Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Indigenus Aryan Theory ( IAT )

I want to ask Paul , how IAT is not based on Anatolian hypothesis ? What IAT article says that IVC people were Indo-Iranians ( i.e. IA language speakers) .

So, there are 2 possibilities.

1. IVC people were native to ancient India ever since & speakers of IA language( same as per OIT )

2. they came to Ancient India as per Anatolian hypothesis or Kurgan hypothesis. If you put IA language speaking people coming to ancient India during middle IVC period then Kurgan hypothesis will hold true.

I have seen his continuous deletions in this matter on this article page. So, resolve this issue by answering here. WIN 10:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"ever since" is not a well-defined term: your 1.) is precisely the sort of national mysticism uninformed by cultural or linguistic change that we want to keep separate from scholarly debate. Your 2.) are prefectly valid migration scenarios that we have been discussing for ages. 2a) ("Anatolian") means that pre-Indo-Aryans migrated to India (say in 2800 BC), and Proto-Indo-Aryan developed within India (and, possibly, Iranians re-emigrated "Out of India" around 1900 BC), while 2b) ("Kurgan") means that Proto-Indo-Aryan formed still outside India, and Indo-Aryans (not pre-Indo-Aryans) migrated to India (say in 1800 BC). Forget about your 1) "ever since" and discuss 2a) vs. 2b), and you'll be fine. dab (𒁳) 11:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You made a change which simply deleted information and produced unintelligable sentences. Your edit summary, which did not seem to be clearly related to your edits, said the following, "There can not be separate Indigenious Aryan theory as it's part of OIT. IAT is purely based on Anatolian hypothesis." I have no clear idea what this means. You seem to be saying that IAT is "part of OIT" and is therefore the same theory. Then you say that it's "purely based on Anatolian hypothesis". Since the Anatolian hypothesis proposes, as its name implies, an Anatolian urheimat, it obviously can't be "part of OIT" , which proposes an Indian urheimat. The difference between IAT and OIT is that IAT does not require that PIE emerged in India. It is therefore consistent with the Anatolian hypothesis and with other real or potential urheimat hypotheses. Paul B 14:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per Anatolian , they came in 2800 BC during IVC period , imposed their IE family language on IVC people and hence IVC will be IA language speaking people. And, then when Saraswati river dried during 1900 BC, some of them migrated West to Iran.

As per Kurgan, I-Ir people came in 1800 BC with IA people on their tour to ancient India and after leaving their IA brothers safe & sound , Iranians left happily to reside in their Iranian land ! I know all this and hence the question above.

Dab , "ever since" means before out of India Origin mentioning hypothetical scenarios. I am well verse with genetic facts of `Out of Africa'by Stephan Opphenmeir ( sorry if the name is wrong ). "Out of India" theory has nothing to do with any of your allegations. If you know, then that was ever since prevailing before Europeans came to India. So, it is nothing new development. OIT which is traditionally known to Hindus and it's suppression with racial implementations during Britishraj that it got political tone in India. So, stop trying to tell everybody that OIT is devoid of scholarly debate. Bryant also says that linguistic facts can not refute OIT. Now, why Witzel is telling that Dravidians came to Sapta Sindhu in middle vedic period. What happened to Aryans warring with Dravidians.What your Western linguists were doing for last 150 years ? Linguists have to modify whole scenario now & then is `very scholarly' ? Witzel will translate BSS verse wrong to show Aryan migration IN India ( forgetting Sanskrit grammer rules ! ) and Purpola will tell about Dasa - Aryans coming to Punjab via baluchistan from central asia. Then, this Dasa - Aryans ( not Dravidians ) will fight with original aryans who came directly to punjab from central asia.

No migration of such a scale is archelogically found during alleged period as per Anatolian or Kurgan hypothesis then also you are telling `it's fine' to discuss ! Language is like some air that flows freely from central asia to ancient India and language imposition of mass scale is possible without poeple movement ! It's the height of pseudoism. WIN 05:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WIN, your English is simply not good enough for you to collaborate here. Sorry, but all of your Talk page posts end up being incoherent due to a lack of a suitable command of English. Could you not volunteer for the Wikipedia in your native language? CRCulver 06:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

When you don't have any sensible answer then start writing about my English !!! Good , I like that !!! WIN 09:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

WIN, you are just trotting out your usual mish-mash of obsessions and trivialities (Witzel's completely non-notable "mistranslation" etc). OIT obviously did not prevail "before Europeans came to India" because it is a product of the concept of an IE language group - a concept that did not exist before Jones. Paul B 10:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Paul, should I tell you again that Vedic Brahmins are telling OIT type version during Bhagavat Puran recitation. And, these brahmins are alleged to be direct descendents of migrating Indo-Aryans !

Anyway, sidetracking IAT clarification and spouting bad & non-sense is your usual habit. Concentrate on main topic. I have written above that IAT will be possible under OIT scenario only and not Anatolian or say Kurgan. And, hence my point made that IAT is part of OIT scenario.WIN 12:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense is your forte. If you can show where in the Bhagavat Purana the concept of Indo-European languages exists then we can discuss the notion that "OIT" was first proposed by "Vedic Brahmins". IAT is possible with any early PIE scenario, as I've already said, and as nids(♂) has also pointed out to you on the IAT page. If you don't understand this point, further discussion is fruitless. Paul B 12:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"further discussion" has been fruitless since day one in this case, except for those with penchant for the surreal, of course :) dab (𒁳) 12:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Can someone provide references for which scholar has proposed Indigenous Aryan Theory in which publication? Bryant coins a term Indigenous Aryan in his book In Quest of the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, but he has not proposed any Indigenous Aryan Theory. I checked the page Indigenous Aryan Theory, but did not find any reference there.Sbhushan 02:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Mandavilli

absolutely fascinating. All I can say is, As so often, I am struck by the lengths nationalists will go to create their own version of history. [1] dab (𒁳) 12:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Contant deletions by Crculver

Crculver, I am again & again asking you about your particular objections. For Airyanam Vaijo section , my additions contains ref. If you have any problem with wordings than write it here before simply reverting all modifications. WIN 04:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

edits like the one reverted here are childish pov pushing, rife with grammatical errors. Not worth keeping. dab (𒁳) 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

To site properly ref. points or links is childish ? Do you think that you are better than B.B. Lal ? Is it POV pushing to write about Saraswati river that it's mentioned in RV,SV,AV,Brahmanas etc. - which is a well known fact ?

