Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 05:20, 31 January 2015 (→RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory: Added links to previous and ongoing discussions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indigenous Aryanism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 12 months

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. India: Politics Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance). Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 March 2007. The result of the discussion was No consensus.

Neutrality tag

There are number of reference tags in that article that identify original research. Please provide references to acceptable published material before removing tag.Sbhushan 21:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Concur - also, in addition to statements that could be original research or personal commentary, there are issues with phrasing - for example WP:WTA indicates the word "claim" shouldn't be used. Currently, the word is used for the Indigenous Aryan position, but not the linguistic theory, which could reasonably be considered bias. Addhoc 12:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There are also a number of what could be taken as pejorative terms when describing persons who do not subscribe to the Western theory, they are described as "Hindutva" or "Hindu Nationalists" which I would describe as ad hominum. Why not just discuss their ideas rather than try to label them. It seems more like "give a dog a bad name and then hang him." 18:19, 3 November 2014‎ User:Chandraputra

Only one specific instance: "an idea revived by the Hindutva sympathizer Koenraad Elst (1999)". You may have a point here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

As I recall, WP:N requires showing both sides of an issue. I'm not sure I see the other side that is omitted in identifying the source of a theory. A major part of Elst's page deals with his political sympathies, and it is in the same section as describes his theory. The two are connected. Knowing that a theory is put forward by someone who pushes a particular political agenda that happens to be supported by the theory is a relevant detail in assessing and understanding that theory. There doesn't seem to be a problem with noting this in the appropriate place, as here. RJC _Contribs 15:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

He is usually termed as Belgian academic. He is a proponent of number of theories. If there is anyone else, who has considered him "Hindutva sympathizer", let us know. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

He is not an "academic" as far as I know (never worked in an academic position). He makes his living by writing books for the Hindutva believers. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Kaultiya3, see http://vepa.us/dir00/interview1.htm by Rajeev Srinivasan. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article on him calls him sympathetic to the movement, and gives a footnote. RJC _Contribs 03:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Elst is not an academic - you don't become one just by getting a PhD, you have to have had a teaching or research post at a University - and not just for a few months or a couple of years. He's an author. Dougweller (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It was about how he is regarded by others, and I agree with this. Thanks for writing. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

RJC, I think Elst's current writings have gone considerably beyond being a "sympathizer". At this time, he comes across as an "advocate" or a "champion" for Hindutva. See this for instance. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair?

It is bit unfair that in the beginning of the article itself, it is defined by Witzel who is a strong critic of the theory. Come on! thats not fair! will you start an article by the reference from a critique only? And his statements give a very biased view for any reader hence it loses its neutrality. First you write what the theory is and what the people say about it in intro. One can mention that there are criticism and then in a separate heading at the last of the article write "Criticism" and write what Witzel says! We need to be fair not like this.

Sreekanthv (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

There are extremely few academic linguists who hold the position that the Indo-Aryan languages are indigenous to India. Virtually all relevant experts agree with Witzel that they are not. So it is fair to let him define the topic, because Misplaced Pages is not unbiased: we are biased towards mainstream science.

Similar things can be said, by the way, about the view that Germanic languages are indigenous to Northern Germany, let alone Scandinavia. Both outdated and extremely fringe views held almost exclusively by radical nationalists nowadays (though the Germanic version is much less popular even among them) – and (as regards the Germanic version, no idea about the Indo-Aryan version) a handful of academics who (fallaciously) consider a lack of archaeological and genetic evidence for migration/discontinuity that is so bleedingly obvious as to be impossible to rationalise and explain away (like, say, the evidence for discontinuity in most regions of North America) to be evidence for continuity. On the contrary, I think it is safe to say that most languages and ethnic groups by far are not indigenous (not even the earliest remaining language/population in their respective regions) and arrived through migration instead, and that most ethnic groups are heavily mixed genetically. So "Indigenous XY"-type claims are generally met with suspicion in academia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

POI

The stqatement of the article, talageris view would be "within Hindu nationalism" is POI. His position is a refusal of the AIT and as that not nationalistic. If you have any work, which accuses him that way then you have to quote or at least to refer to the same. Otherwise please change the phrase to "within India".217.13.79.226 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Kurgan hypothesis

I wanted to add a link to the Kurgan hypothesis in this article, but thought it was better to ask before I do so, because a lot of people seem to object to my edits (and I want to avoid an edit war).—Khabboos (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Genetics section

@Joshua Jonathan, CorporateM, Bladesmulti, and AmritasyaPutra: WP: OR states "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article." Directly related is even bolded. None of the genetics studies mention Indigenous Aryans or Aryan Migration. Migrations occurring 40,000 years ago have nothing to do with Aryan Migration, which is a specific hypothesis with a specific timetable. Lastly, the well known academic books on Indian history don't discuss Aryan Migration/Indigenous Aryans using genetics studies.VictoriaGrayson 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is also OR and Synth? Bladesmulti (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think Vic is right here. The genetics-section is being used to argument against (is this correct English?) against the IA-theory (theory? ahem...) I've no opposition of course against providing some good arguments this kind of thinking, but it is indeed some sort of synthesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the genetics study mentioned here is being connected to this theory not by scholarly analysis but independently by editors. There may be some recent study explicitly analyzing them together. --AmritasyaPutra 10:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've reverted an editor who restored it. Thanks to Victoria Grayson. Dougweller (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also the first few lines of the section Indigenous_Aryans#Pseudoscience_and_postmodernism are incorrect, see the book , pseudoscience has no mention. Then there is a quote, any traditional Hindu idea or practice..... which is not from Meera Nanda but Bharathi, and it is about some nuclear physics(relating to Vedas), not Indigenous Aryans, see . Can be removed and section needs to be re-titled. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just because it's not specifically spelled it doesn't mean it's not relevant. It's the same topic. The studies discuss contributions of Indo-European (=hypernym of Indo-Aryan, but equivalent here since there are no other IE migrations to the subcontintent) migrations to the gene pool. These are not migrations that occurred 40,000 years ago (haplogroups themselves are not that old). --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 11:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not the way we work. It's your opinion that it's the same topic, but we need reliable sources stating that it's the same topic, not personal opinion. Dougweller (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal opinion, really ? After 1 minute of googling: , . Genetics is the ultimate argument to refute all of the indigenous crackpot theories and it must be present in the article. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 14:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

So long as the sources mention indigenous Aryans or an Aryan invasion, I agree. But if they don't, no. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ivan Štambuk It is not to be added. Are you making a new crackpot theory? 2nd one is self published. Other 2 don't mention indigenous Aryans. The reports you are talking about, they often criticized because of the poor research. Migration is not limited with one single event. Before you are into more SYNTH and original research, you should read Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia, which is relevant. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

No, they mention the Indo-Aryan migrations which is a topic directly antithetical to this one. Evidence for Indo-Aryan migrations is the criticism of Indigenous Aryans theory. The Indigenous Aryans theory is basically crackpot science not even worth a passing remark in serious publications, and that's the only reason why it's not more explicitly referred to. People publish research to prove the historical Indo-Aryan migrations, not to disprove the Indigenous Aryans theory. Just because the Indigenous Aryans theory is not explicitly mentioned, it doesn't mean that it's not related. The sources I linked are tertiary but they refer to papers that are relevant, and which fit into a bigger picture of Indo-Aryan migrations, together with archeological and linguistic evidence. The article in its current form lacks any counterarguments, aside from opinions of some opponents. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Still original research. Being relevant cannot really justify and it is just a matter of opinion. It is pretty clear that those genetic research have nothing to do with migration, and none these proposals claim to be first migration or last. It is not criticism if there is some more collection of any other theory, be it crackpot or more accepted. None of them have any universal acceptance, they are just hypothesis. They cannot be related with only one migrations theory, but all of them. That's why somebody had added the genetics section to almost every Indo-european migration articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The sources clearly and openly state that genetic evidence is supportive of Indo-Aryan migrations to India. That you, personally, are unable to comprehend English language and make the mental connection in that direction is really not my problem. There are no "many migration theories". There is only one, supported also by archaeological and linguistic evidence. It all perfectly fits together. We cannot delude readers into thinking that Indigenous Aryans is "just another viable theory", supported and accepted to the same extent as the Indo-Aryan migrations. We're not in India dammit. It smacks of creationist argument on how evolution is "just another theory". Jesus, are we really having this debate?! --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 23:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have sheer competence issues with both English and basic understanding of citations. None of the so called evidence mentioned the Indigenous Aryans, and that's the only thing you have to know about, but you find it very hard to get. If I am not personally able to create a fairytale connection, that you actually wanted, it is still not fault. Lets get clearer, you don't even know what is the actual subject, next time, just read the title of the article before you are into any sort of synthesis or original research again. Some off topic POV discussion is simply waste of time. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Evolution-Creation is a false analogy Ivan. Edwin Bryant, undoubtedly a top expert, says he is "agnostic" about Indo-Aryan Migrations. He says "I find most of the evidence that has been marshaled to support the theory of Indo-Aryan migrations into the subcontinent to be inconclusive." Witzel himself acknowledges that "Denial of immigration into the area of an existing culture has recently been asserted by some archaelogists as well; they posit a purely local, indigenous development."VictoriaGrayson 01:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

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

I propose that Out of India theory be merged into Indigenous Aryans. I think that the content in the Out of India theory article can easily be explained in the context of Indigenous Aryans, and the Indigenous Aryans article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Out of India theory will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned.VictoriaGrayson 18:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Support As nominator.VictoriaGrayson 18:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Keep in one place. Both small articles. Bladesmulti (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:49, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support connected/related article deserving to stay under one heading. --AmritasyaPutra 08:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support The same crackpot theory basically. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

(Please place any discussion on the merger proposal in this section.)

Admin Help

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

Request admin assistance in merging histories. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging the histories is out of the question, as the two articles have very different histories. History merging is only for cases where the history of what is effectively one article has been broken, most commonly as a result of a copy-paste move. Merging of the content of the articles, on the other hand, is something which any editor can do, and an administrator is no more able to do it than any other editor. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I can take care of the content merge, but as someone without expertise in this area, I expect some clean-up will be needed. I will do my best to contextualize info from Out of India theory, but any help will be much appreciated. I, JethroBT 16:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

When did they migrate?

