a is absent from the Dravidic-speaking population and is present in only five Indo-Aryan-speaking individuals, four of whom belonged to the Havik group, an upper Brahman caste (Mountain et al. 1995).

...

The absence of the Eurasian haplogroup N1a in the 490 modern individuals of Central Asia (Shields et al. 1993; Kolman et al. 1996; Comas et al. 1998; Derenko et al. 2000; Yao et al. 2000; Yao, Nie et al. 2002) suggests changes in the genetic structure of Central Asian populations, probably as a result of Asian population movements to the west during the past 2500 years.

AAPA 2004

East of Eden, west of Cathay: An investigation of Bronze Age interactions along the Great Silk Road.

B.E. Hemphill.

The Great Silk Road has long been known as a conduit for contacts between East and West. Until recently, these interactions were believed to date no earlier than the second century B.C. However, recent discoveries in the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang (western China) suggest that initial contact may have occurred during the first half of the second millennium B.C. The site of Yanbulaq has been offered as empirical evidence for direct physical contact between Eastern and Western populations, due to architectural, agricultural, and metallurgical practices like those from the West, ceramic vessels like those from the East, and human remains identified as encompassing both Europoid and Mongoloid physical types.

Eight cranial measurements from 30 Aeneolithic, Bronze Age, Iron Age and modern samples, encompassing 1505 adults from the Russian steppe, China, Central Asia, Iran, Tibet, Nepal and the Indus Valley were compared to test whether those inhabitants of Yanbulaq identified as Europoid and Mongoloid exhibit closest phenetic affinities to Russian steppe and Chinese samples, respectively. Differences between samples were compared with Mahalanobis generalized distance (d2), and patterns of phenetic affinity were assessed with cluster analysis, multidimensional scaling, and principal coordinates analysis.

Results indicate that, despite identification as Europoid and Mongoloid, inhabitants of Yanbulaq exhibit closest affinities to one another. No one recovered from Yanbulaq exhibits affinity to Russian steppe samples. Rather, the people of Yanbulaq possess closest affinities to other Bronze Age Tarim Basin dwellers, intermediate affinities to residents of the Indus Valley, and only distant affinities to Chinese and Tibetan samples

Neutrality

This is about the section currently titled “Genetic Evidence on caste system and its origins.”

The section on genetics is a one sided POV (much of it originated from User Water Fish and Mustafaa, see talk and main page), the other side is mentioned in only one single sentence: (However see Kivisild [7] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003b.pdf) and [8] (http://evolutsioon.ut.ee/publications/Kivisild2003a.pdf),for a slightly different view.)

There are genetic studies that come to different conclusions than the studies by Michael Bamshad. To be NPOV, both sides should be (equally) mentionned.

See the comments under some (incomplete) comments on the genetics section. (See above.)

To be NPOV, the genetics section of the article should a) also mention the genetic studies that come to different conclusions (e.g. the studies of Kivisild), and in similar length. The section only focuses on one or two studies, without discussing in a similar length other studies which come to different conclusions. For a npov view in the article, conclusions reached in other studies (e.g. Kivisild, Brian E. Hemphill, Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, Mait Metspalu, etc.) should also be discussed. and b) have a more critical approach.(see also comments above) --Ilyacqd 23:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hello Dbachmann, please read the comments I made above. I also recommend to read a few of the abstracts and conclusions of the studies of Kivisild posted above under references (links). I was thinking to write a text summarizing the main points of the above information. Please understand that unfortunately I won't have time to work on this in the next two months. I was also hoping that somebody who is a geneticist would possibly write something about some of the different studies mentioned above. I don't know very much about genetics, and when I wrote the above notes, I knew even a lot less about it than I do now. But despite this, the information given above, even incomplete as it is, is relevant to the genetics section of the article.

