Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{WikiProject Central Asia| ... | class=B | importance=low |}}
According to geneticist David Reich, Sintashta and Andronovo, the two cultures often associated with the Indo-Aryans and Indo-Aryan languages, did not directly contribute any DNA to India:
}}
{{tmbox | text =See also ]}}
"Often in the story told with the steppe hypothesis, the Yamnaya give rise to later groups called the Sintashta and Andronovo that then contributed to India. But genetic data from those populations so far call into question that model, as they do not work statistically as sources of ancestry in India."
— David Reich
Reich, David (March 2018). "Ancient DNA Suggests Steppe Migrations Spread Indo-European Languages"
Pretty interesting, since the theory focus a lot on Sintashta/Andronovo migrations which apparently did not happen. In the source Reich mentions that Sintashta/Andronovo-related ancestry reached India later than hypothesized, through a later culture that carried it (thus indirect contribution) ] (]) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Please read footnote 2 at the end of that paragraph from which you pulled the quote.
:”In the year since this lecture was delivered, my laboratory and another laboratory have generated new ancient DNA data from Central Asia. With these data in hand, we have been able to show that groups like Sintashta and Andronovo in fact have mixed with some of these newly sampled populations to produce a plausible source population for South Asians.” ] (]) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
== "Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)" listed at ] ==
]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> <span style="font-family:Futura,'Century Gothic','Trebuchet MS',serif;">] ]</span> 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
== Infobox military conflict ==
== Bangladesh ==
Regarding: the questionisnotwhetherBangladeshispartofnorthernIndia, but whether the Indo-Aryan migrationsreachedasfarasBangladesh.Theydidn't.TheVedicculturereachedBangladeshonlyinthe later Vedic period. We'renottalkingthenanymoreaboutIndo-Aryanmigrations, butaboutSanskritization. Best regards, ] -] 09:26, 19November2015 (UTC)
{{yo|HorCrux48}} FYI: the IVC had already started to decline, due to climate change, when Indo-Aryan people started to migrate into northern India, also due to climate change. The 'Aryan Invasion Theory', bt which you seem to be informed, is outdated and incorrect. ] -] 19:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
:{{yo|RegentsPark|Bishonen}} does one of you care to convince this editor of their misunderstanding? Thanks. ] -] 19:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
::{{ping|HorCrux48}} If you find your additions reverted, please seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring to add it back. I'm removing your infobox and suggest you explain here why you think it necessary. Wait for consensus and, if you get it, then add it back. (See ] and ])--] <small>(])</small> 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024 ==
The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within south India associated with Indo-Aryan movements.
The last paragraph in the lede contains a lot of weasel-wording and reflects a Hindu nationalist POV. "The debate about the origin of Indo-Aryan peoples is controversial, resulting in political agitation and inflamed sentiments. Some have rejected the theory of Indo-Aryan origins outside of India, maintaining that the Indo-Aryan people and languages originated in India." First, the controversy is only found in India. Second "Some have rejected the theory..." is classic ]. The "some" are Hindu nationalists, part of whose agenda is hide the fact that it is they who oppose the theory, and attempt to make the controversy seem more widespread and general than it is. ] (]) 18:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:The whole "in India" narrative should be classified as ] and treated accordingly, that is, virtually ignored, especially in the lead, IMHO. The Hindu nationalists are the equivalent of flat earthers or creationists (or "Alexander was Slavic" proponents). --] (]) 19:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::Taivo has a possible academic ], since they dismiss any scholar that goes against their POV.]<sup>]</sup> 19:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
:::Academic COI? How so? Please elaborate with a detailed comparison of my CV, Indo-European studies, and Indian politics. You better be able to put your money where your mouth is when making such accusations. --] (]) 21:18, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
*Good point. I've removed it pending a better way to say 'controversial'. Also, the current text was not properly sourced (the source only says 'controversial', not the rest). --] <small>(])</small> 21:24, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
::A left-over of some heated discussions. ] -] 21:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
* I reverted {{U|Athenean}}'s edit as part of my routine daily check. Sorry to see that it resulted in an edit-war. Now that I re-read his text, I think it is quite ok.
** It is controversial in India. Fact. It is opposed by Hindu nationalists. Fact. So, I am happy to go with his version.
** Yes, it is opposed by some scholars elsewhere, like Schaefer etc. But it is a marginal position.
** It is opposed by some normal people in India too (outside the Hindu nationalist sphere), but we are not saying that everybody that opposes it is a Hindu nationalist. It is clearly that the Hindu nationalists are the main opposition camp. So, again, it is quite ok to go with it.