In any "Indigenous Aryan" scenario, speakers of Indo-European languages must have left India at some point prior to the 10th century BC. I don't see how this works. According to Indo-European Languages, our speakers were in Antatolia in 4200BC, Tocharia 3700BC, Germany 3300BC, and so on. 10th century is too late. We can't put this totally fallacious argument in Misplaced Pages voice. Kautilya3 (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the languages. But the most comprehensive genetic study by Harvard dates the north Indian and south Indian populations to 40,000 to 60,000 years ago.VictoriaGrayson 01:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, our home-grown PIE speakers apparently didn't bother to migrate to South India, whereas they found it fit to ride their horses all the way to Germany. I can think of hundreds of reasons why this doesn't make sense. But the immediate point really is, that the 10th century doesn't cut it. We need an inline attribution to whoever said it. So, where does this date come from? Kautilya3 (talk) 02:01, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Witzel 2001 & 2005 gives dates: at least before 5000 BCE. Elst's map is funny indeed. The Dravidians must have been some sort of Asterix & Obelix, fighting off the Vedics for millennia ;) Vic, the migration theory is not about wild gangs invading India; it's about little groups of people who were organised in a client-system social organisation, which could easily accommodate new clients. Compare the knights & vasals system in medieaval Europe (not mere coincidence, I guess). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Scenarios

Section

So, what's wrong with this section? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the citation, he is not claiming revisionism of any Aryan theory but Ashokan scripts. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

You have the source for this article and can't find mention of the Aryan theory? That is surprising. But there are other articles where Witzel gave the same classification. I will dig one up. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Found it. {{sfn|Witzel|2001|p=28}}. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It has mention of these names but not actually interpreting like it is suggested here, and a little bit out of the scope when we are talking about revisionist scenarios. Also he is an opponent of this theory thus he is NPOV or going to measure both sides. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Bladesmulti.VictoriaGrayson 12:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, it's not clear to me what you mean. The reference is correct. And "NPOV"? You're suggesting Witzel is biased because he's doing his job as a scholar? Misplaced Pages is based on RS, remember? Tagging any criticism of "indigenous Aryanism" as NPOV is not an argument, but derailing the discussion with non-arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see any evidence that Witzel is predisposed to be an "opponent" of the theory. In fact, he even says on the page I cited that all the European countries have been subjected to the same kind of invasion/migration by the Indo-European tribes that India has experienced, and wonders why Indians should feel so hard done by it. I don't see anything in his attitudes that might affect his rationality. So, as far as we are concerned, he is a scholar and expert. If he has genuine scholarly disagreement, that is not an "opposition." Kautilya3 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

And, if I might add, this is a completely different ball game from India's Leftist historians engaging in Hindu-bashing in the name of "secularism." There, you can call it an "opposition," and I would agree. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks synthesis and he is not the best citation to talk about this theory because he is the opponent, and Elst says that Witzel has misinterpreted stuff. If it is about reliability, then a lot of times, Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others. Klaus K. Klostermaier also described that. So there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying, that's why basing much of the article on his analysis is not neutral and it would look like an attack page instead. See Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti: We are not going to censor Witzel just because some people don't like him, but we are not stopping you from editing the article! Feel free to add other points of view coherently following the ground rules of Misplaced Pages (using reliable sources). One tricky bit here is that Indo-European Studies is based on linguistics and archaeology. According to Jamison, linguistics is primary and archaeology plays a supporting role. So, Hinduism scholars are no good for the enterprise, Klaus Kostermaier included. Bryant is borderline. He is not a linguist, but he seems to have at least some basic exposure to it. The Kazanas debate is a big boondoggle , and I don't want to get into it. You should stay away from non-peer-reviewed articles.

What I mean by coherent is that you and your sources need to answer the kind of questions that I raised. If PIE reached Anatolia in 4000BC and India is supposed to be the PIE homeland, what were these PIE speakers doing in 4000BC? Why did they bother going to Anatolia while they were living in IVC, which was an economic superpower of the times, and while South India and even Gangetic plains still remained to be explored? If your sources don't have answers to such basic issues, they are basically selling snake oil. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not censoring to remove sythensis per a policy. We can insert him at criticism but not analyze in his words because he is major opponent of the theory, and such view is being discussed. If his views are supported by any other scholar of the same field, we can insert them instead and not the yahoo group weblink that you have provided. Right now the article clearly misinterprets the cited citations. None of them offers any of those 3 scenarios, neither Witzel himself says that this theory misrepresents IAM as IMT, he only says that they 'nearly' redirect to invasion theory. Klaus is a scholar of Indian religions. Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to argue synthesis, please feel free to state what has been synthesized, and leave out issues about Witzel and credibility. And, remember too that synthesis is not prohibited, only synthesis that constitutes OR is prohibited. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Blades, but Elst has no reputation whatsoever, and Klostermaier is dubious too. And to state that "Witzel has not supported mainstream but made his own speculations and discarded others" and "there is little credibility in what Michael Witzel is saying" - Witzel defines the mainstream! It's the other way round: if Witzel criticises Kazanas and the likes, it's relevant.
And to state "Neither of the theories of hypothesis have any acceptance, because there is no firm evidence of migrations and that is what others usually agree with" is nonsense. The IAMt is widely accepted. Read Anthony "The Horse, the Wheel and Language" for a detailed overview, and Witzel's 2001 and 2005 criticisms of the indigenous Aryans thesis. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc.VictoriaGrayson 21:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Bringing down other scholars in order to push another favorite scholar is largely unhelpful and not a good justification, it is still not adhering to Misplaced Pages:BIASED, you think of inserting these stuff, OR and synth in regards to Michael Witzel, a controversial writer that cannot be actually considered as an authority and happens to be incorrect at times. His book is not even as recent compared to Klaus. It is also obvious that majority of the scholars neither accepts Indigenous Aryans or IAM when they are talking about Vedic period. Also the last BBC article clarifies it better that the non-controversial model is better than the controversial, most of the scholars don't believe in any of these two hypothesis for maintaining historicity or origins, they provide that it is one of the widely accept idea but not a universal idea. They are rather talking about the acceptance among other theories. E.g. Upinder Singh writes that IAM is the most accepted hypothesis in the field, but also says that it is still uncertain and scholars need to establish a lot better methodology before coming up. We don't even know a single name of a person from these events and you actually happen to believe on these hypothesis if they are facts? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Blades, I'm afraid that I have to agree with Florian Baschke that your understanding is too limited here.

• Witzel is a top-scholar, and a major authority on this topic;
• Klostermaier is of a less calibre; as a Dutch writer wrote (paraphrased): 'someone who speaks about the usage of iron and domesticated horses at 30,000 BCE, can't be taken to serious on other topics either';
• It is completely obvious that the majority of scholars accepts the IAMt, that is, the migration of Indo-European out of the Pontic steppe; the only other srious contender is the Anatolian hypothesis. Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy signiWcant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• I don't read Flood mentioning anyhting about "controversial", or "most of the scholars don't believe in any of these two hypothesis." He does notice, though:

"There are two sources of knowledge about this ancient period - language and archaeology - and we can make two comments about them.

Firstly, the language of vedic culture was vedic Sanskrit, which is related to other languages in the Indo-European language group. This suggests that Indo-European speakers had a common linguistic origin known by scholars as Proto-Indo-European.

Secondly, there does seem to be archaeological continuity in the subcontinent from the Neolithic period. The history of this period is therefore complex. One of the key problems is that no horse remains have been found in the Indus Valley but in the Veda the horse sacrifice is central. The debate is ongoing."

• Singh's comment, "IAM is the most accepted hypothesis in the field", does make sense.
• Your comment "We don't even know a single name of a person from these events and you actually happen to believe on these hypothesis if they are facts?" is nonsensical, for two reasons:

• There are names from these events, in the Rg Veda, namely Indo-European and non-Indo-European. it shows that the Vedic people were a socially "open group," which allowed for the inclusion of new persons. They were accepted when they adhered to the Vedic rituals and social organisation, as explained by Anthony. This is also an explanation for the question why small groups can have a strong influence: because their social organisation is more succesfull.
• I don't "believe" that hypotheses are "facts" (the hypothesis itself is, of course); I understand that theories provide an explanatory framework, from which hypotheses can be derived which can be tested; and I find, personally, that the hypotheses of the IEMt and the IAMt are convincing, in contrast to the IAt. And I note, and that's not a matter of believe but simply a matter of fact, that the IEMt/IAMt, including a migration from a non-Indian "homeland", is the accepted framework, whereas the IAt is completely rejected by the academic mainstream.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Florian didn't even know that I was reading the book that he had referred, he got it later.

Witzel is not an authority in this field, he is experienced but we cannot base every matter according to him. Where did that Dutch writer said it? Provide a link if there is any credibility. IAt is completely rejected which was often described and still described with IAM. But IAM is not universally accepted and seems to have been losing it. Gavin Flood doubts and alerts against the Indo Aryan migration, where he represents no dispute against the other model that remains non-controversial. Thus most of your quotes have to do nothing with Misplaced Pages:BIASED, or Misplaced Pages:SYNTHESIS, use your own words and make relevant on the subject. Bladesmulti (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant criticizes Witzel's logic in the book Indo-Aryan Controversy, for example on page 477, 480 etc.VictoriaGrayson 14:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The disciplinary framework

Since Joshua is making a serious effort to explain what is going on in this debate, I am going to add my two cents too, this time regarding how the academic disciplines play a role here (because I work in a University and interact with people from a variety of disciplines and know something about how they work).

• Natural sciences have developed a high degree of rigour soon after the Italian Renaissance. The other disciplines, which tend to be called, arts and later humanities, don't have such rigour, partly because the subject matter itself is "subjective" or because collecting evidence to test hypotheses is too hard or impossible. They end up using ideas like "interpretation", "analysis", "synthesis" etc. to promote theories, which are essentially points of view, but the proponents are usually required to provide as much evidence as possible in support of their theories. Multiple contradictory theories exist side by side and they succeed or fail over time based on the natural selection of ideas in the academic enterprise.
• However, by mid 20-the century, a few subfields of humanities have developed new methods of rigour and eventually turned into what are called "social sciences." Economics is a great example of this phenomenon, but the dividing lines between the subjective side of the discipline and the rigorous side of the discipline are not always clear cut. They use labels like "political economics" and "econometrics" to distinguish the two sides. History and Archaeology show a similar distinction. Languages and Linguistics are similarly divided. Religious studies or Cultural studies on the one hand and Sociology on the other are equally divided.
• The subjects that have a bearing on the Indo-European Studies are linguistics and archaeology, both of which are highly technical disciplines which require serious study and training. I see people from Religious Studies or History or Languages often dabbling in it, but they don't really understand enough of the technical side to do anything serious. The scholars in the Indo-European Studies are often dismissive of them (not because they dislike them but just because the humanities people don't know enough to say sensible things).
• Linguistics, especially Indo-European linguistics, apparently starts with our own Panini. Indians should have been at the forefront of linguistics because of their natural advantage. But apparently they got disheartened as soon as it was discovered that Sanskrit wasn't the "queen" of Indo-European languages and gave up studying it. So, at the moment, Indians are at a serious disadvantage for saying anything sensible in Indo-European Studies. They are "linguistic dilettantes" in Edwin Bryant's words.
• Edwin Bryant did his PhD on the Indo-Aryan Migration Debate but, surprisingly, didn't follow it up. I don't see any publications by him in the area. By 2001, when the Indigenous Aryanists invaded the Internet, it seemed opportune for him to publish his PhD work. But there is no original research there, just surveying the field and summarising. There aren't any more publications by him after 2001 either. He doesn't seem to be either a linguist or an archaeologist. So, it is not clear what he can do in the field either.
• The Indigenous Aryanists are surprisingly amateur. Retired engineers, blank clerks, unemployed PhD's, and what have you. Their theories don't even make a beginning. They can't get anything published in scientific journals. But they have millions of Hindu nationalists cheering for them and promoting them on the Internet. So they think they can bulldoze their way into the world by "muscle" rather than by brain power. Intelligent Indians and Hindus, like me, are truly embarrassed by this state of affairs. Hindu nationalists simply don't realize how they are making total fools of themselves. If they have something interesting to say, they should do the hard work by studying the fields at issue, getting PhD's, and publishing their ideas in scientific journals. Science will never allow itself to be defeated by pure muscle power.