Stop accusing me for POV pushing. I am just writing that so & so is opposed by OIT supporting scholars. Is it POV pushing ? Infact it's you who can be termed as POV pusher. WIN 10:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are not B. B. Lal. We do have a fair article on the Sarasvati (most of which I happen to have written myself). You have yet to make your first useful edit. I do commend people like Nobleeagle who go and write a bona fide Out of India article, even if I think the entire topic is made up of hot air. But your contribution to Wikipedia so far has really just been a mild waste of everybody's time, quite obviously because you cannot wrap your head around the concept of an encyclopedia, or tell succinct prose from suggestive rambling. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not B.B.Lal.But you might be Witzel or surely his follower. To delete links of articles / papers of such a highly knowledgeable scholar of concern field , is definitely your kind of POV pushing. WIN 05:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

if you don't stop your stubborn edit-warring we'll have to finally block you for disruption. Your additions aren't even grammatical, and all they do is add pathetically transparent spin. You are really not up to the task WIN, I would just drop it if I were you, all you do is make "your side" look more silly than would be strictly necessary (the more intelligent authors manage to uphold at least a superficial semblance of scholarship). dab (𒁳) 09:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I know that you strongly dislike any AIT/AMT opposing scientific findings from other sciences as they are against it.Hence you are continuously deleting B.B. Lal 's papers in External Links. So, stop portraying youself as `only scholar' in this world on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIN (talk • contribs)

WP:DFTT dab (𒁳) 14:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

What's up?

What is going on here? Geo. Talk to me

care to read the stuff right above? Or do you want a personalized introduction? dab (𒁳) 09:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This dispute has the potential to get messy for everyone. I have started a subpage /chat2007 where we can discuss the problems and end this sucker. Please add Points of Contention to the list. Geo. Talk to me 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

It will never "end". I honestly don't think the subpage will help. Paul B 08:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's try it out. Atleast we will have a neutral party to help resolve the differences.Sbhushan 19:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, I am perfectly "neutral" insofar as I fully respect Wikipedia policy, including WP:NPOV (which itself includes WP:UNDUE). If you present pertinent academic references in good faith, we'll be sure to include them. That's really it, you cannot ask anything beyond that. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. If you do that, you'll find a cool reception. similarly, if you scatter random citation requests just to keep us on our toes, you'll find you will not get far. A bona fide summary of the position of a reference does not need more than one citation, or we'll end up citing references for every noun, verb or pronoun. If you have a bona fide point to make, make it. If not, leave it alone. If you're just here to smugly haggle over perfectly valid paragraphs just because you can, you'll just wear out your welcome. I put it to you that you are just not satisfied with the status quo of academic opinion, and you try to pretend there are "differences" where there are in fact none. If you think you can do this just because Wikipedia is the "encyclopedia anyone can edit", you will find that this doesn't work out. If you don't like the status quo, you will not be able to anything about it even on Wikipedia. You can always discuss obscure minority opinions somewhere, granted they have some minimal notability at all, but such discussions will always need to state up front that they are about fringe views. dab (𒁳) 14:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, we agree that this is AMT page and everyting should be provided with references. No one should be doing any original research. I am hoping we can provide details of the Academic position supporting AMT from mainstream scholarship and counter arguments also from mainstream scholars. I am only going to provide input from mainstream acedemic scholars who believe in AMT. What we won't have is citation of some paper which after consultation turns out to say something quite different from what was claimed. applies to all of us.Sbhushan 17:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. but I dare you to catch me doing that. While I clean out such bad faith material regularly, and, lo and behold, they only ever go in one direction, and then I get told off for being "biased". If you are here for good faith work on the article, and if you are able to understand the terms "academic source" and "undue weight", cheers to you, do edit away. dab (𒁳) 19:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, I can't resist a challenge (nor temptations) so let us talk about "Indigenous Aryan Theory". No reference has been provided so far (see discussion at [2]. You have yourself mentioned that this is OR (see here [3]. Bryant defines "Indigenous Aryanism" on page 4 of his book as group of scholars who oppose Aryan invasions and migrations. Nowhere in his book he mentions any scholar who accept migration pre-IVC or a scenario where PIE enters the region in question pre-IVC and develops into Indo-Aryan. You should also know that mainstream can never argue for earlier migrations (because lots of other eveidence will support OIT in that case). So this "Indigenous Aryan Theory" is OR, setting up "strawman" and should not be included in Wikipedia.Sbhushan 22:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for references

Let us disucss one item at a time. Tag for "invasive". Which scholar is agruing for Invasion scenario.Sbhushan 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

your tags are not bona fide. Read the sentence you tagged at least, it begins "linguistic evidence alone cannot determine ...." I doubt you are here for constructive improvement, but feel free to prove me wrong. dab (𒁳) 18:41, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