Regards, --Ilyacqd 22:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ok, thanks. maybe we can restrict the npov warning to that section then? there is Template:SectNPOV. And, what on earth is the meaning of "'gotra' system of mating, which results in non-random samples."? link gotra system of mating, or explain. I cannot access Kivisild (broken links) dab (ᛏ) 14:31, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not taking either side as I don't have complete information. AFIK, there is a practice among Brahmins of not marrying people belonging to the same Gotra, which is inherited patrilineally by the children. Marrying within the same Gotra is considered to be on par with incest. I'm not sure if it prohibits marrying people within or outside the gotra. Different castes have similar prohibitions, some of which is matrilineally inherited. This is supposed to prevent inbreeding, but is ineffective when it comes to patrilineal relationships. -- Sundar 15:08, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if the above results in non-random samples. -- Sundar 15:10, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

The point about gotra is that if a sample is taken from a small area or caste or tribe(where all the males would be desended from a single male under the gotra system),the frequency and diversity would be over/under estimated.In Kivisilds paper he has taken samples from a wide are (the whole of the Punjab) and various castes.This is more likely to be representitive of the population as a whole.If you take a random sample of a single group or caste the result would be skewed,this would not represent a accurate sample.

Caste and Aryans, is there a relationship ?

However, most of the pro-invasionist papers imply that R1a1 is the genetic marker that is representative of an invasion, due to its high frequency in Euro-asia. But an equally likely genetic marker is haplogroup L. This haplogroup is present in Greek, Turkish, Lebonese, Iranians, Central Asian and Indian populations (and Europe, see Kivisild). This marker is found in locations where written sources record the presence of Indo-European languages and people: i.e. Greek, Hittite, Hyksos, Mitanni, Iranians and Indians. Its peak frequency is found in Indo-Iranian populations. Another possible marker is J2. Also the 'Western Euroasian' components that are found in Indian mtdna show a distribution closer to that found in the Southern Caucasus and Middle East, than in Eastern Europe. There is also the question of why one should assume only one Y haplogroup is representative of the Aryan gene pool. R1a1, R1b, J2, L and H - all of which are present in India and Central and West Asia - are all possibilities.

Interestingly,studies show that there has been very little mixing of the male line between castes,clans for sometime.They show distinct haplotypes even though many clans(castes) within a region have similar haplogroups.For instance North West Indians contain mainly haplogroups R1a1,R1b,J2 and L ,yet there is very little sharing of haplotypes with other castes(clans) in the same region.In fact according to the yhrd.org database Jats (mainly Jat Sikhs(Punjab)) have more haplotypes in common with Germans ,Balts and Slavs (between 2%-10% ,1-5 haplotypes ,mainly R1a1) than with neighbouring Indo-Iranians.The question arises that if Aryans came from outside India(or Pakistan) ,how is it that they where able to separate into distinct clans without any of the clans sharing a considerable percentage of haplotypes?.[21] (http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol80No3/125.pdf)

If we make a similar comparison within European populations we see these populations share a number of haplotypes (R1b?).For example comparing Irish-Italian haplotypes using the Yhrd.org database,we see that they share a considerable frequency ,even though these two populations have been separated from each other by the Alps, the Western European landmass and the English Channel since the end of the last ice age,(or at least since Celtic migrations relating to the spread of the Urnfield culture about 3000 years ago.

Even if one assumes a high mutation rate for haplotypes,the Irish-Italian example shows that for a complete mismatch of Y chromosome haplotypes in the Indo-Iranians to occur (as seems to be the case),these castes(clans) would need to have formed much earlier than the supposed aryan invasion about 3500 years ago ,(possibly as far back as the end of the last ice age).Since the mismatch in the Indo-Iranians seems to apply within all haplogroups (J2,L,R1a1,R1b) one has to question associating the Kurgan culture with the origin of R1a1 .Alternatively ,if we assume a more recent separation of castes(clans),we are still left with the result that before separation the population consisted of a mixture of haplogroups (J2,L,R1b,R1a1).Hence the Kurgan/Aryan/caste/R1a1 connection is untenable,(although this does not exclude the possibility that Aryan males consisted of a subset of R1a1)