: - ] (]) 00:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree that the fact that it is controversial and political in India needs to be included. But we should work out how we say it first. In particular, the wording should make it clear that this is the mainstream theory, that the alternate 'indigenous aryan' theory is considered a fringe one, and that it is associated (mostly is fine) with Hindu nationalists. Something along the lines of ''A controversial view that Indo Aryan languages originated in India and then spread outward is promoted by scholars associated with Hindu Nationalism. Though this alternative theory has some traction in India, it is considered a fringe view by mainstream scholars.''--] <small>(])</small> 03:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree that a mention somewhere in an appropriate place in the article is appropriate, but fringe theories have no place in the lead, which is a summary of the main points of the article. Fringe theories, by definition, are not main points of the topic. I will oppose any mention of this fringe political theory in the lead, but not in some other appropriate place in the article. --] (]) 04:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::I think I agree with Taivo.]<sup>]</sup> 04:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
to:
::::::I agree that the fringe "Out of India" theory need to be mentioned in the lede. However, the article has a whole section entitled "Controversy" so a brief mention that the theory is opposed by Hindu nationalist groups would be appropriate. I also think we should mention that the theory is broadly supported in academic circles. How about "''The theory has broad support among academics. However, it is opposed by Hindu nationalists on ideological grounds.''" ] (]) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::That's good and sufficient wording for the "Controversy" section. (I'm hoping that you mistyped when you said you agreed that it needed to be mentioned in the lead. The agreement actually seems to be that it should not be in the lead.) --] (]) 08:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
:::::::: I agree. The 'Indigenous Aryans' view is not a "theory", much less an "alternative" theory. (A theory has to explain all the available facts.) There is just political debate. Athenean's wording is quite accurate. - ] (]) 10:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within South Asia associated with Indo-Aryan movements. ] (]) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
== Still "Acceptance" of Aryan Theory? ==
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> no reason given for the proposed change. ] (]) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
{{archive top|result=]. ] -] 18:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)}}
::"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
The following articles are well researched that are enough to show/prove that Aryan theory is mis-leading and wrong.
::Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature.
::For instance:
::"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
::UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
::"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
::"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
::Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo. Hence my simple request. ] (]) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::Look at the locations of those cultures. They have nothing to do with south India: https://en.wikipedia.org/Cemetery_H_culture#/media/File:Rigvedic_geography.jpg
::This whole subcontinent is South Asia. South India is the a small part of South Asia (south of India), which has nothing to do with Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Painted Grey Ware, and Copper Hoard Culture.
::Hence my attempt to correct what appears to be a simple typo. ] (]) 18:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::] ] (]) 19:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
"All started with Sanskrit word "Arya" which does not means Aryaan"
Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature. For instance:
The links of articles are: 1- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/aryan_invasion_theory_the_final_nail_in_its_coffin.htm 2- http://uwf.edu/lgoel/documents/amythofaryaninvasionsofindia.pdf 3- http://www.stephen-knapp.com/solid_evidence_debunking_aryan_invasion.htm
"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
There are many more 'Proofs' available in the form of well researched articles that shows that Aryan invasion Hypothesis is purely wrong.
UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
The number of articles which are proofs which includes the Archaeological findings are more than number of articles supporting Aryan Invasion Hypothesis, thus should be discarded for lack of evidence & information should be corrected ASAP so it won't mis-guide people anymore. Some of the proofs are the topics by Swami Vivekanada himself.
"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
I believe it should be revise again and information should be corrected on all the Misplaced Pages Pages.
"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
] (]) 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo.
:Please read ]. ] -] 16:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
*This was added by {{ping|Joshua Jonathan}} in . --] <small>(])</small> 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::Clear my one doubt, if I want to discuss about this hypothesis with Evidence, where i can do that? {{ping|Joshua Jonathan}}
:::Done. ] - ] 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
::: You might try wordpress.com. - ] (]) 18:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}
== Arguments ==
== The myth of 50,000 year old populations ==
If there were really Aryan migrations, then why there is no similarity of culture, tools, art forms and pottery as the people who migrated must have brought these with them. Why there is no mention of migration and gene mixing in the literature of indigenous people of the Indian subcontinent ] (]) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I have deleted all the ] about 50,000 years. Please provide quotes from papers that establish these wild claims. You might also see the old discussion at ], where we concluded that the ANI DNA (''male'' DNA) entered India in 2,200 BC. - ] (]) 23:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
:That timeframe is the mixture of ANI's and ASI's. It has nothing to do with Aryan migration. That is your ].<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:: That is a different matter. But I would like to see where the sources say populations have been in India for 50,000 years. - ] (]) 00:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:::: You interpret "ancestry component" as "population?" How? - ] (]) 00:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:Because they made Indian culture after 700 years of disconnecting from Central Asian Aryans ] (]) 09:58, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
==Entire genetics section is ]==
:]. ] (]) 04:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The entire genetics section is ]. We discussed this stuff previously with even admin {{ping|Dougweller}} agreeing that it is OR. ] states ''"must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and '''directly support the material being presented'''."'' With one exception, none of the genetics studies mention Aryan Migration.<span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">]<sup>]</sup></span> 00:14, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
:Similarities with who or what? Shintashta? There are: language, chariots, burial customs. The basic form of the mandala is derived from the basic outline of Shintashta settlements. Mention of migration: in which "indigenous literature"? The Vedas? Why would those texts do so? But they ''do'' mention people with Aryan and non-Aryan names. Let's turn it around: if the Aryans originated in India, how do you explain the linguistic, genetical and religious similarities between Indian and European people in a ''credible'' way? See ] for non-credible ways. ] - ] 04:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
According to geneticist David Reich, Sintashta and Andronovo, the two cultures often associated with the Indo-Aryans and Indo-Aryan languages, did not directly contribute any DNA to India:
"Often in the story told with the steppe hypothesis, the Yamnaya give rise to later groups called the Sintashta and Andronovo that then contributed to India. But genetic data from those populations so far call into question that model, as they do not work statistically as sources of ancestry in India."