We will get to "linguistic evidence..." also, but first lets address "invasive". Invasion theory has been discarded for sometime now. So is there any one arguing for "invasive" anymore.Sbhushan 19:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed not, as far as I am aware. Certainly not me. The point of mentioning the "invasive vs. gradual" scenarios is that there are often polemics by "anti-migrationists" that set up unrealistic "invasion" strawmen only to shoot them down. The bottom line is that 19th century may have over-emphasized its fascination for "invasion", but that you can tone this down to a more realistic "gradual imposition of a superstrate" without problem. Nobody to the best of my knowledge would claim anything stronger than "gradual imposition of a superstrate" today. This certainly wasn't all peaceful, the martial character of Rigvedic tribes is more than clear, but then very few population movements in the Late Bronze Age were. The standard assumption used to be that the substrate population was Proto-Dravidian. It is an interesting development that this may not after all have been the case, but that the Proto-Dravidians just like the Indo-Aryans may have filled the power vacuum following the IVC's decline. Compare this to Gaul. Its territory presents itself completely divided between Romance and Germanic "invaders". The Gaulish language that used to be ubiquitous all over Western Europe has virtually disappeared over a few centuries. And yet, genetically, the inhabitants of former Gaul are still "autochthonous", they are the direct descendants of the Gauls, but they were linguistically assimilated either to the Romans or to the Germans. The IVC/Indo-Aryan/Dravidian case would be perfectly analogous and not in any way far-fetched or unrealistic. dab (𒁳) 13:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The emphasis on invasion is actually more typical of the mid 20thC than the 19thC, following the emergence of theories about the importance of chariots and the claim that the Aryans overthrew the IVC. But in reality there is no clear distinction between "migration" and "invasion". As you say, ancient migrations and expansions were not typically peaceful. Hardly anyone ever imagined large scale organised military expeditions like Darius's or Alexander's invasion of the Indus. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is basically correct. The IVC wasn't identified until the 20thC, long after most of the early theorizing about Aryan movements into the subcontinent. Only after the IVC was found did it even become an issue whether the Aryans had anything to do with the IVC's disappearance. Wheeler's pithy "Indra stands accused" was a speculation, and in fact was shot down pretty quickly too (e.g. Grahame Clark), but patient scholarly criticism gets lost in this age of sound bites. rudra 04:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally I don't care for the historical "invasion" or if you want to keep this in the article. What this says is that few mainstream scholars still believe in "invasion" scenario, although a minority. So if anyone argues against invasion then it is due to these mainstream scholars.Sbhushan 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. It's that the distinction between invasion and migration is, in part at least, artificial. Paul B 01:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The reference that you provided for substrata does not work. Did you mean this article [4]. It seems that EJVS has moved hosting to different location.Sbhushan 20:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

EJVS has moved hosting to: http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ I noticed this when I needed to fix a broken link on another page. I am wondering if there is some way to quickly locate broken links to it on Wikipedia in an automated manner? Buddhipriya 04:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"no archaeological evidence"

At present, the article claims there is no archaeological evidence for IA arrival in India, just as there is no archaeological evidence for the arrival of any other IE branch to its historical location. This is the opinion of some people. Strictly speaking, the statement is empty, since archaeological evidence can never tell you about the languages involved. However, there is archaeological evidence accepted as related to these movements by other people. This would be the Swat culture for IA migration, which is a perfect fit for the mainstream scenario, and e.g. shaft graves for the arrival of the Greeks, and of course kurgans in general. In W Europe, it's the Beaker people, Unetice culture or Urnfield culture, according to your taste. None of these instances are proofs, of course. But all of them are accepted as possible evidence of IE expansion by some people, so the article at present is making a patently false statement. The "supporting source" simply shows that some authors reject all such evidence, which is true, but doesn't imply that there is no evidence. dab (𒁳) 18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine if the loaded 'clear' goes back in, if the full quote from Kenoyer goes back in as it was here. Kenoyer's is a much more current view from someone who has been working on Harappa digs, is a qualified and mainstream expert, etc. Such views deserve more prominence in this article. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've fixed it. Kenoyer states that there is no evidence for "invasion or mass migration", which is indeed true as far as I am aware. We are looking at the gradual intrusion of a numerically small superstrate, as in many, if not all, other known cases of prehistorical migration. I do not think IVC collapse under the impact of an IA invasion is tenable today. Current suggestions (see Indo-Iranians) allow for gradual infiltration in several waves, possibly early IA presence even from 1900 BC (Parpola), with the "Proto-Rigvedic" Indo-Aryans arriving in a second wave that establishes the Swat culture, and spreads into the vacuum left by the IVC (not "destroying" the IVC). I think 1900 is the very earliest possible date for IA presence, since Proto-Indo-Iranian split cannot be dated to much before this. dab (𒁳) 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is, I fully endorse Kenoyer's quote of

there was an overlap between Late Harappan and post-Harappan communities, with no biological evidence for major new populations

the key word here being 'major'. Since no major population shift is postulated by anyone today anyway, this more or less states the uncontroversial, and would be more relevant to the Late Harappan article than to this one. But even here, I suppose, it is important to state: there was no major population movement. This is all about a superstrate: 10%, maybe 15% of population, arriving over the time of half a millennium. It is important to state this very clearly, already to avoid the perpetual "Aryan Invasion" strawman. To give you some context: I live in Switerland. "foreigners" arriving over the past 25 years amount to 6% of the population. This corresponds to a rate of influx ten times higher than that postulated for IAM (10-15% over 500 years). Yet nobody (except for nationalist crackpots of course) is talking of an "invasion of Switzerland". It's simple "migration". IAM was ten times less of an "invasion" than this, the only difference being that the new arrivals were installed as a superstrate, not a substrate. dab (𒁳) 18:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that particular phrasing is that it's so pedantic and obtuse to a casual encyclopedia reader. We're writing for a mass audience here, not for academics. The version that I put there is much simpler and more clear:

"There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." The 'invasions' part I don't mind having deleted, but "There is no archeological or biological evidence...for mass migrations" is so much more clear to the typical reader of Wikipedia than phraseology like "the intrusion of an Indo-Aryan superstrate would not have been sufficient to displace indigenous culture." ॐ Priyanath talk 18:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