I now added some material to the article. I couldn't to this earlier because I hadn't the time. I think I will remove the npov tag from the text. But that does not mean that I think that the section is completely npov, but that now at least other studies are mentioned and discussed in more than approx. one sentence, and not only the study of Bamshad (2001). I think that the section could still be much improved. It would be nice if a geneticist could to this. Since I'm not a geneticist, I couldn't of course write as much as I otherwise would have done. There's still a lot of information that could be added, and the results of the Bamshad study, despite its length in the article are only mentionned but not discussed or criticized. --Ilyacqd 17:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anti AIT summaries by 66.46.232.178

There seem to be some repeated additions - repeatedly deleted by Water Fish - here that need to be challenged. The author states:

"Although Max Muller proposed migration of the speaking people responsible for the phonologically regularities of commonly used words in different Indo-European vocabulary, it is only but one of the possible process of language transfer. The words can be transferred through diffusion to neighboring areas and keep moving like a wave ending up influencing the languages of far off places. It also takes place by loan-words from one culture to another usually associated with the development of new products or processes."

This is not an accurate account of the concept of a language group. There is no support that I know of for the claim that individual loan-words can just be accumulated to the point that a language becomes sufficiently similar to another one to be deemed part of the same group. The 'language group' concept is defined by systematic similarities and differences in grammar and vocabulary. There's no way that one language can just 'merge' into another one, as seems to be implied here.

"There are no archaeological evidences suggesting people invading Indian sub-continent in successive waves. It is highly unlikely that Aryan people took off from their homelands with the specific purpose of invading Indian sub-continent. They must be the people on the move for any of a number of possible reasons."

As far as I know, no-one has ever suggested that a nation called 'the Aryans' decided one day to invade and take over India like Hitler invaded Russia. This is the stawiest of straw men. It was always assumed that the 'invasion', if it occurred, took the form of progressive incursions.

"The Neolithic age came to Indian sub-continent much earlier than previously thought. A French archaeologist named Jean-Francois Jarrige, has conducted an outstandingly successful excavation at the site of Mehrgarh, near the Bolan pass in Balochistan. Most surprising of this excavation is the evidence of cultivation of cereal crops (barley, einkorn, emmer and wheat) dating back to circa 6000 BC."

What relevance does this evidence have to claims of Aryan Invasion? There seems to be a confusion here with Renfrew's theories about a correspondence between IE and Neolithic expansion.

"Not only it is impossible for small bands of invaders to overtake tens of millions of people; it also suggests a cultural or trading relationship between Mesopotamia, Anatolia and Indian sub-continent as a result of the cultivation of cereals of Mesopotamian origin. Thus appearance of the names of Indian deities in Hittites-Mittani accord is irrelevant to a supposed Aryan invasion from the northwest."

Fistly the Aryans are not supposed to have supplanted the entire population of India, only the north. Secondly, language replacement is not the same as total population replacement, as we know from the spread of Latin in France and English in Britain. The point about the Mitanni and Hittites seems to be similar to the 'merging' claim. Sure, the presence of Vedic gods in their pantheon is not proof of their distinctive Aryan/IE identity - but it is evidence of ethnic connections.

"Being semi-nomadic pastoral should actually be a handicap to Aryans. It was farming which increased the population very quickly. The total number of Aryans must have remained lower than farming communities."

By that logic no invasion of Huns ever occurred. Patstoral culture may create a more mobile population conducive to military elites and to expansionist adaptability.

"Both horses and chariots were already present in the Indus valley. The Neolithic age and links with Mesopotamian and Anatolian civilizations during the preceding 4000 years must have introduced horses to the Indus valley."

Evidence for this is weak. Again ther dogmatism here ('must') is surely inappropriate. But anyway - it's what you do with it that counts. The presence of horses does not mean that there was a culture of horse-use for military purposes.

"The current scholarship suggests Indus valley to be a plural society with archaic Sanskrit speaking living side by side with Dravidians, Australoids (speaking Munda languages) as well as Negroid and some Mongoloids."