Kautilya3 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not a forum. You are ignoring every other scholar who has refuted Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis this is not the way to reach some agreement, neither evaluating that how much 'studies' they require. I ask you to make relevant conversation that we cannot explain a hypothesis as a fact because Misplaced Pages:FRINGE says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact." There is no science in a hypothesis that is based on linguistics, nor you can see a single scientist who believes in these hypothesis. Misinterpretating IAM hypothesis as science for giving extra push is unhelpful. While former, Aryan theory from and Aryan Invasion theory are considered as pseudoscience, science(DNA tests) actually disapproves the AMT hypothesis, probably that's why there is no mention of this theory or claims that it is legitimate since the end of 2011. The main point is that why we are misinterpreting Witzel and even using him as a citation when he is the major opponent of this theory, it is a violation of Misplaced Pages:BIASED. Can we find something better? Bladesmulti (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand most of what you are trying to say. Hopefully, Joshua understands it and gives you a response. But I will pick up one point: You are ignoring every other scholar who has refuted Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis. Show us a scholar that has published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies or the Indo-Iranian Journal (the primary fora for research about Indo-European issues), and we will take them seriously. As far as I know, Kazanas is the only one that has attempted to do so (Journal of Indo-European Studies Volume 30, 2002). His paper was so whacky that J. P. Mallory decided to accept it for publication without peer review, and invited 6 other people to give responses. All of them dismissed it (Bryant mildly so), and nobody ever referred to it again. So, he didn't even make a dent in scholarly consensus. We are supposed to describe scholarly consensus here. That consensus has to be generated by your scholars, not by us. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Again this is not a forum. It is clearly understandable that what I am talking about. I was talking about your misinterpretation of a hypothesis as a science for providing it extra push which is actually against the Misplaced Pages:FRINGE policy about interpreting unscientific theories/hypothesis. Publications by Routledge, ABC - CLIO, Oxford University, etc. speaks enough, and since you have already found one scholar who published in that journal, I wouldn't bother finding more because it serves no purpose for higher credibility. Can you find the citations instead of telling stories and answer the above issues? Bladesmulti (talk) 00:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I have no idea what you are talking about. I haven't written anything in this article. Joshua is writing it and you are disputing it. And, this article is not about Indo-Aryan Migration anyway. So what are you on about? In the other article on Indo-Aryan Migration "hypothesis" (as the article is currently titled), he never said that it was a "hypothesis" because none of his sources that it was a hypothesis. He is exactly following Misplaced Pages policies about sources. They are well-established books written by authorities in the field and widely accepted. So, once again, what are you on about? Kautilya3 (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Amount of citations are almost same, whether they calls it theory or hypothesis. I was talking about why we are using Witzel as a citation or base of this theory, misinterpreting him, when he has provided most of the arguments one sided. It is enough for criticism. Also the to make this page look very contradictory to other theory, it it reading like "AMT is better than this" when neither are scientific or have been settled. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Blaed, are you seriously suggesting that the IAMt is fringe? The iAMt is scientific. Witzel is a top-authority. The IAMt is not "refuted"; only some non-scholars think so. Read these quote again, from Mallory & Adams (2006), The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World:

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy signiWcant international currency (Map 26.1)." (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers." (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

Regarding Kazanas: do you actually understand what Kautilya3 is communicating here? Let's repeat:

"His paper was so whacky that J. P. Mallory decided to accept it for publication without peer review, and invited 6 other people to give responses. All of them dismissed it (Bryant mildly so), and nobody ever referred to it again. So, he didn't even make a dent in scholarly consensus."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Why you are copying same quotations that you have already repeated once? when most of it is clearly irrelevant including Kautilya3's comment.

Witzel cannot be considered neutral for analyzing Indigenous Aryans per Misplaced Pages:BIASED.

Per Misplaced Pages:FRINGE says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Misplaced Pages as representing scientific consensus or fact." and IAMh is not scientific neither you can find a scientist who will claim that, just like you have been asked before. I had also asked you to provide the link/citation of the unknown Dutch person that you had cited for degrading the credibility of Klaus. Iamt is refuted enough times and that's why it is not a universal theory. By misinterpreting its status as science is not helpful because there is no scientific proof of it. It is contradictory to the genetic studies and actually accepted early human migration. Which is just more than a hypothesis. Now I see that scholars have already started to note that Indo Ayran Migration is declining. How about we stick to it? Bladesmulti (talk) 10:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm repeating them because I hope that some you will understand what's being stated there. I can't access the page you're referring to, but I dare to be quite sure that a book on "A Communication Perspective on Interfaith Dialogue" does not have the same status in this field as a book by Mallory. Blades, please knock it off now. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not to provide a forum for fringe-theories. To suggest that the IAMt is not peer-reviewed - ... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

But it is irrelevant and nothing to do with this discussion. That book has no mention of a horse, forget about 30,000. Have you read the policy or at least one of the sentence around it? It says "Peer review is an important feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, but it is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community." That is what I was saying. Bladesmulti (talk)

Fringe Theories Noticeboard notification. Bladesmulti (talk)

Kazanas

I read a bit of Kazanas's paper last night and his "final reply". (Will need the paper volume to get hold of the critiques.) But the important bit is that Kazanas's meaning of "indigenous Aryans" is that Aryans entered the Indus Valley before 4500 BC and got integrated with Harappans (or may be they were the Harappans). I don't know why he has to call this theory "indigenous Aryans." But, for us, this gives a new interpretation of "indigenous Aryans" that we have to consider, in addition to the three interpretations that Witzel lists. I think we have to give Kazanas's interpretation due prominence here, because it is the only properly academic source that the indigenists have. (It was good enough to get published in JIES, at least with special concessions.) Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for writing. You can show here whenever you have the link. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kazanas should certainly get more mention but that which you are quoting is an old work by Kazanas in which he says "In this paper I argue that the Indo-Aryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000.". For his more recent paper read 'The Collapse of the AIT and the prevalence of Indigenism'.Indoscope (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh my... That paper starts with a map which is utterly, completely wrong. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I'll read it. I'll copy it to my e-reader - if I get through it... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Indoscope: Was this paper published? If so, where? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And maybe I won't... I'm going to play chess now with my daughter; much more fun. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mallory and Bryant

I previously gave a weblink to a yahoo groups post for Mallory's editorial note on the Kazanas paper. I now have the source and can confirm that the yahoo groups post is accurate. Curiously, he also quotes a paragraph from Bryant, which seems topical in the light of our recent discussions:

"This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins."

So the Indo-Aryan migration view is the "normative view." The indigenist view had been "marginalized." So, it should be "allowed" in the debate. It does not mean any acceptance that the indigenist view is "probable." How different this is from what we have been led to believe here, viz., that Bryant has supported the indigenist view and that the migration view has now become a fringe view?

Also found on the same page of Bryant is this sentence:

"Vedantic discourse, for one, would consider nationalism (whether Hindu, American, English, or anything else) to be simply another upadhi, or false designation, imposed on the atman out of ignorance ("Hindu nationalism" from this perspective, is something of an oxymoron)."

It is an upadhi, born out of "ignorance." How enlightening! Kautilya3 (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.
2. Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9

Sources

I'm afraid I'm going to read more on this topic, so I'm copying this thread from Talk:Vedic period#Issues of Dispute by Indoscope, to have more sources.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Though I do agree with Witzel that it may be a "torturous task"... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I will pray for your sanity!

The Dhavalikar article, Dhavalikar, M. K. (2006). "Archaeology of the Aryans". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 87: 1–37. JSTOR 41692043. which you are yet to get from me, says this: "If the Harappans were Aryans, they would certainly have depicted it on their seals which otherwise show the entire animal world including even such gruesome creatures as rhinoceros and hippopotamus. The fact that horse is conspicuously absent on Harappan seals settles the issue and we can be sure that the Harappans had no horse." He identifies the Rigvedic Aryans with the Cemetry H culture and dates it to 2000-1500BC.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs) 21:15, 25 January 2015

Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Balance

We need to eventually balance the treatment in the article by separating the proposed theories and their criticisms. Right now, I feel that the criticisms come too quickly. This is probably one of the things that Bladesmulti is probably trying to argue. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree. That's why started to read those texts by Elst etc., to see what their arguments are. I'm sure I don't agree with them, but to know for sure, I'll have to read those texts too. And Blades, you know me well enough to know that I'll present their arguments is a fair way - though I'll also give the counter-arguments. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant's "Concluding Remarks" (chapter 14) in Indo-Aryan Controversy is a good source of balance. Also archaeologist Jim G. Shaffer is a good source.VictoriaGrayson 14:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. More input is welcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please refer to this statement by Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." The point is we don't know so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong.. Refer to Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute for bringing in balance.Indoscope (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Given the scope of this article, I'd welcome a section on Kak. but please do notice of the following: in 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:

Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with conclusions "

Michael Witzel commented, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:

This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins."

So, those theories are not really favoured by mainstream science. But anyway, that's what this article is for: to give an overview, whithout burning them down right-away. Does the lay-out I've chosen now "work"? For each (sub)topic: theoretical background, "Indigenous" arguments, counter-argument? It's not he "best" lay-out qua readability, I'm afraid, but it may be the most balanced. What do you think? Peace, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

References

1. Singh, Upinder. A History of Ancient and Early Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century. Pearson Education India. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0. Retrieved 28 January 2015.
2. Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.
3. ^ Extracts from Mallory's editorial note
4. Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9

Centum–satem isogloss

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

And where's the missing argument? I mean, to what argument is Hock's responding? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to see if I can figure out what is going on tonight. Incidentally, it occurred to me that the parallels with evolution-creationism-debate are quite literal. Just as evolution is a theory of how biological species evolve, comparative linguistics is a theory of how languages evolve. In both cases, the skeptics are people that don't believe that such scientific theories are possible and reliable. Just like the creationists believe that God put the man on the earth PERIOD, Indigenous Aryanists believe that God put the Hindus in India PERIOD. And, like creationists think evolution is fake science, the Aryanists think linguistics is fake science. Deja vu. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid I am out of depth here, and I don't have access to Hock's paper. Perhaps Maunus and Taivo can help? Kautilya3 (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The centum/satem split in Indo-European was an early attempt at subgrouping that has since been discredited. In satem languages, the velar stops (*k, *g, *gh) became palatalized and in the centum languages they remained velar. Some late 19th and early 20th century subgrouping proposals therefore divided IE into two groups. However, nothing is that simple and modern reconstructions of PIE include palatalized velars as part of the reconstruction: *kj, *gj, *gyh.

So, what do I do with that section? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Race science?

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

Aryan Migrations developed out of European race "science", which also gave rise to Nazism. Read "Breaking India" by Rajv Malhotra.VictoriaGrayson 16:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, Aryanism is also a race science, whether it be Germanic or Indian. But, should we put a stop to this free-wheeling philosophisizing and restrict to topic? Kautilya3 (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me try to explain again. Nazism and Indo-Aryan Migration Hypothesis developed out of the same discredited European race science. Read "Breaking India" by Rajiv Malhotra.VictoriaGrayson 16:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

That is wrong, it has the thing backwards. Race science adopted elements from historical linguistics. Race science being discredited has no relevance for the linguistic and historical hypothesis. Malhotra is not a reliable source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Discredited race science is the source of Indo-Aryan Migration as well as Nazism. This is documented in "Breaking India".VictoriaGrayson 17:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Breaking India" is not a reliable source but a piece of propaganda, neither of its authors have any expertise in a relevant field. It is in this case entirely wrong. "Aryan" as a racial epithet was first used by Arthur de Gobineau who did use the claim that "Aryans" invaded India as a proof for his racist theory which was later adapted by Hitler. He got the temr Aryan from linguistics that had already been using it, but in an entirely different meaning to describe those groups spoke languages related to Avestan and Sanskrit. But the indo-aryan migration theory preceded Gobineau by about 100 years, and it has nothing to do with the idea of an "aryan master race" at all.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a historical fact that the Aryan concept was used in linguistics long before it became linked to ideas about biological races. Of course we have to acknowledge that the word "race" was used very loosely in the 18th-19th century to mean ethnicities, lineages etc. When "race science" developed in the mid-late 19th century it developed a different meaning altogether. Hence Muller's famous statement that "blue-eyed and fair-haired Scandinavians may have been conquerors or conquered, they may have adopted the language of their darker lords or their subjects, or vice versa. I assert nothing beyond their language when I call them Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans, Celts and Slavs; and in that sense, and in that sense only, do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest Scandinavians. .. To me an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar." This was a mainstream view even at the height of 'race science'. See the 1911 Britannica . Paul B (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Breaking India" is probably the best referenced book on Aryan Migrations. @Joshua Jonathan: should read it.VictoriaGrayson 17:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is written by political advocates with no academic credentials, and published by a popular press with no academic review, there is no reason anyone here should read it and we cannot use it as a source for anything other than the authors opinions if they were notable. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

I think the book and the author are notable. I didn't get the slightest hint of what does RM knowing of JJ's "existence" have to do here. --AmritasyaPutra 09:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability gives us a license to write an article about it, if we care to. To cite it, you need reliability, which is an entirely different concept. Moreover, reliability depends on the context. So to cite him on race issues, we need to establish that he is an expert on race issues. Or, history for that matter.Kautilya3 (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course, can you give reference that he is unreliable? I don't care about your biased opinion. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra 16:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what "of course" is supposed to mean. You said "notable" and this is not the first time you have used the word inappropriately.