As I say above, this is misleading, since it pretends to be an argument in the IAM debate, while in reality nobody even suggests there is a "mass migration". It's beside the point. dab (𒁳) 18:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Then let's say right in the intro that "there was no mass migration". That way there will be no confusion, no straw men battles, and again it communicates to a mass audience much more clearly than ""the intrusion of an Indo-Aryan superstrate". ॐ Priyanath talk 18:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind the discussion above [[5]] to remove the "invasive" hints from the first paragraph. If we quote invasion, then someone will argue against invasion. AMT is linguistic theory, it has been discussed number of times that archeology contradicts migration.Sbhushan 19:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand my motivation, Sbhushan. I want to mention "invasion" as a matter of intellectual honesty, because proposed scenarios used to envisage it, not because I support the idea. I think Priyanath's idea is good: The intro should state something like "while historically, IAM was sometimes envisaged as 'invasion' or military conquest, contemporary mainstream scenarios preculde such drastic change, and surround the gradual intrusion of a superstrate instead". But I am sorry; while I am ready to indulge the "mass audience" by saying "no mass migration", I am afraid there is no way around "intrusion of a superstrate" for the simple reason that this is the correct terminology. We can accomodate the less learnéd of our readers, but we should never talk down to, dumb down or assume the reader is a moron. On Wikipedia, if you don't understand a word, click on the link. dab (𒁳) 19:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

following is the quote from Bryant 2001 page 231

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

Bryant does not distinguish between migration/invasion/complex trickling. It would be more accurate to say that language migrations doesn't require archeological evidence (quote Erdosy 1995). But saying that archeological evidence is inconclusive is misrepresentation of consensus opinion of archeologist.Sbhushan 19:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

it is not a misrepresentation. Bryant is spinning things. The fact of the matter is that archaeologists tend to refuse to identify migrations in almost every single case worldwide, India is no exception. All Bryant's statement amounts to "there is no positive archaeological evidence". That's a no-brainer, because there never is in the absence of epigraphy. This amounts to "inconclusive". You can say that nobody finds proof for IAM, as long as you also say that nobody expects to find it, and that there is as little, or less, proof of Greek, Germanic, Italic, Armenian or Celtic migration. dab (𒁳) 20:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, archeologist say "no evidence", you say archeologist don't know what they are talking about so we should say "inconclusive". What should go in the article is verifiable statement and no weasel words WP:weasel.Sbhushan 22:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sbhushan: "There is no archeological evidence", period, is clear and unequivocal, and that's what the article should say. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, it's not about 'dumbing down' for our readers. It's about communicating to the reader. That's what 'writing' is all about. When there is a clearer way of stating something, using laymen's language, then we should use it. In fact, a noted Archeologist who is the current leader of a dig at Harappa put it this way: "There is no archaeological or biological evidence for invasions or mass migrations into the Indus Valley between the end of the Harappan Phase, about 1900 BC and the beginning of the Early Historic period around 600 BC." He didn't phrase it that way to 'dumb it down', he was stating clearly and simply what it is. Since you insist on using academic language, then I insist that Kenoyer's quote go somewhere in the article, preferably where I placed it originally. ॐ Priyanath talk 19:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no archaeologist or biologist, yet I prefer to read articles on archaeology and biology in proper terminology, not "retold for the layman". Using "layman's language" is not clearer, it's less clear. Good writing is about building a clear and coherent case in straightforward syntax. Your citation is fine. But it is out of context, the context being not AIM in general, but the outdated notion of a "mass migration". I repeat that I am happy with your suggestion of saying "no mass migration" in the intro, do go ahead. We're still going to state that if it's not about "mass migration", what it is about (it "is not about" lots of things, including heavy metal music, Greek comedy, Middle Irish and the decline of the Mayan empire). The intro has to state what it is about, viz., the intrusion of an IA superstrate. dab (𒁳) 20:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, you're playing games. It's 'not' about alot of things of course. But many people think that it is about mass migration, so the intro should say that it's not about mass migration. The reason many people think that is because this 'theory' has had a continuous downward spiral from invasion to mass migration to some migrants who trickled in over time and brought in a different language. ॐ Priyanath talk 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the theory (or theories) what is most notable is the variety of views. The very earliest versions actually envisage a tiny migration of "Brahmins" who establish their sway through priestcraft. Some of the most racist versions, such Rosenberg's, have a small elite of warrior "Nordics" overwhelmed by a sea of racial inferiors. The notion that the migration need only be quite small is not specific to this subject, it follows from genetic studies in other places where language change is known to have occurred - in Britain and France for example - but where the genetic contribution of the bearers of the language is small. Paul B 09:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

indeed. the "downward spiral" is entirely an artifact in the interpretation of angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the "invasion" scenario was a bad faith conspiracy from the beginning (for reasons best known to themselves, I have yet to hear how colonialists could profit ideologically from a Bronze Age invasion). There were reasonable proposals from the beginning. The more drastic proposals have been shown to be untenable over the decades. That's progress as in 'narrowing down' the scenario, not a "downward spiral". And as Paul says: India is no special case. Thougt on migrationist scenarios on the whole underwent this sort of evolution. India is just one of several case studies of that. And Priyanath, I am not playing games: I have told you twice already, I agree with saying "no mass migration", alright? I'll say it again. But if you don't read my comments, there isn't much I can do. Here goes: feel free to say "no mass migration, but don't delete the "intrusion of a superstrate" bit. dab (𒁳) 10:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not h. propaganda. I've never even heard of the 'downward spiral' - I just came to the conclusion based on reading the history. I'm not a Hindutva or an activist. Lots of straw men around here, eh? The earlier theories may, or may not, have been reasonable proposals from the beginning, but the theory has spiraled ever downward. I've added the 'no mass migration or invasion' to the intro. Not the first paragraph as you are suggesting Sbhushan, but I'm open to seeing it go there instead if you like. I just think it fits better where the archaeology is first discussed, but if you move it up, I won't object. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath, you might have misunderstood my comment. I have asked for removal of "invasion" from first paragraph. Dab and Paul have argued to keep it in the first paragraph. I agree with where you have placed archeological comment. I would prefer to remove the "inconclusive" part in the same paragraph.Sbhushan 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you guys stop sitting on fence? Couple of days back you argued with me to keep the statement “invasion” in the first paragraph and argued that invasion and migration were not different in that time period and Different linguists have argued for either. Now you are saying angry Hindutva propagandists who like to allege the "invasion" scenario. Can you make up your mind and stick to one position.Sbhushan 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What nonsense. Quoting half a sentence as if it were a complete sentence changes its meaning. Dab said that conspiracy theorists like to claim that the "invasion scenario" was "bad faith" from the beginning - i.e. that it was cynically invented for some villainous reason (racism, imperialism, christian conversion, etc). As I said before the idea of a major invasion was probably most popular around the mid 20th century. A fictionalised version of this scenario appears in the novel The Venus of Konpara. Very early versions often use the model of religious conversion achieved by Brahmins (by analogy with Christianisation) or tribal migrations as suggested by Biblical stories. The idea that there was some sort of struggle between incoming Aryans and "natives" becomes common in the late nineteenth century. After the discovery of the IVC this sometimes envisaged as a more military-style campaign. Paul B 16:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul, in that case can we remove this section from first paragraph.