This equation of race-categories with language is problematic. I know of no 'current scholarship' that asserts that Sanskrit existed side by side with Munda and Dravidian - still less that these language differences can be equated with race categories. It's possible, but it's speculation so far as I know.

"It is almost certain that Aryan invasion never took place and Hinduism is the legacy of Aryan/ non-Aryan Indians. The Rig-Veda in archaic Sanskrit was in the making as far back as Mehrgarh flourishing period of circa 6000 BC."

There is no justification for these assertions at all IMO, certainly not the view that Sanskrit existed in India as far back as 6000 BC. It certainly cannot be claimed that this is 'almost certain'.

"coinciding with the arrival of Mediterranean people (Dravidians) through Bolan pass in Balochistan."

There is a suggestion that Dravidian is related to Elamite, but I don't see how that makes the Dravidians 'Mediterranian people'. Where does this concept come from? user: Paul Barlow

Article needs references

This article no longer complies with the guidelines for featured articles, namely it doesn't cite sources. This can be fixed by adding a References section listing the original sources used to write this article. If a references section is not added, the article might be nominated for removal from the Featured Article list. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 13:38, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

Still needs references (e.g. for the alleged genetic examination of ancient Indus-Valley dwellers. What did they use? bones? mummies?). Also, why is the NPOV warning here, and what are the disputed points? dab (ᛏ) 11:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello Dbachmann, please see my reply under "Neutrality".

Was Max Müller a 'missionary?

The following sentence has been repeatedly added by an anonymous contributor (65.50.145.205). "Müller was a Christian missionary; therefore he looked to undermine the superior civilization and religion of India, Hinduism." Firstly, this is is inappropriate because it is thouroughly POV to assert that India has a 'superior civiliation and religion'. Secondly it is false to say that Müller was a missionary. He was not a clergyman. He was a philologist. See Nirad Chaudhuri's "Scholar extraordinary : the life of Friedrich Max Müller". Müller failed to get the post of Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford because he was not a 'missionary', but was too sympathetic to non-Christian religions - and Hinduism in particular. After all, it was Müller's lectures that were described by a bishop as "a crusade against divine revelation, against Jesus Christ and Christianity". Yes, that was Max Müller the alleged 'Christian missionary.'

Monier Monier-Williams, the person who did get the job, was indeed missionary in his intent towards India, as he indicated in his inaugural lecture ("the special object of his munificent bequest [the chair] was to promote the translation of Scriptures into Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the conversion of the natives of India to the Christian religion."). None of this has anything but the most oblique relevance to AIT. Also, strangely, Monier Williams has been largely forgotten by Indians today, and for unfathomable reasons some Indians have displaced this complaint onto Müller, a writer and scholar who did more to create Western interest in Hindu thought than almost any other! Anyone who reads Müller's books cannot possibly see him as a 'missionary'.

However, it's true that he was a Christian, and at the very end of his life he did try to get some of the members of the Brahmo Samaj to declare themselves to be Christian. They were very surprised by this, given his record as a supported of Hindu spirituality. I think it was very much a case of an old man wanting to believe that he could achieve religious fusion: that the 'best' of Christianity was identical to the 'best' of Hinduism.

Aramaic and the Persians

(However note the use of Aramaic as the official language of the Persian empire).

I'm sorry, this doesn't mean anything to me. Perhaps the significance could be elucidated?

I've tried to elucidate it. I think the point is that Darius's decision to adopt Aramaic as the official language of the empire was motivated by administrative considerations, not by the supplanting of 'Aryan' peoples with 'Semitic' ones in Persia at that point. I'm not sure that the point is valid, because it really applies to the 'Semitic' part of the Persian empire, not to Persia itself. But I'll leave it, as it at least points to the difficulties of equating language change with ethnic change. Paul B 10:55, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.