— David Reich
Reich, David (March 2018). "Ancient DNA Suggests Steppe Migrations Spread Indo-European Languages"
Pretty interesting, since the theory focus a lot on Sintashta/Andronovo migrations which apparently did not happen. In the source Reich mentions that Sintashta/Andronovo-related ancestry reached India later than hypothesized, through a later culture that carried it (thus indirect contribution) 46.176.160.196 (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Please read footnote 2 at the end of that paragraph from which you pulled the quote.
”In the year since this lecture was delivered, my laboratory and another laboratory have generated new ancient DNA data from Central Asia. With these data in hand, we have been able to show that groups like Sintashta and Andronovo in fact have mixed with some of these newly sampled populations to produce a plausible source population for South Asians.” Chariotrider555 (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@HorCrux48: FYI: the IVC had already started to decline, due to climate change, when Indo-Aryan people started to migrate into northern India, also due to climate change. The 'Aryan Invasion Theory', bt which you seem to be informed, is outdated and incorrect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!19:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
@HorCrux48: If you find your additions reverted, please seek consensus on the talk page rather than edit warring to add it back. I'm removing your infobox and suggest you explain here why you think it necessary. Wait for consensus and, if you get it, then add it back. (See WP:BRD and WP:EW)--RegentsPark (comment) 20:39, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2024
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change:
The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within south India associated with Indo-Aryan movements.
to:
The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures are candidates for subsequent cultures within South Asia associated with Indo-Aryan movements. Lekhak (talk) 15:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature.
For instance:
"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo. Hence my simple request. Lekhak (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This whole subcontinent is South Asia. South India is the a small part of South Asia (south of India), which has nothing to do with Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Painted Grey Ware, and Copper Hoard Culture.
"south India" in this sentence doesn't make any sense. "South Asia" does. It appears to be a typo, hence my simple correction.
Regardless of the controversy, The Gandhara Grave, Cemetery H, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey Ware cultures within South Asia is generally conjectured to be associated with Indo-Aryan movements all over the literature. For instance:
"Aryans in the Archaeological Record: The Evidence Inside the Subcontinent" by J.F. Heinen: This chapter from the book "The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture" delves into the archaeological evidence for Indo-Aryan presence in South Asia, with a specific focus on the Gandhara Grave Culture.
UNDERSTANDING PATTERNS OF CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE POST-HARAPPAN PERIOD ( ND MILLENNIUM TO 600 BCE): A STUDY ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL DATABASE" by Upinder Singh: This article examines the cultural developments in the post-Harappan period, including the Cemetery H Culture and its possible connection to Indo-Aryan migrations.
"The Copper Hoard Culture and the Aryans" by B.B. Lal: This article presents the case for associating the Copper Hoard Culture with Indo-Aryan migrations, based on shared features with Central Asian cultures.
"The Painted Grey Ware Culture" by R.S. Sharma: This book provides a detailed study of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, including its chronology, distribution, and relationship with other cultures in South Asia. It also addresses the ongoing debate about its association with Indo-Aryan migrations.
Regardless of the on-going debate on cautious approach on associating these cultures with Indo-Aryan movements, the current sentence with "south India" doesn't make any sense at all, and it appears to be a typo.
If there were really Aryan migrations, then why there is no similarity of culture, tools, art forms and pottery as the people who migrated must have brought these with them. Why there is no mention of migration and gene mixing in the literature of indigenous people of the Indian subcontinent 2409:40D1:3:169D:782D:28FF:FEDC:1C38 (talk) 15:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Similarities with who or what? Shintashta? There are: language, chariots, burial customs. The basic form of the mandala is derived from the basic outline of Shintashta settlements. Mention of migration: in which "indigenous literature"? The Vedas? Why would those texts do so? But they do mention people with Aryan and non-Aryan names. Let's turn it around: if the Aryans originated in India, how do you explain the linguistic, genetical and religious similarities between Indian and European people in a credible way? See Talk:Indigenous Aryanism#'No Support in mainstream scholarship' for non-credible ways. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3#Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Senator2029 【talk】 21:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