Linguistic data alone cannot determine whether this migration was peaceful or invasive. Different linguists have argued for either, or for a combination of both, on extra-linguistic grounds, but contemporary consensus clearly favours "gradual migration" over "military invasion".

Also see earlier discusion at [[6]]Sbhushan 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, a couple of days ago I suggested you are unable to follow an argument, and you are only reinforcing that impression now. We are required to argue a point, but we are not required to point it out in painstaking detail if you are unable to follow the conversation. Maybe you should begin with reading the article in its entirety. dab (𒁳) 17:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

please look up WP:civ and WP:NPA, from now onward I will only respond to your comments, if I see link to published material.Sbhushan 18:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to modify the intro to reflect the new consensus. CiteCop 20:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: All I can say is: simply unbelievable. The fellow actually quotes from page 231 of Bryant's book here, and then demonstrates that he hasn't read it. Bryant didn't write "no archaeological evidence". He wrote "no convincing archaeological evidence". Go look it up. rudra 03:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

change in page name to Indo-Aryan Migration Theory

Please see discussion at [[7]] regarding name change. The straw poll [[8]] was 100% for name change. If you disagree with name change, can you please provide your input. Otherwise can we change the name to include "Theroy".Sbhushan 15:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

we have discussed this at length. please see the archives. I suggest you do strawpolls on talkpages (after consulting past discussions). I've seen many things on Wikipedia, but now you have managed to create a pov fork of a talkpage, congratulations. In a nutshell, it is not "a theory", but a concept that is the subject of various theories. That an Indo-Aryan expansion took place within India (that is, across the Gangetic plain and then across the Vindhya range) is completely undisputed and obviously also qualifies as Indo-Aryan migration. "IAM" is not about a migration across the borders of the current-day Republic of India in particular, any serious discussion will ignore these boundaries as obviously irrelevant. Yes, practically all scenarios include a migration across the Hindu Kush west to east, but that is not a prerequisite to the concept. A migration across the Hindu Kush east to west (to get the Mitanni-Aryans "out of India") will still qualify as "IAM". It is really not about "if" so much as about "how and when", and there is more than one "theory" on that. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The Kurgan hypothesis is also not "a theory", but a concept that is the subject of various theories. The article is still at Kurgan hypothesis. We can of course also move the article to Indo-Aryan migration theories, if the issue is that there are many theories. This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others). It would be more accurate and npov. Most pro-migrationist scholars believe it is just the most likely theory of all theories, and "Aryan migration theory" or better "Indo-Aryan migration theory" happens to be the best known name for it. The term is also used by people like Bryant or Witzel.

Is it allright then that this article also discusses migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Ukraine, in Mesopotamia (Mitanni), in South-East Asia, in Sri Lanka, in Nepal, and of the Ghandari/ Niya Prakrit, Parya and Dumaki speakers? You once said the scope of this article is any migration of early Indo-Aryans, but when I once added a sentence about migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers in the Ukraine, it was removed from this article.

Maybe we could make something of a shorter article here with links to more detailed articles including Indo-Aryan migration theory, and which discusses all the different migrations of IA-speakers? As a matter of fact, the majority of the current article is about the Aryan migration theory. The movement of Vedic Aryans from the IVC eastwards or southwards is barely discussed in this article, and it merits to be discussed at length in a separate article anyway. We have moved the AIT article to another name, I think the article which discusses the AMT should also be under "Indo-Aryan migration theory" (or theories/hypothesis) to be as accurate (and npov) as possible. --RF 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, water down the focus of the article by playing wordgames. CiteCop 05:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is trying to water down the focus of the article? We had many discussions if the AIT page should be moved to AIT (history and controversies) (like here [[9]]), if the Indo-Aryan migration should be created, if the India page should be moved to ROI. Why is not allright to discuss a move of this article?

CiteCop, Please correct me if I missunderstood your comments. You would prefer to keep the focus on the Aryan Migration theory as discussed in IE studies as Aryan migration into South East Asia during the time period of 1900 BC to 1500 BC. Watering down version is being proposed by Dab.Sbhushan 14:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. "Kurgan hypothesis" refers to a basic postulate, steppe origin of PIE, which may be accepted or rejected. "Indo-Aryan migration" refers to any migration of (early) Indo-Aryans. That these peoples migrated is entirely undisputed. Mainstream opinion is presented prominently per WP:UNDUE, but if there are quotable theories of IAM east-to-west from the Indus to Mitanni, we should definitely also mention them here. That there was IAM within India is completely undisputed, and the distances covered within India are greater than that from the Oxus to the Indus. This includes expansion from the Punjab to the lower Ganges, and expansion beyond the Vindhya. It is not a "theory" that these expansions took place, but an undisputed fact. dab (𒁳) 14:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing focus should be a consensus opinion, can we have a straw poll on that? Regarding name used in IE mainstream litrature, please check Bryant (2001), Witzel EJVS VOL. 7 (2001), ISSUE 3 (May) page 2 "THE 'TRADITIONAL' IMMIGRATION THEORY" [[10]]. Can we close the poll in 24 hours.Sbhushan 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article currently has very very little on Indo-Aryan migrations inside India, not to speak of other migrations of Indo-Aryan migration speakers that would fall into the scope of this article with such an article title. This article is basically about the AMT.