State formation and replacement of Languages

State formaton and replacment of languages is valid .A state enables a small group of people to impose their language on a large populations eg Turkey.According to Han and Roman histories Scythians invaded India on mass they spoke an Iranian Language.Coins of Scythian(Saka),Greeks and Kushans used Greek Iranian and Indic languages.Most of the people of punjab are believed to be of Saka (Scythian)origin,yet all speak Indo-Aryan language Punjabi, which contains some turkish and arabic words.They probably now speak indic languages due to the spread of hinduism and buddism and the later dominance of the Gupta empire.Pastun speak an Iranian Language yet they are genetically identical to Punjabis ,more or less.They have been less influenced by Indic states due to they nomadic life style and geography ,unlike Sindh which has large cities and the people speak sindhi, an indo-aryan language.The Punjabis may have spoken many Indo-european languages before the spread of Indo-aryan.Indo-aryan with its dravidian elements may have been introduced from the east or south.There is no written evidence that German or Slavic where spoken in europe before 500BC.In fact germanic texts date no earlier than 200AD.Also note the uncertain position of various kashmiri languages and the close proximity of tocharian (Kashgar is accessable via mountain passes to and from kashmir)(but we await genetics results of tarim mummies which are soon to be published)

Internal evidence from the Rig Veda

Although one might say these are metaphorical verses for some type of spiritual victory, rather than literal histories, one also has to wonder just what kind of experiences one would have to have to understand such metaphors, to invent such metaphors. Therefore, perhaps they are not metaphors after all.

"Let these who have no weapons suffer sorrow." RV4.5.14 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv04005.htm)

"Upstanding in the Car the skilful Charioteer guides his strong Horses on whithersoe'er he will" RV6.75.6 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv06075.htm)

"Thou, Indra, also smotest down Kulitara's son Sambara, The Dasa, from the lofty hill. Of Dasa Varcin's thou didst slay the hundred thousand and the five, Crushed like the fellies, of a car.... For Divodasa, him who brought oblation, 1ndra overthrew A hundred fortresses of stone. The thirty thousand Disas he with magic power and weapons sent To slumber, for Dabhiti's sake." RV4.30.14-15 and .20-21 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv04030.htm)

"Thou, kindly giving Raji to Pithinas, slewest with might, at once, the sixty thousand...So may we he thy friends, thy best beloved, O Indra, at this holy invocation... Best be Pratardani, illustrious ruler, in slaying foemen and in gaining riches" RV 6.26.6 and .8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv06026.htm)

"He, self-reliant, mighty and triumphant, brought low the dear head of the wicked Dasas. Indra the Vritra-slayer, Fort-destroyer, scattered the Dasa hosts who dwelt in darkness. For men hath he created earth and waters, and ever helped the prayer of him who worships. To him in might the Gods have ever yielded, to Indra in the tumult of battle. When in his arms they laid the bolt, he slaughtered the Dasyus and cast down their forts of iron." RV 2.20.7-8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv02020.htm)

"Lower than all besides hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas. Ye drave away, ye put to death the foemen, and took great vengeance with your murdering weapons" RV4.28 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv04028.htm)

"They laud the mighty acts of him the Mighty, the many glorious deeds performed by Indra. He in his strength, with all-surpassing prowess, through wondrous arts crushed the malignant Dasyus...Indra obtained the Cow who feedeth many. Treasure of gold he won; he smote the Dasyus, and gave protection to the Aryan colour." RV3.34.6 and .9 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv03034.htm)

I'd like to point out that one contemporary interpretation of the invasion theory cannot be used to justify imperialism; namely the Chalice and the Blade theory of Rianne Eisler, which doesn't concern South Asia much at all, but points out that advanced cultures were frequently invaded by less advanced ones, who often had offspring with the females among the original inhabitants. Rather than justifying imperialism, Eisler's theory reveals its consequences. --Munge 07:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello Munge. It is not possible to answer such a complex theme like the Rig Veda in a few lines. A lot has been written about the Rig Veda by writers like David Frawley, Shrikant Talageri, Subhash Kak and many more. I note that in four of your citations the term Dasa or Dasyu occurs. It was suggested by some early orientalists that Dasa or Dasyu might refer to Dravidian, a view that is now generally considered as incorrect (that is, by believers in a migrationist/invasionist and by believers in a indigenious scenario). There is a lot of information about the Rig Veda (apart from the Sanskrit text itself), but some good starting points are:

About different interpretations of the Rig Veda: Shrikant Talageri (http://www.voi.org/books/rig/ch8.htm)
About Indra: Koenraad Elst (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch47.htm), David Frawley (http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/myth_aryan_invasion/destroyers_of_cities/page1.htm)
About Dasa and Dasyu: Koenraad Elst (http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/ch48.htm)

Regards, --Machaon 20:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nobody reads the Bible and states that it implies a mass invasion of Jews into Europe.

Lack of actual material

I know the AIT is a very sensitive issue, particularly because of its open criticism of Hinduism and Persian influence (which is supposed to have to led to "Islamisation" of South Asia), but I went through the article and after my first perusal, it appears that the article is very ambivalent in its tone. The actual theory is never really explained; neither are its implications! While the parts on alternate theories are very important, they make little sense unless the reader is first informed why such oppositions might exist. For example, little or no mention is made of how the AIT proponents constantly try to potray Ravana as a hero and Ram as a failed king and how AIT is used as a way to consider non-Dravidians as invadors of India rather than natives. I completely agree that those are POVs but well that's what the theory is made to imply. If the theory itself has POVs what can be done. We can't start changing Nazi theories that Aryans were the only innovative race! I am not an expert on this issue, but do other wikipedians feel that the article needs more material on the actual theory and its implications, rather than having 80% of the article discuss oppositions to the theory? -- 65.95.33.34 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the ideas of Nazis and other Aryanists as such are covered in the Articles Aryan and Aryan race. The latter also discusses the point that AIT can be used to define Dravidians as 'natives' and Indo-Aryans as 'invaders', as does the article Dravidian race. I don't think the Aryanist ideas are central here, since this aricle is about whether or not Vedic culture emerged as a result of the migrations of IE speakers into into India. The point about Dravidian identity is covered. I don't reallt understand your point about Ravana and Ram. Which AIT proponents present Ram as a 'failed king'? I don't think the theory itself has POVs', as you put it. In itself it's a fairly neutral question. After all the history of the world is full of invasions and migrations. Most countries have experienced various 'waves' of migration. There's nothing special or unique about this one. It's only significant because this one, if it occurred, has implicationds for some entrenched ideologies and sensitivities. Paul B 14.00 18 March (UCT)

remove sentence

I am removing this sentence added on 28 March by anonymous user 69.65.155.66.

"It is believed that European interests can be reflected in the formation of this theory by disregarding that the Aryans were originally from India and migrated to Europe."

Very few people believe these days that the "Aryans" (in the sense of PIEs) came 'originally' from India and migrated into Europe, though that was certainly a view held by August Wilhelm von Schlegel and other early Indo-Europeanists. The basic PIE migration model of a latish spread into India was and is entirely logical on linguistic gounds. India is a very unlikely starting point. Other questions - dating of events; relationship between proto I-As, I-Is and PIEs - remain a matter of legitimate debate. Paul B 8 April, 2005, 13:28 (UTC)

It seems the above contributor has not been reading this article,The fact that the Aryan/Indo-European homeland has in european eyes moved from India to the Baltic and back East again to the urals,all of which has been based on "facts".It is likely this homeland based on new facts will shift again (much like the nomadic Indo-Europeans).The Indus valley is a large area it is certain that is has accommadated many languages over the last 50,000 Years.