• The burden of proof is with whoever wants to cite a source to demonstrate its reliability. (In any case, the proof of unreliability is already there on the Rajiv Malhotra page.)
• Finally, please desist from personal attacks. Or, you will end up at ANI.

Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Please give reference. I really don't care about your personal opinion. Cheers! --AmritasyaPutra 03:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vedic Sanskrit conserves many archaic aspects

This looks like OR to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have certainly seen this mentioned. You can tag it with "citation needed" and I will fill it in when I find the reference. Kautilya3 (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Jamison's quote

"The Indo-Aryan controversy" is about the revisionist/Indigenous Aryans scenarios. To state "no mention of indigenous aryans" is factually correct, but misses the point. The book itself is, so the review is too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

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

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Language and linguistics Religion and philosophy When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

• Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory#Requested move 14 January 2015 (Result: "Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis" was moved to Indo-Aryan migration theory)
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact (Result: "There is a clear consensus among knowledgeable editors who are familiar with the literature that Indo-Aryan migration is the overwhelmingly predominant view among reliable sources in the field, that any alternatives – aside from religiously and nationally motivated ideologies – are indeed WP:FRINGE, and that the Indo-Aryan migration should therefore be presented as an established historical fact (subject, of course, just to the standard proviso that historical models, as a matter of principle, can hardly ever reach the same amount of certainty as natural laws in the physical sciences; the objection that an historical model isn't "testable" and therefore "not scientific" is an obviou red herring.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)"
• Misplaced Pages talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate (Request to reopen the debate)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Review Closure of debate : Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact (Request to reopen the debate)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tendentious editing by some editors Vedic Period - Neutrality of which is disputed
• Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Book advocating fringe theory (Result: The Lost River was merged with Michel Danino, since it was used as coatrack for fringe-theory)

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

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

• Fringe: "marginalized views"

• Mallory, emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, a member of the Royal Irish Academy and the editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies; & Adams, professor of English at the University of Idaho, state in The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World (2006):

"Currently, there are two types of models that enjoy significant international currency (Map 26.1). (p.460)

"There is the Neolithic model that involves a wave of advance from Anatolia c. 7000 bc and, at least for south-eastern and central Europe, argues primarily for the importation of a new language by an ever growing population of farmers. (p.460)

"Alternatively, there is the steppe or kurgan model which sees the Proto-IndoEuropeans emerging out of local communities in the forest-steppe of the Ukraine and south Russia. Expansion westwards is initiated c. 4000 bc by the spread from the forest-steppe of mobile communities who employed the horse and, within the same millennium, wheeled vehicles." (p.461)

• In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, and emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:

"Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with conclusions."

• Michael Witzel, Wales Professor of Sanskrit at Harvard University, commented:

"It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." (Wiztel (2003), Ein Fremdling in Ṛgveda, JIES vol 312003, p23, §5 end))

• Mallory also quoted a paragraph from Bryant:

"This does not mean that the Indigenous Aryan position is historically probable. The available evidence by no means denies the normative view—that of external Aryan origins and, if anything, favors it. But this view has had more than its fair share of airing over the last two centuries, and the Indigenous Aryan position has been generally ignored or marginalized. What it does mean, in my view, is that Indigenous Aryanism must be allowed a legitimate and even valuable place in discussions of Indo-Aryan origins." (Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate, Oxford University Press, p. 7, ISBN 0-19-513777-9)

• Michael Witzel has severely criticised the "Indigenous Aryans" position:

"The 'revisionist project' certainly is not guided by the principles of critical theory but takes, time and again, recourse to pre-enlightenment beliefs in the authority of traditional religious texts such as the Purånas. In the end, it belongs, as has been pointed out earlier, to a different 'discourse' than that of historical and critical scholarship. In other words, it continues the writing of religious literature, under a contemporary, outwardly 'scientific' guise. Though the ones pursuing this project use dialectic methods quite effectively, they frequently also turn traditional Indian discussion methods and scholastic tricks to their advantage The revisionist and autochthonous project, then, should not be regarded as scholarly in the usual post-enlightenment sense of the word, but as an apologetic, ultimately religious undertaking aiming at proving the 'truth' of traditional texts and beliefs. Worse, it is, in many cases, not even scholastic scholarship at all but a political undertaking aiming at 'rewriting' history out of national pride or for the purpose of 'nation building'."Witzel, Michael (2001), "Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts" (PDF), Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies 7-3 (EJVS) 2001(1-115)

• In her review of Bryant's "The Indo-Aryan Controversy" Stephanie Jamison, Professor, Department of Asian Languages & Cultures, comments:

"...the parallels between the Intelligent Design issue and the Indo-Aryan "controversy" are distressingly close. The Indo-Aryan controversy is a manufactured one with a non-scholarly agenda, and the tactics of its manufacturers are very close to those of the ID proponents mentioned above. However unwittingly and however high their aims, the two editors have sought to put a gloss of intellectual legitimacy, with a sense that real scientific questions are being debated, on what is essentially a religio-nationalistic attack on a scholarly consensus." (Jamison, Stephanie W. (2006). "The Indo-Aryan controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian history (Book review)" (PDF). Journal of Indo-European Studies. 34: 255–261.)

1. Mallory, J. P. (2002). "Editor's Note: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate". Journal of Indo-European Studies. 30 (3 & 4): 273–274.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And keep this alternative in mind: Indo-European migrations is for real (sorry) science, with a link somewehere to "Indigenous Aryans"; Indo-Aryan migration theory also mentions the "Indigenous position", and Indigenous Aryans gives an overview of the Indigenous positions, with intro's into the theoretical aspects, and with the counter-arguments from the relevant literature. And please, let some proponents also do some work there, if they find it so important. Stay cool, all of you. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3 made a good comment; "fringe" may be overstated, and not helping the craetion of an encyclopedia. I'm striking my own "fringe", and replace it with "marginalized views". I understand that this topic is loaded for many Indian editors who are proud of their country and their history. Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Edwin Bryant (author) views Indo-Aryan Migrations as equally invalid as Indigenous Aryans:

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

VictoriaGrayson 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot see what is the actual meaning of this RFC, currently the page explains that there is no mainstream acceptance of this theory, like Anatolian hypothesis Paleolithic Continuity Theory and more. Two of your citations links to yahoo groups chatroom(anyone can write). Theory has small acceptance, but still notable. All that needs to be remembered is that any theory or hypothesis don't get represented as facts. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You may have a point, and provide a nice "middle way": "All that needs to be remembered is that any theory or hypothesis don't get represented as facts." I like that. NB: the "Yahoo group" quotes Mallory's editorial, as far as I know. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (tend towards Oppose) - I don't see what is achieved by branding it a fringe theory. I prefer Bryant's description of "marginalized views" for the various indigenist positions (and there are several such). I believe that we do not have sufficient evidence to rule out the various possibilities. However, we should recognize the Indo-Aryan migration theory as the accepted view and base all our pages on that view, except for this particular page where the indigenist views are discussed. So, practically, what we want is a containment of the indigenist views to this page. I think it would be better to reformulate the RfC for such a practical proposal. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, very good comment. I've changed my opinion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm also not completely sure what is being asked here. This is the only place where the indigenous Aryan theory should be discussed since it is obviously the page for that. Including it seriously on any other page (other than the briefest of mentions and a link to this page) would be giving it far more credence than it deserves. It is a fringe (marginalized) theory and should be treated as such. All other relevant pages should present the facts of the mainstream consensus (it's no longer a "theory" once nearly-universal scientific consensus is reached--as with evolution, gravity, climate change, etc.--to claim otherwise shows that the word "theory" is being gravely misunderstood and misused). --Taivo (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Middle way" I agree with Kautilya3, Blades and now JJ, that we can take a "middle way" approach without branding it a fringe theory.VictoriaGrayson 18:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, it is a fringe theory, and what is achieved by being clear about that, is that then we realize that WP:FRINGE applies to the way we represent it in wikipedia. We do not represent fringe theories as if they are equal to mainstream views. Now why is it a fringe view? 1. Because in the same way that the view that the earth is flat would require us to negate everything that we know about astronomy and physics, the view that Indo-European languages originated in India would negate most of the we know about historical linguistics. Historical linguistics as a science is built on the advances in the study of Indo-European languages beginning in the 17th century, and while advances can certainly still be made, there are aspects that cannot be doubted without jeopardizing everything that we currently think we know about how languages are related and how we can know about the history of languages. As Hock points out there are two possible scenarios under which Aryan languages could be indigenous to India: 1. if Proto-Indoeuropean was exactly like Sanskrit - this would mean that all other IE languages could be derived from Sanskrit which would in turn negate all the work on reconstruction done by all linguists since the 17th century, including everything we know about the possible laws of sound change. 2. if all the other languages left india in an ordered group fashion and in a timing that would have let them to their current locations, without any intermediary contact between them. This would be the least problematic scenario, but it is an extreme violation of occams razor because it requires a demographic process that has not been observed anywhere else on earth ever, and which is extremely unlikely to be possible. So on those two accounts alone the theory is fringe. Thirdly it is fringe because its primary proponents are invested in the theory not for scientific but for religious and political reasons. This happens all over the world when nationalists and religious fundamentalists decide they need to bend science to fit their personal beliefs. This is pretty much the definition of Fringe science - just like Creationism and Intelligent design, just like climate change denial, and just like racists pushing the idea that there are human races and some are more intelligent than others, or like nationalists of every nation pushing the view that their particular country is the cradle of civilization. Misplaced Pages cannot and should not represent such fringe views as legitimate, to do so is to lie to our readers and make them more stupid and misinformed instead of our actual mission to inform them about the current state of scientific knowledge. Calling it a "marginalized view" is not possible because the same could be done to all these other fringe views to lend them legitimacy that they do not have. We dont need to use the term "fringe" in the article, but we do need to make it entirely clear to the reader that the view does not currently have any status within the scientific community, and the policies on WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT need to be followed. The extent to which a "compromise" is possible, is that we can describe the arguments of both groups as well as their implications. I.e. we can say that "Kazanas says X" or "Talageri says Y", or that "proponents of OOI argue that Z". Bryant's two books are actually a good basis for doing that since a lot of the time he summarizes the literature instead of making new arguments. But we do need to be clear however that the mainstream view is unequivocally that the arguments in favor of the Indian origin hypothesis are not considered valid by specialists. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