Maybe we could make a separate Indo-Aryan migrations (disambiguation) page, where other migrations of Indo-Aryan speakers are listed? This could be linked from the top of the page. (Only we don't have many such articles at all). --RF 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

The straw poll favoured renaming of the article as "Indo-Aryan Migration Theory". This is also the name used in peer reviewed litrature (see comment above dated 27 Feb). How do we make this change happen?Sbhushan 15:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I finally figured out how to do name change. As per above discussion, I will be changing the name on 20:00 9 March 2007. Please provide your comments before that.Sbhushan 19:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you leave it as it is; it will only lead to more revert-warring. dab (𒁳) 19:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Can other editors who OPPOSE name change please speak up? Please provide your rational also.Sbhushan 17:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave the page as it is. Stop rocking the boat, and either get on board with those editors among us who have at least some measure of formal training or leave. CRCulver 18:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss in a reasonable way, I have an open mind. The change in name to “Theory” is better for the article. I will provide reasons in favour of changing the name and you can provide opposing reasons. The reasons in favour are:

1. This is the name used in peer reviewed literature (see ref above)
2. As per naming convention, the name should be with Theory
3. The most important reason is to keep the article focused. As CiteCop said above water down the focus of the article by playing wordgames. WP:UNDUE only applies if they are competing theories. IAM within India does not compete with Indo-Aryan Migration Theory (IAT). Also, IAM within India is completely undisputed. So anyone can fill the majority of article with IAM within India and that would be acceptable as article is about all migrations. Only way to keep the article clean is to keep it focused on one topic.Sbhushan 19:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Points of Contention

Add any you see missing

1. Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN?
2. Does the article have NPOV problems?
3. What can be done to improve this article?
4. Should the name of the article be changed?
5. Where are the main problems in this article?

Discussion about point 4. Should the name of the article be changed?

I think a better article name would be "indo-aryan migration theory" (or hypothesis). This is analogous to Kurgan hypothesis (or Anatolian hypothesis, Germanic substrate hypothesis, Black Sea deluge theory and many others).

I don't think this move would be controversial, as many (most?) of the pro-migration scholars believe that the migration scenario is just the most likely scenario and hypothesis of all other theories. But even if it may be the most likely hypothesis, it is still an unproven hypothesis, and not a proven theory.

When I brought this up some time before, the reply was: "the point is that it is undisputed that the I-As migrated somewhere, at some point in time. The debate surrounds questions of date, scale and direction. Therefore IAM is not so much a hypothesis as a field containing various hypotheses." and it was also once said that the article scope's is any migration involving indo-aryan speakers that are before 0 BC. But when I once added a small sentence about migrations of Indo-aryan speakers in the ukraine it was removed from the article. As a matter of fact, most of the article is about the so-called Aryan migration theory.

I have not insisted much upon such a move (and will not insist much upon it), because I think article titles are not that important, but it would be better if the article title would be more accurate and npov (analogous to Kurgan hypothesis). What do others think? --RF 10:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to see this question being raised - I've been very puzzled reading this and related articles. I believe it's POV to not have the word "theory" or "hypothesis" in the title. The sixth word in the article says it's a theory. It is a theory. Walks, talks, and quacks like one. The title should say so. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the theory label. It is a theory which is not proven yet, so it should NOT be presented at fact. But it should mention that this theory is most favoured by linguistic.Sbhushan 02:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the theory label as well.Bakaman 16:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The theory label looks good enough to me as well. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about 3. what to do to improve this article

This is a controversial topic, with everyone having very entrenched postions (including me). The best way to impove the article would be to provide references as per WP:V. We can add tags where reference is not clear and if the author doesn't provide references in a week's time, the statement is to removed.Sbhushan 22:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

This sounds reasonable, anyone have a problem? Geo. Talk to me 05:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Better sources + Standardizing in case of references (using the ref tags/footnotes instead of the paranthesis) and overcoming the dependence on Mallory (and Mair) by using other sources. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

discussion about 1. Is dab's behavior a violation of OWN?

I have put few tags for references. Dab's action of reverting without providing reference is not acceptable. For one tag, Dab is completely wrong, P. Thieme has rejected the Kuniper's list in total in his 1994 paper. A {{Fact}} tag is a request for reference, it is authors responsibility to provide reference, otherwise I have right to remove the statement. Dab has to follow WP policies same as all editors.Sbhushan 02:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with it. He is deleting well ref. materials or external links in the article, just because it has some scientific materials opposing IAM theory. Dab's sentences are written in a manner which portrays this theory as a fact. And, when I wanted to mention XYZ as per theory supporters and ABC as per opposers , Dab & Crculver immeditely deleted it in the name of `poor english'! I have many times told that under mask of migration , always invasion which is ruled out totally , is argued. I strongly oppose dictator like behaviour of Dab. WIN 08:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes dab adds information which he says is obvious without referencing, while he removes other people's information. I have no doubt that dab is knowledgeable on the matter, but he needs to follow the same rules as others. But then I have also been accused of dictatorship on other pages I know more about. — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab's behaviour on articles regarding the Vedic civilization has been extraordinary at times. I'm saying this because this concern is not exclusive to the editors involved in the crafting of this particular article, but is shared by other editors as well. _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Enforcement of WP:RS and WP:SOAP are not violations of WP:OWN. CiteCop 04:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware that adding unsourced information was "enforcement of WP:RS".Bakaman 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

in all seriousness, our articles on Vedic topics would be a sorry mess if it was not for the constant effort of a few editors, of which I am one. Editors like Freedom skies or WIN would turn them into an orgy of naive hype in no time. This isn't related to WP:OWN, it is a simple matter of protecting articles from substandard edits. Any reasonable, that is well-sourced, encyclopedic addition is most welcome. Bakaman is perfectly aware of this, he just makes a habit of stalking me. It is not my fault if certain people prefer ideological or crackpot fringecruft over mainstream opinion (and the realization that the internet is full of such people is hardly a novelty), Wikipedia is still bound to presenting mainstream per WP:UNDUE. dab (𒁳) 23:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, it seems you misunderstood my comment. You are being asked to provide verfiable citations for comments that you are adding. No original research policy applies to you also.Sbhushan 15:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll on 4