Of course I've read the article, but I don't think you quite get the point I was trying to make. Maybe I wasn't clear. Apart from very early Indo-Europeanists, the notion that the IE languages as a whole began in India has very few scholarly adherents and has not had for 150 years. There are legitimate reasons to take the view that there was a late spread into India, so I think it is misleading to say that 'European interests' were served by denying an Indian stating point. The "India or Europe" antithesis is itself misleading. How was it in 'European interests' to develop the Central Asian migration model? As for the claim that the 'homeland' will move as new evidence comes availible, yes, probably it will. That's how we progress. It's also worth remembering that the concept of a 'homeland' is itself a kind of fiction. After all, the 'first' speakers were not really the first. They were preceded by other speakers of a language that was the 'PIE' of PIE, as it were. And they had to have to got where they were from somewhere else! So I think it's really about how we can usefully model stages of development.Paul B 21 Apr 2005, 19:07 (UTC)

move?

both "Aryan" and "invasion" are outdated (19th century) terminology that smack of colonialism. Much of the hostility the concept receives is due to this terminology. In contemporary terms, it is properly called Indo-Aryan migration, so I suggest we move the article there. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm OK with it. -- Sundar (talk • contribs) 11:24, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

I would agree with such a move. Indo-Aryan migration for the migration of Indo-Aryan people and/or languages would be better and less pov. It would also be less pov because both scholars from the migrationist school and from the Indigenous Aryan school believe in a Indo-Aryan migration. The latter do usually believe in a migration of Indo-Aryan speakers or languages from the Northwest of India to the rest of India, but argue that there is no evidence that there was a migration or invasion of Vedic people from outside of India to NW-India. And also the migrationists themselves speak today of a migration rather than an invasion, using more subtle models of language change. Perhaps another possibility would be to make of "Aryan invasion theory" a disambiguation page, because the theory does not only apply to India (although the present article does not reflect this, perhaps because it is the best known variant), but more generally to migrations (or invasions) of speakers of Indo-European, Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan languages in Eurasia between ca. 3000-1000 BC. The concept of the Aryan Invasion Theory from the very beginning (Max Müller's idea of the expansion of IE-languages from an hypothetical Urheimat in Central Asia) does also apply to the migration of IE/IA-languages and/or speakers to Iran, Central Asia, Mesopotamia (the Mitanni), Europe (Kurgan, IE-languages), Bactria-Sogdiana, Afghanistan etc. So perhaps another possibility would be to make a disambiguation page that links to Indo-Aryan migration, Indo-Iranian migration, Mitanni, Kurgan, BMAC, IE-languages, etc. I think you're right that the current title is outdated terminology, for example Edwin Bryant in his book on the Indo-Aryan migration debate (2001, p.306) writes: "In actual fact, no informed Western scholar speaks of "invasions" anymore anyway; more subtle models of language change and more nuanced forms of migrations are currently in vogue." Regards, --Machaon 14:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree about the argument against the AIT label, but I think we should be cautious. "Aryan Invasion Theory" and its abbreviation (AIT) is very well established. It is the most familar term, and is widely used elsewhere. As far as I know, it is only used to refer to the advent of I-A peoples in India/Pakistan, and not to the supposed invasions of "Aryans" into anywhere else. If readers have come across the phrase Aryan Invasion Theory in a book or website it will almost certainly be a reference to India. However, I do agree that the article as it stands is very confusing because of the multiple overlapping uses of the A-word. It's so easy to slide between different meanings. Nevertheless trying to undo that would be a mammoth task. As it stands, the article attempts to cover the whole history of the idea, and clearly places the chariot-riding-white-invader model at the beginning. So if it were to be relabelled it would also need a rewrite. Paul B 15:35, 13 June 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it would be a mammoth task to fix this article, even if there were no disagreement. The best way forward would seem to be splitting it into archaeological, linguistic, history of idea, etc., short sub-articles, and make Indo-Aryan migration a short summary pointing to them all. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whose this Gil Guy

In Beowulf you have Eadgils,Father of Hengest you have Wihtgil,Celtic historian Gildas,Sykes determined that Somerled(Origin of clan Mcdonald) was R1a1 whose father was Gille Bride,Attilla Father/uncle was called Rugila ,Indian Hun Coins show Khigilas.Gills are a clan in NW India is there an Aryan invasion link,or am I thinking through my proverbeal.

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Aryan_invasion_theory"