We must also brand Aryan Migrations as a fringe theory, or atleast point out the loss of support in archaeology:

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

VictoriaGrayson 19:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant's "survey" of archeologists is irrelevant, and certainly cannot be taken at face value as a statement of the archeological consensus. If there is an actual archelogical reliable source that adresses the quesiton then we could cite that, but I doubt very much there is. Furthermore the Aryan migrations theory does not require or even suppose archeological evidence. Indeed it suggests that the Indo-Aryan languages were spoken by relatively technologically primitive nomads with no material culture to speak of except for the chariot and horse based warfare, who then entered the cradle of the indus civilization and adopted local indic material culture. The archeological evidence is exactly that 1. there are no horses or chariots in Indus civilization, 2. we have indo-europeans practicing complex agriculture and adopting the material culture of indigenous South indians. Voila.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That comment is ridiculous on its face. Indo-Aryans entered the subcontinent from the north. It is as well-established as evolution and gravity outside the unscientific religio-nationalist community of the Indian subcontinent. We might as well promote in the pages of Misplaced Pages the common Native American view that they evolved in the Americas and did not migrate there in the distant past. We might as well promote six-day creation in the pages of Misplaced Pages. Trying to pass the Indo-Aryan migration into the Indian subcontinent off as "fringe" shows an ignorance of the data and the history of the field and a total reliance on religio-nationalistic promotion. 99.9% doesn't make "fringe". --Taivo (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That comment is ridiculous. Aryan Migrations are not accepted by major authorities such as Edwin Bryant (author) and Jim G. Shaffer among others.VictoriaGrayson 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You rreally need to stop this Victoria. They are not major authorities. And even if they were the vast majority of other major authirities do accept it. Your argumentation is just terrible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are major authorities. If you disagree then simply disagree. Don't be patronizing.VictoriaGrayson 19:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant is a major authority on the Yoga sutras of Patañjali. Not on the history of Indoeuropean languages. Shaffer has not published anything major since the 1990s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bryant has a PhD in Indic Languages from an Ivy League university and was a professor at Harvard.VictoriaGrayson 19:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

He is a professor of religion. Not of language. At Harvard he taught religion, not language. Studying how to translate sanskrit does not make you an expert in indoeuropean historical linguistics Victoria. DO you want me to make a list of people with Ivy league Phds and professorships at Harvard who do not agree with Bryant? It will not be short.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

He has a PhD in Indic Languages from an Ivy League university, was a professor at Harvard and has written 2 books on Aryan Migration. You just don't like his position.VictoriaGrayson 19:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

His position btw is "agnostic" in his own words. Not as you continue to portray him pro-OOI. He does not consider the Aryan migrations hypothesis to be fringe or pseudoscientific. He has written one book, and edited another.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

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

There are many cases where local or national academic traditions hold peculiar views that are not supported in general science. Chinese and Polish anthropologists for example reportedly still believe in the biological basis of race, and some Euro-American archeologists are pushing the solutrean hypothesis claiming that the first americans were europeans who were later exterminated by the ancestors of the Amerindians. Misplaced Pages may note this when the existence of such local views is supported by reliable sources, but we do not need to accept it as a meaningful view or otherwise cater to it. I disagree both with your optimism about teaching Christians about evolution through David Attenborough, and your argument that historical linguistics is somehow much more obscure than understanding evolution. I think there are plenty of good introductions available, but people just disregard them when they conflict with their ingrained ideologies. Just as they do with the evidence for evolution.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maunus: Our page on fringe theories says "it is difficult to distinguish between fringe theories and respected minority theories. A workable definition of what constitutes a fringe theory may not actually be possible. This is an aspect of the demarcation problem that occurs within both science and the humanities." I believe this is the gray area that we are dealing with. I also hold that if Indigenous Aryans had been a fringe theory, the publication of Bryant (2001) with endorsements from Mallory and Witzel, moves it to a "respected minority theory." (This does not mean that I believe in it or that it has any merit. It just means that it is worth discussing.) These sources exist in the literature. So, as Wikipedians, we can't impose our own views and dismiss them. It is a minority view, and it should be represented as such. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, as I have pointed out this is a crystal clear example. Your argument that endorsements on a book moves a theory from fringe to respected minority is absurd. First of all neither of those books actually promote the OIT theory. Both books are attempts to give a balanced assessment of the evidence. And Bryant's personal opinion is that the evidence is inconclusive. By endorsing the book, Witzel and Mallory do not endorse the idea of OIT, they are only saying that Bryant's efforts and arguments are laudable. The second book is actually an edited volume in which both viewpoints are equally represented, and hence does NOT constitute a movement from the fringe to the "respected minority". It is a fringe view considered pseudoscientific and backed by the Indian equivalent of young earth creationists, and it should be represented as such. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I come to this discussion from Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Linguistics; I have no dog in this fight, or horse in this race, so to speak — no prior knowledge of this theory or its validity. However, let me give some general comments: despicability or non-despicability, honesty, dishonesty, or ulterior motives, of the indigenous Aryan–theorists themselves is irrelevant, as such, to Misplaced Pages and its coverage of the theory. Misplaced Pages only cares about what secondary sources say, and what evidence for or against the theory they point to, not what we as editors think. The same holds for "climate deniers" and "so-called creation scientists": despicability is irrelevant, as the Borg might say. No view can be excluded for the despicability or dishonesty of those who promote it, only because reliable sources point to evidence against it or lack of evidence for it.

Therefore, I have to concur with @VictoriaGrayson: regarding the way opposition to this theory is being expressed. "Fringe" is not a value judgment expressing the despicability, dishonesty, and ulterior motives of those who promote a theory, but simply a statement about evidence or lack of evidence. — Eru·tuon 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think anyone is talking about despicability at all. And I don't see how what you are saying agrees with what Victoria is saying, since she is not making any sensible claims about evidence. What you are saying about the term "fringe" is also rather irrelevant, since in a wikipedia context fringe describes the standing of a point of view relative to the mainstream within the relevant field. Motivation is also relevant since in some cases scientific consensus is challenged on spurious grounds by ideological movements with funding from ideologically based sources, this is for example the case for the Infinity Foundation which is the Hindu equivalent of the Creationist Christian Discovery institute which has made it its mission to muddle scientific debates about the origin of life by injecting money into select pseudoscience. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So, we have to phrase it in a neutral way, and also refrain from interpretations? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically; but I should probably clarify that despicability et al. are relevant, but only insofar as reliable sources mention them. If Indo-European expert X says indigenous Aryan–theory is based on Indian nationalism, and gives Y and Z as evidence, this can be reported in the article. On the other hand, if editor X personally finds indigenous Aryan–theory to be based on Indian nationalism, this is irrelevant; and in addition, the judgement that the theory is based on Indian nationalism does not justify excluding a clear and accurate description of indigenous Aryan–theory, and the evidence or lack of evidence for and against it, from Misplaced Pages. — Eru·tuon 20:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Luckily, there is no shortage of such statements.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment OIT (which is inevitably implied by Indigenous Aryans) is a notion (hypothesis/theory/paradigm/whatever) that used to be taken seriously in Europe in the 19th century – prior to the discovery of the Law of Palatals (see Proto-Indo-Iranian language#Historical phonology), which led (via the realisation that the Indo-Iranian vowel system wasn't the original, Proto-Indo-European one) straight to the development of historical linguistics as a real, methodically stringent science. Not the Aryan migration paradigm is outdated, but OIT. OIT is as respectable now as Afrocentrism (or, by the way, Karl Penka's idea that the Indo-Europeans originated in Northern Europe, which was similarly ideology-driven; it was Penka, by the way, who made "Aryan" into a racial descriptor, not Gobineau), that is, not at all. It's purely driven by politics. Just because a less privileged group engages in pseudoscience (whether driven by nationalism or any other motive) doesn't magically make scholars belonging to a privileged group wrong when they object, nor put the less privileged group in the right just because of their relative lack of privilege. Lack of privilege is no justification to arbitrarily rewrite history. There's no "white"/"black" or "male"/"female" (etc.) science, science isn't relative to social groups; scientific proposals are simply equally right or wrong for everyone. Also, in the perspective that includes prehistory (keep in mind that this whole debate is about prehistory too), it is utterly probable that no ethnic group is completely indigenous to any place as every ethnic group has immigrated at some point to where they live now. Not to mention that 10,000 or even 6000 years ago, there simply wasn't such a thing as "Aryans" in any meaningful sense, just like there were no English or any other familiar ethnic group (apart from really broad categories such as "Australian aborigines" or "Indigenous peoples of the Americas"). Viewed this way, Indigenous Aryans is no less ridiculous than calling Neolithic farmers "French" or "Danish", or cavemen "Anglo-Saxons". Also note that OIT was developped by the same kind of white male 19th-century scholars who came up with the Indo-Aryan migration notion, so the racist/colonial mindset argument just doesn't fly. This tedious canard just needs to stop being taken seriously. Disadvantaged groups need to stop propagating the exact methods that their oppressors use to oppress them, and instead actually learn from history. OIT/Indigenous Aryans is far more "Indophobic" and racist than IAM because it implies that, unlike any other ethnic group, Indo-Aryans are somehow "pure" and "original" without a history of migration. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

See 1.2 for the impact of the discovery of the Law of Palatals. Among European scholars, "Indigenous Aryans" was a discredited notion from as early as the 1870s on, when it became increasingly clear that the original language that Sanskrit goes back to, the last common ancestor of the Indo-European languages, was strikingly different, at least in its phonetics, from Sanskrit and (much like Polynesian within the Austronesian family) Indo-Aryan was but a secondary sub-branch within the Indo-European family, virtually guaranteeing, the structure of the Indo-European family (and also the reconstructed lexicon) considered, the conclusion that the Indo-Aryan language, and with it the Indo-Aryans, must have come from outside. The closest region to India that Airyanem Vaejah, the immediate region of origin of the Aryans/Indo-Iranians (which, take note, is not identical to the Indo-European homeland), has been proposed to lie by mainstream scholars is actually Afghanistan (by none else than Witzel – with predictable reactions by Indocentrists, who do not even seem to realise the distinction between Indo-Iranian and Indo-European: even if the Indo-Iranian homeland were really in South Asia, the Indo-European homeland could easily be somewhere else). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I have serious reservations about the term "marginalized", as it implies dishonest intent on mainstream scholars supposedly doing the "marginalizing". Talageri and Kazanas aren't being "bullied" by white academics and need no well-meaning outsiders to jump at their defence. Similarly, creationism, geocentrism or fixism (the denial of continental drift) aren't "marginalized". These notions are simply outdated, disproven, superseded, ruled out by evidence, and similarly haven't been considered credible by mainstream science for many decades or even centuries. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, as honest Wikipedians, we can't discount a careful word chosen by a reliable source without indulging in OR. The derision and mockery with which even well-respected Indian scholars (such as B. B. Lal) are treated do give the appearance of "marginalization." I do understand that some of this comes from the fact that the Indians haven't bothered to understand the linguistic evidence. However, for an outsider watching the debate, it is easy to draw the conclusion that the Western scholars are just crushing the Indians with their might. It is unfortunate, but it has happened repeatedly. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Of course we can discount it. It is one word used by one scholar. We dont have to give that any weight whatsoever. If it turns out that a majority of scholars were to agree that the OIT view has been "marginalized" then we would have to state that, but Bryant is not the main guy in this disucssion though some people here seem to want to take his every word and put them on a pedestal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Legitimate Research - Vedic Indigenism is result of a legitimate scholarly research.