Should this article be moved to Indo-Aryan Migration Theory?
Yes

• ॐ Priyanath talk 05:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sbhushan 17:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• --RF 08:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• -- WIN 08:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• -- — Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bakaman 16:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• _{Freedom skies| talk}  17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No

• not a "theory", see above dab (𒁳) 14:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
• rudra 04:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The future of this article

As more and more Indians are discovering Wikipedia, there's little hope in getting this article balanced, ever. So I would suggest an unconditional surrender instead of gradually losing battle. At least this way the article will look and smell bullshit instead of disguising the odour with tons of French perfume. 212.199.22.114 22:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

that's implying every Indian is a dim-witted ideologist. I am counting on more intelligent Indians discovering Wikipedia, and helping protect the articles for the very reason that articles that reek to heaven of naive bullshit tend to give a bad impression of the Indian psyche. If I was Indian, I would regard it a patriotic effort to keep WIN-style nonsense off Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 23:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The other ones are Arya Samaj trolls.Bakaman 23:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Caucasian Languages are from Non-IE family

Why anyone has not paid attention to the fact that languages of Caucasus mountain region is non-IE one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasian_languages . While this area is next to PIE Kurgan area, why this area is still non-IE language area where as Himalayan mountain range which is bigger and higher than Caucasus range is told to got converted to IE.

Why IE languages could not occupy Caucasus mountain area despite being very much in the vicinity ? Why IE people could not convert languages of just nearby mountain people ? That means there was strong language opposition from those natives or IE people did not bother to climb Caucasus mountains ? WIN 10:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. On most of the Himalayan plateau, Tibetan, a Sino-Tibetan language is spoken. 2. Why could IE not convert Dravidian and Munda languages where there are no mountains? CiteCop 12:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

how could you possibly get the idea that "no one paid attention" to the Caucasian languages being non-IE? That's a universally known fact. An I-E/Kartvelian relationship is postulated by the Nostratic supporters. dab (𒁳) 14:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Tibet is equally big as W. Europe. In Himalaya, there is a highest altitude plateau. Whereas Caucasus is much smaller mountain range in width compared with Himalaya. Tibet's geographical isolation can not be compared in Caucasus case as there is no such big plateau. Also both sides of Caucasus are IE , leaving only Caucasus mountain area. Whereas Indian side of Himalaya is IE , where as much steeper Himalaya is the reason of Tibet's isolation .

2. Right, why 10% of South Asia is non-IE. But their religion & culture is totally Vedic or IE. Remember that Witzel has told that Indo-Aryans accepted material & culture of native IVC people based on newer findings.

If PIE people could not convert nearby Caucasus area then how come they converted both sides of Hindukush mountains or made half world population IE ? WIN 12:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Indigenous Aryan Theory deletion

I have been requesting citation for Indigenous Aryan Theory since Feb 13th (see here [[11]], [[12]] and [[13]]). So far I have not seen any citation of verifiable source. The arguments I have got so far are:

• Join two separate words and attach theory after that. This is not acceptable verifiable source. Some one in published material has to present this theory, before it can be used like this.

• The words "Indigenous Aryan" is coined in Bryant (2001). I have provided ref to show that Bryant also says that unavoidable corollary is Out of India theory.

• Another proposal is to use this as political/ideological motivated theory. This might be possible, but then the theory cannot make claim that are being presented. Individual claim need citation from a published material.

I am going to request deletion of Indigenous Aryan Theory page as it does not meet verifiability requirement. If any editor feels that citations are available, please provide them on [[14]]) page. Providing original research is not acceptable.Sbhushan 14:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bryant does not say that the unavoidable corollory is OIT, as I have shown. In any case the term is not confined to him. It's an out and out lie to say that the phrase is an arbitrary coinage joining "two separate words". You know this because of the references that have been provided. Your arguments are utterly nonsensical and endlessly repetitious. They serve no purpose other than to attempt to delete something that you don't like, even though the term Indigenous Aryanism is very well attested. You support adding "theory" to the title of this article without demanding peer reviewed citation for the exact phrase "Indo-Aryan migration theory". This is sheer hypocrisy. It's nothing more than an attempt at censorship through pedantry. Paul B 14:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Page 74 is not the only page Bryant states this clearly. Interpreting Bryant's words is called original research. On page 6 and page 140 he also states this. I am quoting page 6

It must be stated immediately that there is an unavoidable corollary of an Indigenist position. If the Indo-Aryan languages did not come from outside South Asia, this necessarily entails that India was the original homeland of all the other Indo-European languages. Indo-Aryan was preceded by Indo-Iranian, which was preceded, in turn, by Indo-European; so if Indo-Aryan was indigenous to India, its predecessors must have been also. Hence, if proto-Indo-European was indigenous to India, all the other cognate languages must have emigrated from there.

This is quote from page 140

Since the principle that cognate languages stem from some kind of a protoform has yet to be refuted, as has the postulate that protolanguages must have been spoken in some kind of a reasonably delimited geographic area, there seem to be only three (or four) options that could account for the connection of the Indo-European languages as a family. Either the Indo-Aryan languages came into India from outside or, if it is to be claimed that the Indo-Aryan languages are indigenous to India, the corollary must be that the other Indo-European languages left from India to their historically known destinations. The third alternative is that there was a very large surface area stretching from the Northwest of the subcontinent to the Caspian Sea wherein related, but not necessarily homogeneous, Indo-European languages were spoken. Trubetzkoy (1939) offered a fourth proposal, that Indo-European was a language created by the creolization of several different languages in contact.

Can you quote any page in Bryant where he has mentioned anything that is being presented on IAT page. Till you quote a verifiable reference IAT is original research. In political/ideological discussion Aryan is used for Indo-Aryan and not for Indo-Iranian languages. I can provide quote for this also from Bryant.

Regarding "theory" comment, I can provide you quotes from mainstream IE community where Aryan Migration is referred as a theory. Check Bryant (2001) and also Witzel's publication. It is not question of mine or your likes/dislikes. WP policies are clear about what should be included on WP.Sbhushan 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

What reference has been provided???? R. Schmit is talking about "Aryan" which is different from how Bryant as defined "Indigenous Aryan". So far in discussion, not one publication has been quoted that provides citation for any claims being made in the article. Take "indigenous" add Aryan based on R. Schmit and create all kind of controversial cliams that can not be referenced to any publicatio. As I have asked repeatedly, provide the verifiable citation and not original research.Sbhushan 16:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting the article, the better solution is to provide details of the theory based on published material. I have added material based on Bryant (2001) with page numbers. Bryant (2001) has been mentioned as the source since creation of the article. Dab is still trying to push his OR of adding 2 words together and creating a theory. Can I request other editors to get involved in the article. I am not sure how RfC is done. Any advice?Sbhushan 16:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

the term may have been coined by Bryant, but it is in wider use as a term for Hindu nationalist propaganda (as shown in the article). I would be most happy to devote one line to it being pseudoscholarly bullshit pushed by "religious fanatics" (as you seem to agree). But if we're going to discuss "evidence" for the "theory" (as opposed to simply discuss the political agendas involved), we will damn well be allowed to spell out just what proposal it is for which we're looking for evidence. We agree it's bullshit, alright? We are giving brief background on why it is bullshit. dab (𒁳) 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dab, if you want to present this as Hindu nationalist propaganda, go ahead. But realize that you can't link this with any mainstream position in any way. Ideological discusion is that Vedic has been around since before last ice age (extreme example) or that Sanskrit = PIE. My personal view is that this argument is not defensible.

IF you want to somehow link this with mainstream, then Bryant has not left any choice. You can not do "furhter analysis" of his words. So "unavoidable corollary" left is Out of IndiaSbhushan 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

um, the "indigenous Aryans" article is about propaganda. It's so categorized. It's stated up front. It's all referenced. It's so much glorified gibberish spiced with testosteron. I'm sorry, but you are not making sense. As propaganda, it doesn't make strict scholarly sense, and there can be all sorts of "corollaries" from it, including, but not limited to OIT, since ex falso quodlibet. While otoh "OIT" is at least a well-defined proposal which in a certain sence includes an "indigenous Aryan" position a fortiori. dab (𒁳) 17:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In that case don't make any claim that this could somehow be compatible with Renfrew's model. The sober voice BB Lal (as per you [[15]]) argues for Sanskrit in 5th millinium BC as per the article that you sourced. This is not compatible with any mainstream theory.Sbhushan 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have requested Third pary mediation at [[16]], interested party please provide comments.Sbhushan 17:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

yes, Lal is a comparably reasonable voice (which isn't saying much with all the pseudoscience flying around). But of course I cannot vouch that he never proffered nonsense. I haven't seen him claim "5th millennium Sanskrit", which would be supreme nonsense of course, and I think this is just once again you misreading your sources. He quite reasonably says that the Harappan culture has its roots in the 5th millennium, and he comparatively reasonably dates the RV to "before 2000 BC" (based on a single(!) verse saying "Sarasvati flows to the Sea", which is blatant naivete to any philologist) which is "only" some 500 years before its accepted date. dab (𒁳) 09:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

These are BB Lal's word from the article (check conclusion about 3rd last para) that you cited [[17]] Putting together the various parts of this jigsaw puzzle, it would mean that if the Vedas reflect the literary counterpart of the Harappan archaeological complex, the Harappans spokes a language called Sanskrit. And since the Harappan Culture had its roots going deep at least into the fifth millennium BCE, it would imply that the Sanskrit-speakers were there in this area as early as that.Sbhushan 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Removed post per WP:BLP See diff [18]

Rudra is quite right, Bakaman's selective policy-awareness nonwithstanding. He still has the sanity to wrap it in conditionals, but this statement clearly puts Lal in the loony camp. "a language called Sanskrit", heh. By the same argument, you can prove that the Sumerians really spoke Aramaic. Shame on any archaeologist who argues nonsense like that, even if he never saw a linguistics textbook in his life. I'm still waiting for the moderate voice arguing "yes, there are the nationalist crackpots, but...". But the Hindutva ideologues, and their WP minions, obviously cannot get themselves to accept even the most blatant nonsense for what it is. Until they learn to differentiate between "complete nutcase" and "arguable if fringy", this simply means that all their stuff looks like complete bollocks. Wake me up when some pro-OIT editor comes along who exhibits this minimal amount of honesty. dab (𒁳) 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting -- your comment about honesty. Lal's article was provided by you, you thought BB Lal was comparably reasonable voice, you misquoted BB Lal's words to push your POV. You still haven't provided any citation for your POV that you want to publish in Wikipedia voice. Source of dishonesty is very obvious.Sbhushan 18:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

this is what you keep saying. None of it is true (except that I called Lal "comparatively reasonable", yes). I don't know why you keep saying it, but repeating it doesn't make it any more true. Now will you, or will you not get mediator assistance, and have a mediator talk to me? There is no other way I will debate with you at this point, sorry. dab (𒁳) 19:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC re User:Dbachmann

I have opened an RfC related to IAT at [[19]]. Could you please add your views to that.Sbhushan 16:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Reverted edit

I have reverted this edit [20]. The Indra part would rather belong on the Indra, AIT Dasa article (if at all). The Indus script part is offtopic here as well. Discuss on talk before reverting. --Rayfield 21:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dialectical variation

Shouldn't the first paragraph and map in this section belong to the Indo-European languages page (where it could fill out the information on isoglosses)? I don't see how erudite details on dative plurals in Celtic, etc illuminate anything about IA migrations. rudra 02:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise

We have three article to deal with broader topic; Indo-Aryan migration for mainstream view, Out of India for minority scholarly opinion, and Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) about historical, ideological and socio-political aspects of this controversy. There is no need for a fourth article like indigenous Aryans. Would this be acceptable compromise.Sbhushan 14:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)