Regarding PIE: The basic premise of any science is that it should be refutable. A theory that cannot be falsifiable is not rigorous science as Subhash Kak explains in his book The Wishing Tree. "In scientific and rational discourse the empirical data can, in principle, falsify a theory. That is why creationism, which explains that fossil record as well as evolution by assuming that it was placed there along with everything else by God when he created the universe in 4004 BCE, is not a scientific theory; creationism is un-falsifiable. Building a scientific theory one must also use the Occam's razor, according to which the most economical hypothesis that explains the data is to be accepted."

Why isn't PIE a good science? He says "There is no evidence that can prove or disprove an original language such as PIE. We cannot infer it with certainty since the historically attested relationship between different languages could have emerged from one of many competing models. The postulation of PIE together with a specific homeland in Europe or Turkey does violence to facts. There is no evidence that the natives of India for the past 8000 years or so have looked any different from what they look now. The internal evidence of this literature points to events that are as early as 7000 years ago and its geography is squarely in the Indian region."

He gives a date of 4th/3rd millennia BCE to Vedic Sanskrit. "The Indian evidence, based on archaeology as well as the discovery of an astronomy in the Vedas, indicates that Vedic Sanskrit is to be assigned to the 4th and the 3rd millennia BCE, if not earlier. The Indian cultural area is seen as an integral whole. The Mahabharata war was the epochal event of ancient India. Later astronomers assigned it to 3137 BCE or 2449 BCE. Still another tradition assigns it to 1924 BCE. The main actors in this war belong to generation number 94 in a list that is supposed to begin in 6676 BCE. There is considerable evidence that the genealogies represent a very ancient tradition."

Texts	Period	Comments
The vedic Collections	Pre 2000 BCE	By the Sarasvati river argument. Traditionally assigned the period pre-3000 BCE.
The Brahmanas	1900-1600 BCE	Because they speak of the drying up of the Sarasvati river as a recent happening.
The Aranyakas	1500-1200 BCE	This period followed the Brahmanas
The Upanishads	1900 - 1000 BCE	1900 appears to be the period of the earliest Upanishads. The Bhagvatgita appears to be belong to the end of this period.
The Sutras	-	These were written in the centuries before the Buddha.
The Puranas	Pre 2000 BCE - X	The original Purana was coterminous with the Vedas but this later gave rise to the several texts. The Puranas are encyclopaedias of Vedic mythology and spirituality

Even with the postulate of PIE theory intact, Talageri shows that Vedic Sanskrit is closest to the postulated PIE. He does not say that Vedic Sanskrit is the PIE. He says its is closest to the PIE as compared to all other known languages. He also shows that Vedic Sanskrit is earlier than Avestan. This points to Vedic Indigenism and migration out of India to Iran.

In his book The Lost River - On the trail of the Sarasvati Michel Danino has detailed evidence supporting his view that Gagghar-Hakra is indeed the Sarasvati river of Rigveda, maintaining that the Rigveda was written in North-West India long before the river dried up in 1900 BCE. He also shows the continuity of Indian material and intangible culture from the Harappan to modern times.

Kazanas has proposed linguistic evidence that Avestan is more recent to Vedic Sanskrit and points to a westward migration of Vedic people from Sarasvati river basin.

The detailed argument on all the reasons why the Vedic People indigenism is not a 'fringe' theory but a legitimate disagreement with the Kurgan_hypothesis is given here Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Briefly the evidence of Sarasvati is the strongest evidence, the internal evidence of dating of Rigveda, Mahabharata and other post vedic texts, Avestan being earlier than Vedic Sanskrit; these all are valid evidences raise doubt about Kurgan_hypothesis and point to Vedic Indigenism.

According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That means we don't know about the origins of vedic people nor their period, so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject views of scholars disagreeing with Kurgan_hypothesis as only 'fringe'. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong..

1. ^ Kak, Subhash (May 7, 2008). +preview&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KNLJVIHMCeHbmgXSuILgBg&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=the%20wishing%20tree%20kak%20preview&f=false The Wishing Tree: Presence and Promise of India. iUniverse. pp. 10–16. ISBN 0595490948. Retrieved 29 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help)
2. Talageri, Shrikant (2009). The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence (1st ed.). Aditya Prakashan. ISBN 8177420852.
3. Danino, Michel (May 2010). The Lost River: On The Trail of the Sarasvati. Penguin Books. ISBN 0143068644.
4. Kazanas, Nicholas. "Ṛgvedic All-Comprehensiveness omprehensiveness omprehensiveness" (PDF).
5. Singh, Upinder. [http://books.google.co.in/books? id=H3lUIIYxWkEC&pg=PA184&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false A History of Ancient and Early Mediaeval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century]. Pearson Education India. pp. 185–186. ISBN 978-81-317-1120-0. Retrieved 28 January 2015. {{cite book}}: Check |url= value (help); Missing pipe in: |url= (help); line feed character in |url= at position 33 (help)

Indoscope (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Indoscope. Thanks for sharing your views. Two comments and a question:

• "The postulation of PIE together with a specific homeland in Europe or Turkey does violence to facts. There is no evidence that the natives of India for the past 8000 years or so have looked any different from what they look now." - That's not a linguistic argument, but a genetic argument. And an irrelevant argument, since the IAMt does not posit the influx of large groups of people;
• Michael Danino does not present "detailed evidence"; he gives the arguments of Indian reseacrhers, who merely suggest that the Rg Veda must have been the Gagghar-Hakra; by further arguing that the Rg Veda is an eye-witness account, and noting that the Gagghar-Hakra dried up before at latest 1900 BCE, they conclude that the Rg Veda must be older. He also notes that no western archaeologist shares this conclusion. The counter-argument, as given by Witzel and Mukherjee, is very simple: if the the Gagghar-Hakra dried up before 1900 BCE, the Rg Veda account can't be an eye-witness account. Ergo: this one "argument" is not enough to refute the extended linguistic argument.
• What marks these writers as 'mainstream scholars who present the mainstream concensus'? Remember, this is what Mallory wrote in 2002, when publishing Kazaran in the JIES: "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

Nevertheless, thanks for sharing the sources again. As you may have noticed, i'm going through the article, trying to give a fair account of the various arguments. Kak and others will be added too, in time. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Indoscope: All research is "legitimate" unless it violates the laws or ethical practices. So, the question is not whether the research was "legitimate," but whether its conclusions are sound. As Wikipedians, we are not allowed to judge that. Rather, we are asked to report scholarly consensus. Unpublished articles, or articles published in non-mainstream venues (e.g., iUniverse or Aditya Prakashan), which haven't gone through peer review and editorial oversight cannot be used. So, please find reliable sources for the material you want to include. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

iUniverse is a self publishing company and that book was actually published by Munshiram Manoharlal publications in 2001. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: Kindly read my quoting of Upinder Singh above. Conclusion is we don't know. That is what I have been saying along. There is a dominant view common amongst mainly Europeans and Americans and there is 'another view' common amongst Indian scholars and some European and American scholars. There is no consensus . Both would be legitimate in their own right if their research is not done with any ill will. Ashok Aklujkar says about Kazanas "I do not know what a researcher living in Greece would gain by risking his scholarly integrity or believability for reasons of Indian politics." "Dr. Kazanas has responded to Professor Witzel's comments, in what I, as someone knowing a thing or two about linguistics, consider a scientifically defensible or plausible way. Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..Indoscope (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

1. Aklujkar, Ashok. "Letter to S Farmer" (PDF). www.omilosmeleton.gr. Retrieved 29 January 2015.

Regarding User talk:Joshua Jonathan's statements above:-

• Kak - He has presented astronomical, linguistic and archaeological evidence in support of what he is saying. I have detailed it above and also in Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. I don't want to repeat all that on every page. Please read from the talk page.
• Danino - He has not limited him self to only Indian scholars that is misstatement of facts he also mentions several western archaeologist in his book. please read The_Lost_River. Regarding Rigveda being older than Harappan sites I have given many papers at Talk:Vedic_period#Issues_of_Dispute. Please refer to those. No mention of bricks, vedic alters being more primitive to the fire alters found in Harappa. Sarasvati a major Rigvedic river having dried around 1900 BCE about the same time of late Harappan civilization period etc. Talageri shows that Vedic Sanskrit is older than Avestan. That is also mentioned above.
• Regarding mainstream model read this by Kazanas.Indoscope (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallo Indoscope. I did not ask what these people wrote, or if they presented any arguments for their views; I asked you "What marks these writers as 'mainstream scholars who present the mainstream concensus'?" According to Witzel, "the historical absurdities" of Kak are not taken seriously by academic scholars. Danino has 7 (seven) citations at Google Scholar. Kazanas is also dismissed as a "scholar" by both Mallory and Witzel. The "article" by Kazanas which you refer to is a self-published litany against mainstream scholarship:

"Most academics, indoeuropeanists, indologists, sanskritists, historians et al, with the notable exception of archaeologists-experts in the Indus-Sarasvati Civilization, adhere to the AIT (=Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) as regards India, not because they have actually examined the data and arguments for it but because it is easier to repeat mechanically what “authorities” like Gimbutas, Mallory, Parpola, Witzel et al, say or have said. In fact, the AIT has no data at all to support it and not one argument in its favour will hold water."

So, what establishes them as mainstream scholars? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Okay, this is a nice addition (see also , and ): Delhi University's Sanskrit department "starts project to prove Aryans were not foreigners":

" The project is unlikely to find the support of the university's history department. "This is a meaningless debate. We all now know that the entire human race can trace its ancestry back to Africa. So how does it matter whether Aryans were indigenous to our country or were outsiders? There are far more serious issues of archaeological and scientific research that need to addressed in our country," said Nayanjot Lahiri, a professor of archaeology in the history department at Delhi University.

There's no evidence to back the claim, said renowned historian DN Jha, who specialises in ancient and medieval Indian history.

"This debate is not new, but I can say that at present there is no scientific evidence to prove that Indo-Aryans were indigenous to our subcontinent. But since the political ambience in the country has changed, there will be many such attempts to prove this," said Jha, who used to be a Delhi University professor. "I have no comment to offer except that a serious historian will only dismiss such research."

I think we can close this RfC right now. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

DN Jha is a proponent of Aryan Invasion theory. There is an article of Nayanjot Lahiri I have just found that in 1920, Visnu Sakharam had filed an immigration court case in the USA that he was an Aryan/European. California ruled "the Aryan invasion theory was precisely that: just a theory, and therefore not citable as credible proof for immigration purposes".

I also think that we can close. Bladesmulti (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

'Bharadwaj pointed to the pattern of similarities between ancient Sanskrit words and ancient words in classical Western languages as one of the linguistic examples of Indian influence on cultures abroad."

I guess we need to put that on our Sanskrit page. What the heck? We have a reliable source! Kautilya3 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments

The Indophobic, racist and patronizing comments need to stop.VictoriaGrayson 19:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only one playing the race card here is you (especially ridiculous considering that one of the editors in question is Maunus of all people). Objection to religiously-based nationalist ideology has nothing to with race or "indophobia". The same objections would be made to American religious fundamentalists, biblical-literalist Zionists, for example. Paul B (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree. Race is not an issue in this debate, and we should stop branding people as racist. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

"Indophobic" means "fear of Indian people". One of my best friends is Indian and I'm certainly not afraid of them. The term religio-nationalist is neither racist nor "Indophobic". It is an expression of the underlying motivations of the fringe "Indogenesis theory". Bryant is a professor of religion, not of either archeology or linguistics. That should make the motivation of this movement quite clear. --Taivo (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I must also say, Victoria, looking at your talk page and user contributions, that your main interest is also religion and neither linguistics nor archeology. So, based solely on that, your motivation here also appears to be religio-nationalist. That doesn't disqualify you from making comments, but it does allow other editors to take everything you assert about archeology and linguistics with a grain of salt. You cannot get angry because those of us with clear backgrounds and Misplaced Pages history in historical linguistics and/or archeology take you less seriously. --Taivo (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am also not afraid of Indians. I am however concerned about religious fundamentalists of all religions and nationalities trying to substitute science with their mythological worldviews.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that Indophobia would mean "fearing Indians" does not make sense – -phobic or -phobia seldom actually mean "fearing" or "fear" nowadays; see homophobia. (However, not saying you guys are actually Indophobic in some other sense.) Of course, you guys are probably responding with some level of sarcasm, but still. — Eru·tuon 23:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant:

it is now increasingly difficult for scholars of South Asia to have a cordial exchange on the matter without being branded a “Hindu nationalist”

VictoriaGrayson 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Cordiality" is meaningless when religio-nationalists claim that the mainstream view has been discredited because a nonscientist like Bryant has doubts. They refuse to listen to specialists in the field because the science discredits their religio-nationalism. --Taivo (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Edwin Bryant has a PhD in Indic languages from Columbia, wrote his PhD dissertation on Aryan Migration, wrote 2 books on Aryan Migration as well as a few chapters in other books.VictoriaGrayson 01:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Guys, if there is no such attack... where and why this rush to defend against it and attack Vic here? If there is, introspect and stop. No, this is neither an attack nor a welcome message to attack me. --AmritasyaPutra 03:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-the-Wall Comments

On the one hand, I don't see any of the comments as Indophobic (either in the original sense of fearing Indians or in the more common modern sense of disliking Indians), patronizing, or racist. Maybe I have missed something. I don't see any reason why any particular theory about the origin of Indo-European languages is necessarily either pro-Indian or anti-Indian. The Indians have, by any reasonable historical analysis, been civilized longer than the Europeans. In recent centuries, Europeans have been racist toward Indians (among others), either out of European pride or out of ignorance of India's long and proud history. That has very little to do with where a great language family that is spoken by most Indians and most Europeans originated. (Any theory that it originated in Europe is fringe even among fringe theories.)

I will point out that this subject area is covered by ArbCom discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. As the arbitrators have clarified, the ancient history of the Indian subcontinent is inextricable from the history of modern states that have too often been at war. Anyone engaging in disruptive editing can be subject to sanctions, so be civil and avoid disruptive editing, and racism and prejudice contribute to disruptive editing. I didn't observe any anti-Indian, patronizing, or racist comments, but maybe I missed something. I certainly don't want to see any anti-Indian or racist comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you Robert. You may check , and , there are many spread across pages in this topic. It even went to a point that any Hindu academician is unreliable. is one instance of such discussion. --AmritasyaPutra 05:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

How can you "completely agree" when you are contradicting him?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He admitted he might have missed, I gave few pointers of your personal attacks among others. I completley agree with him that such conduct is not helpful. --AmritasyaPutra 06:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't say that. Personally I find misrepresenting sources, and peddling unscientific propaganda sources to be more disruptive and more damaging to the discussion than the odd "personal attack". But then that is just me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Maunus, I hope you have understood that personal attacks is unhelpful. Even if it is "odd" as per your assessment it is absolutely forbidden. You may not attack even once. Read as many times as it takes to understand this. There is no exemption. --AmritasyaPutra 03:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your sanctimonious prattle is every bit as offensive as a more direct personal attack. ANd it is getting really tiresome too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Then backoff and don't pretend to not understand a direct specific message about not making personal attacks. I had given diffs of your edit as evidence above. Do you have any proof that Vic is a "Hindu Crusader"? Or I am part of a faction? It would be better you just drop this here and we do not see such remarks again. --AmritasyaPutra 02:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

An American View on India, maybe

Maybe I didn't see Indo-phobic (dislike of Indians) comments when there were Indo-phobic comments, or maybe I missed them. However, I may have been looking at India through a sympathetic American perspective as an American who sees the United States and India as two countries with many common aspects despite different cultures and histories. India and the United States are the world's two most populous democracies. They are two countries having proud heritages of religious pluralism. India is a Hindu-majority country, but it is not a "Hindu" country in the sense of making Hinduism an essential part of Indian-ness. The United States is likewise a Christian-majority country, but it is not a "Christian" country in having an established church, or making Christianity an essential part of American-ness. Also, one of the major threats to civil society and religious pluralism in the United States is Christian fanaticism, a desire to make tie Christianity (and particular denominations of Christianity) to an American identity. Likewise, I understand that one of the threats to civil society and religious pluralism in India is Hindu fanaticism.

So when I read criticisms of Hindu scholarship, I read "Hindu scholarship" as "scholarship serving a Hindu agenda" rather than as criticisms of scholarship by Hindu scholars (some of whom have been great scholars since before there were American scholars). I read those comments as comparable to criticisms of "Christian scholarship" in the United States or Europe as meaning "scholarship serving a Christian agenda", which is biased scholarship. I personally do deprecate scholarship by would-be scholars who serve particular Christian agendas rather than the agenda of truth (and truth is one of the proper values of Christianity and Hinduism), and likewise I agree with deprecation of scholarship that primarily serves a Hindu agenda. Of course any comment deprecating scholarship by Indians in general, or by Hindu Indians in general, is racist. A comment deprecating scholarship by those who put religious agendas before the academic pursuit of truth is not racist. Those are my thoughts as a human with a respect for freedom, as an American, and as a Christian. Maybe that explains why I didn't think that any comments were racist.

If any comments really deprecated all Indian scholarship, that is either racist or otherwise bigoted.

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Indian/Hindu scholarship", as in Hindu scholars who are from India has never been an issue here. The problem, as you correctly surmise, are scholars who push a Hindu or Indian agenda without consideration for the vast majority of scholarship that contradicts their results. --Taivo (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Continuity vs. immigration

I suspect that part of the confusion surrounding the issue is the misunderstanding that the mainstream model somehow implies a more-or-less complete replacement of the pre-existing population, at least in the northern part of the subcontinent. Any amount of archaeological and genetic continuity is of course not to be expected in such a "catastrophic" scenario. But I don't know anybody who actually supports such a scenario. Even the most ardent invasionists probably did and do not. Even among white supremacists as encountered on Stormfront and various "human biodiversity" forums such a view would be considered ridiculous from what I've observed. Everybody seems to agree that any migration wave would eventually have merged into the pre-existing population, though not without significantly (even profoundly) affecting the cultural, linguistic and genetic landscape, and resulting in a sort of mixed culture. Mutual lexical influence and typological (especially phonetic) convergence with the Dravidian languages have long been taken as linguistic evidence for intense contact and cross-cultural merger of Indo-Aryans with native populations. Hell, the Nazis explicitly acknowledged the Indians as a mixed population in order to explain their decidedly non-Nordic appearance. How could replacement lead to a racially mixed population, I wonder? If we look at analogous medieval or modern events such as the Magyarisation of (previously Slavic-speaking, and perhaps partly Romance-speaking) Pannonia, the Turkification of Anatolia or the Hispanification of Central and much of South America we see exactly that, relatively small groups of invaders or immigrant populations overwhelming the natives, but eventually mixing with them to such an extent that diverse "melting-pots" just like India arise. In Mexico, the majority of the population is actually Mestizo, and Nahuatl as well as various other indigenous languages are still spoken in sometimes significant numbers! Mexican culture is equally acknowledged as heavily mixed, with strong pre-Columbian elements. Nothing could be farther from the "replacement" scenario, and there is no reason to give it credence. After all, in South Asia too, there are several indigenous families of languages, and traces of even more in the form of substrate influence, which Witzel, among others, has examined (his writings on the subject are available online), and these are by no means limited to the south. Just like Mexican culture is heavily indebted to Aztec, Maya and other indigenous Mesoamerican cultures, so is it highly likely that the role of pre-Aryan South Asian cultures was highly significant in the development of ancient Indic culture(s) as well. I'm not sure if the replacement scenario is the result of honest confusion or a straw-man erected to combat the migration consensus. After all, at least part of the Hindutva movement seems to be equally uncomfortable with a mixing scenario and just as obsessed with (cultural as well as racial?) "purity" than white supremacists. But some sympathetic observers who are under the impression that Indo-Aryan migration is designed to deny the originality and validity of South Asian culture somehow and to portray it as derivative of white European culture, that the Indosphere is thus entirely dependent on white achievements and in this way inferior, which would explain the "white academics are trying to keep the brown man down using the Aryan invasion club" sentiment, appear to be honestly mistaken in this way.

A side-note regarding the placement of the ultimate Indo-European homeland – curiously, the Anatolian hypothesis, which archaeologists are so fond of, has its major weakness in the exact problem of accounting for the origin of the Indo-Iranian languages; it doesn't seem to have a scenario how Anatolian farmers spread to the adjacent Iranian Plateau and to South Asia (inconveniently, they cannot have been those who introduced farming there, as Mehrgarh as well as Jhusi was already in the Neolithic ca. 7000 BC, when the expansion out of Anatolia was supposedly only beginning, and the Neolithic on the Iranian Plateau is similarly old or even older), nor, crucially, can it plausibly account for the deep, old and continuous contacts of Indo-Iranian with Uralic as evidenced by loanwords in Proto-Uralic and later stages, as Jaakko Häkkinen has pointed out. This is, incidentally, an even greater problem for OIT, but it makes perfect sense with the steppe homeland. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text

I jus found this page, Linda Hess, The Indigenous Aryan Discussion on RISA-L: The Complete Text (to 10/28/96). It's an extended, scholarly discussion in which Edwin Bryant also participates. I've read only a few parts so far, but it looks very interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What does Elst conclude regarding OIT?

Does Elst actually conclude that the OIT is correct? Or does he merely propese it, as a theoretical possibility? Anybody read the book? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Bryant, his article in The Indo-Aryan Controversy Quest for the Origins, it was an entirely theoretical exercise. I can dig up the quote later. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I just added a quote from 1999 to the article. Surprising, isn't it? Bryant is "agnostic", Elst only describes the point of view of others, just like Danino. What's left? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Elst supports the Indigenous theory but also talks about the other views and how they are disputed, same with Danino. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(Response by Kautilya3:)

• Lopez's review of Quest for the Origins says: Bryant presents Elst's PIE-in-India hypothesis as "a purely theoretical linguistic exercise . . . as an experiment to determine whether India can definitively be excluded as a possible homeland. If it cannot, then this further problematizes the posssibility of a homeland ever being established anywhere on linguistic grounds" (p. 147).
• In Indo-Aryan Controversy (p. 468), he says Elst, perhaps more in a mood of devil’s advocacy, toys with the evidence to show how it can be reconfigured, and to claim that no linguistic evidence has yet been produced to exclude India as a homeland that cannot be reconfigured to promote it as such.

I was quite surprised to hear that Elst was engaging in theoretical exercises. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So, what's left? Kazanas? See map, from a self-published paper. Kak? "It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars." Michel Danino? Nope; he does not state that "he simplest and most natural conclusion is that the Vedic culture was present in the region in the third millennium" is also the correct conclusion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now we are getting to the bottom of this. My guess is that the "mainstream" indigenist view is what we have called the Kazanas' view in the article, i.e., they want to claim that the Indo-Aryans were in the Indus Valley in the 4th millennium BC or perhaps earlier, so that the IVC becomes Vedic. They are not particularly concerned about what happened before, or what happened in the rest of the world. The reason for this particular position is what Maunus would call "religious", the Rig Veda says Saraswati was a grand river, the astronomical references talk about 4000 BC, and the Mahabharata war was supposed to have happend in 3107 BC (writing from memory). So, the main concern is the preservation of religious veracity. Klaus Klostermaier put it in black and white. See the updates I made to his page last night. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is true. That's why we originally had two separate articles "Indigenous Aryans" and "Out of India theory". These are really two separate concepts. The second accepts the concept of I-E migration, but simply reverses the standard model, depicting "Aryans" expanding out of India to bring their language to the benighted peoples of less happier lands. The indigenous model simply insists that the Vedic peoples were there for some unspecified degree of venerable antiquity before the Vedas were written. Some have tried to appropriate the Anatolian model to bring IE into India at a sufficiently ancient date. Others clkaim that there is no such thing as IE. Paul B (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, your "guess". Nice working conclusion; worth to preserve for future reference. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Talageri and Kak should be re-arranged as such, under these themes, in the section "Further arguments" (to be renamed "Thematic arguments"). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Kak was a good addition. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So, evidently, this is an attack by "Hindus" (the self-appointed upholders of Hinduism) on the historians and academics, claiming to know better history than them. Apparently, Hinduism scholars in other parts of the world have been recruited into the enterprise as well, not just the Hindus of the motherland. Some sobering advice from Rajiv Malhotra: Personally, I think it is wiser to refute the Aryan migration (yes, migration is just as harmful as invasion) theory without trying to replace it with an alternative out-of-India theory. That way you don't arm the opponents with an opportunity to attack. What matters is removing the prevailing Aryan theory, and in fact, explaining it as the result of 19th century European racism and nationalism that culminated in Nazism. For a theory to be refuted, it is not required that one must supply an alternative theory--an important point. So let's avoid over-ambition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

The book "Breaking India" extensively quotes historians and academic sources. There is no "attack by "Hindus" (the self-appointed upholders of Hinduism) on the historians and academics".VictoriaGrayson 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3, Unless you can present a referenced quote that it is an attck by Hindus please abandon this line of argument. Is every opposing view an attack on Hindus? Let's not do this. --AmritasyaPutra 03:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

"Attack" may indeed sound too strong, but read this User talk:Joshua Jonathan/Archive 2014#Copied from Raj Malohtra. It may sober you... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sober, you are off-topic. It is merely discussion among some yahoo group users on internet. --AmritasyaPutra 06:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! @Joshua Jonathan: you are not just an organisation, you are a whole army! And, Indra will sendthunderbolts down to all your enemies! Kautilya3 (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Cool. I have often toyed with the thought myself that all the hindutva pov pushers on wiki are really Karsevaks or RSS Pracharaks sitting in a basement in Gujarat receiving orders and payment directly from Malhotra/Infinity foundation and the Modi/BJP. Interesting and indeed sobering to think they seem to enjoy the same conspiracy thinking about me. Though I wonder what interest they believe the University of Chicago has in pushing and anti-hindu agenda.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Maunus meant "swayamsevaks." In any case, the way the RSS works is a lot more organic and complicated than that. No simple command centres. Malhotra has said that he is not connected to the RSS, which is very likely true, but they are all allied at some back end. Martha C. Nussbaum's Clash Within has a good discussion of his movement. Kautilya3 (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I actually meant just "hindu religious volunteer" whether rss or not. I dont speak Hindi of course so I just picked the terms I remembered from my discussions about the Gujarat riots. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:40, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Enough, gentleman. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Re-ordering to fit overview of arguments and scenarios

While working today on this raticle, I realised that the "Indigenist" arguments consist of two parts:

• Arguments against the IAMt;
• Arguments pro a redating of the Indian chronology.

The "scenarios" are scundary to these arguments; the "real" scenario seems to be the alignment of the Vedic-Puranic Indian chronology with the Harappan Civilisation. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course this is all about trying to make current Hindu/Indian culture the direct descendent of the Indus Valley civilization, which in turn requires both doing away with the established dating of the Vedas and to do away with the established history of the Indo-European languages to be able to argue for an earlier date of Vedic Sanskrit than is linguistically possible. This is exactly what Christian fundementalists do when they try to argue that the Hebrew scriptures were written during the rule of Ramesses III, or when they try to reject the scientific dating of fossils and geogical layers in order to uphold a short chronology as required by Biblical literalism. But how does this insight of yours impinge on the the way we write the article? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream western scholarship acknowledges that the Vedic religion is partially derived from the Indus Valley civilization. See page 28 of David Gordon White's Kiss of the Yogini. So yes, Hindu/Indian culture is a direct descendant of IVC. VictoriaGrayson 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It really is hilarious to see what kind of stuff you pull out and try to present as reliable sources for claims about language history. White is of course another Yoga/religion scholar with zero credentials in the field of history and or linguistics. Note also that your comment is a red herring because obviously it is the case that vedic civilization is partly descended from Harappan. That is not the question and has no relation to what I was saying, namely that the pseudoscientists you push are trying to make Harappan culture and vedic culture out to be one and the same and to place them in an impossible chronology.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Maunus, any reference to back up your thoroughly unique and original interpretations: 1. This is all about trying to make current Hindu/Indian culture the direct descendent of the Indus Valley civilization 2. This is exactly what Christian fundementalists(sic) do when they try to argue that the Hebrew scriptures were written during the rule of Ramesses(sic) III? --AmritasyaPutra 03:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

For someone who makes sanctimonious statements about how others should argue in friendly and non-patronizing ways you sure do use a lot of "sic"s.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, do you actually think that anything written in a book on tantric sex has anything at all of value to this discussion? That's what you are citing as "evidence". Maunus is quite right about Indigenists trying to completely discredit 200 years of research on the Indo-European languages in order to place Vedic Sanskrit at a linguistically impossible date. --Taivo (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Its an academic book on ancient Indian tantra, written by a well known indologist.VictoriaGrayson 03:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Taivo, I don't think we were discussing Indigenists trying to completely discredit 200 years of research on the Indo-European languages in order to place Vedic Sanskrit at a linguistically impossible date in the first place, and you don't cite any scholar saying that. Have you read B. B. Lal? Is he not a scholar? Or he is unworthy of a reading because he holds a contrary opinion? There are others too. But the argument that I keep hearing is they are Hindu or they are Indian. That is not an argument. Maunus has yet to provide any credible reference for his original conclusions. If there are two theories, then they are just that, one can be a minority but your unique conclusions of they are Hindu/Indian hence their research is flawed is absolutely unfounded unless you cite another scholar drawing that conclusion. It has to be a credible study instead of passing comments, have you considered that Europeanists/Americanists are not trying to completely discredit the research of Indigenists? And Indiginists also express similar "silencing" from others? I guess we all understand such arguments will lead us nowhere. Every scholar has its worth and if you are beginning your argument with Indigenist scholar, Hindu schoalr, Indian scholar, Brahmin scholar (all have been used in the discussions) you are already on the wrong track. It would be better we end this line of argument and focus on what studies have to say about the actual theories. I hope you will not try to draw a "motivation" for me like you did here. --AmritasyaPutra 05:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Gentleman, I think you're all right here (and that's not my usual 'dimming the flames'). I remember an interview by someone with Israel Finkelstein (if it was him), a scholar on ancient Israel c.q. the Bible. The interviewer was an American fundamentalist, and they knew each other for years already. It was hilarious. The scholar totally disagreed with the fundamentalist (of course), but was also sympathetic to him; the fundamentalist was indeed a nice and funny guy, despite his, ehm, "bijzondere" lines of reasoning. Gosh, I also remember this video of an American Hindu fundamentalist, going around the nieghbourhood to share his message. Rings at the home of a Christian fundamentalist.... You can imagine the heated discussion that followed... (no offense intended here; I love dutch "Gereformeerden", also Christian fundamentalists; I use to have very nice and warm conversations with them. One person once told me, when we were watching the clouds: "Imagine, the Lord could be coming on a cloud right now." I imagined, and yes, that would be great! It was awesome to sit together and share her thoughts.)
Realizing what's going on here, what's at stake, makes it understandable. At least to me. And interesting. After all, I'm a psychologist of religion. So, I'm hooked, and I want to know more.
Vic is also right. Gordon White is a top scholar. And yes, it seems very likely that there is a continuity between the Harappan Civilisation and later developments - though it's not only the Harappan Civilastion, or the Vedics. But that's another discussion, though related.
And AP, it's dawned on me how you are feeling here. It's worthwhile to have this article (though it's getting quite long), and to gain an understanding of what's going, and why this is important to many people.
To share one last personal thought: I don't believe there's a God out there. But this night my daughter was wide awake, so I was lying with her in bed, waiting for her to fall asleep. and I thanked God for the privilege to have a duaghter and a wife to love, knowing that way too soon everything wiil be different, when the daughter is grown-up and has left the house, and either my wife or myself appears to have a terminal disease. So, I thanked the God who does not exist, to my opinion.
All the best, to all of you, as usual. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Joshua. I hope we are not dealing with any fundamentalists here. Every editor and scholar has certain merit which should be considered without bringing in their race or casting aspersions on their motivation. If we could do just this much I am sure we will conclude all discussions here in a jiffy, it is the racist abuse that is prolonging them in the wrong direction. --AmritasyaPutra 06:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I realised later that "fundamentalist" sounds wrong. I just refer to taking the religious texts more "literal", and seeing a profound value in those texts, and the way of life they represent and inspire. As you understand, mines is a more skeptical attitude, but there's also beauty in taking the religious texts more "literal." I've been trying to understand this since I was at school; I partly do, now. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Why does "fundamentalist" sound wrong? Aren't we just beating around the bush here? Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Fundamentalist is fundamentalist. And anyone who tries to rewrite science to fit scripture fits within the label "fundamentalist". As Joshua, I also personally have a deep respect for religious people and am interested in understanding their world views, as long as they do not try to reshape the reality that we all share to fit exclusively with their worldview. And this is what is going on here. I know not all agree that wikipedia should be written from a scientific pov, but I think that is a basic misunderstanding of what an encyclopedia is. We are not here to represent all possible worldviews - just the one that is established through the methods of science and scholarship. I also think that untill WP:SPOV is finally adopted we will have these power struggles between ideologically motivated perspectives and science all across the encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Good thing if we all have agreed that fundamentalism is not needed here! Let's come up with references which were asked for specific claims here and in previous section. Like Joshua and Maunus, I also have deep respect for people who live according to Dharma. --AmritasyaPutra 14:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Lost River

The page The Lost River is about a book by Michel Danino that fits into the topic of thi page. I have called it a fringe theory topic and asked for material to be included on the page, which would not have been needed otherwise. Please participate in the discussion at Talk:The Lost River#Danino, Kazanas & mainstream scholarship, which might give us a better idea of what it means to work with a fringe theory label. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Problem is probably solved by now. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wishful thinking. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Became true. --AmritasyaPutra 15:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Frawley

Interesting. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Not interesting at all, actually. Frawley isn't an archeologist, a historian, or a linguist. He is a yoga teacher. It's not at all surprising to see someone tied at the hip to the religio-nationalist Hindu agenda espousing the Indogenesis mythology. --Taivo (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class India articles
• Top-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Top-importance
• B-Class Indian politics articles
• Mid-importance Indian politics articles
• B-Class Indian politics articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject Indian politics articles
• WikiProject India articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Mid-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment