Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations/Archive 1

message: Just to summarise, here are 203.197.16.5's points, with ad hominem attacks removed, extracted by diffing the versions of the articles. "the article" below refers to the version of the article that 203.197.16.5 edits, and other users keep reverting to. -- The Anome 09:28, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarizing the argument 

message: I am willing to stop changing the original article for a while. However, the doubts raised here should be addressed so that the article is brought closer to NPOV. As for the 'evidence' on my above comments; wherever i refer to vedic texts, i can provide references to corresponding mandala-sutra by next month - i would be visiting my hometown where i have the authorative Sanskrit verions.
You may refer to this online-book for some insights: http://www.bharatvani.org/books/ait/
-- Astavakra
Thanks for that, Astavakra.
I am happy with the way this is going: can people on both sides present their arguments here, with cites if possible. I hope that all concerned will then be able to work towards NPOV statements of the arguments of both sides here, then merge them into the article. 
If we can't agree, I suggest asking User:Ed Poor to mediate -- he has been very effective in helping opposing parties to together on other contentious articles. -- The Anome 23:31, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war 

message: I cannot their are people who still believe in an Aryan invasion theory. The Aryan text books dont talk about any invasion. Their is no mention about an opposite people called the Dravidians. And all the evidence of an Aryan people are in India, Iran, & Afghanistan...Nothing is in Europe...This is a joke. 06:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People still believe in this theory?

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

message: This study and its 2004 follow-up have many structural problems. I see that my previous article was revised without a discussion. But here is a brief summary of the problems with these studies:
- The Correleation = Causation Bias: The authors assume because of genetic similarities between Europeans and certain Indian populations, that Europeans invaded India and not vice-verse. In fact all extensive genetic studies have shown the opposite. "Contrary to established thinking, it appears that our human ancestors took a more southerly route out of Africa, traveling east across the Red Sea into what is now Yemen, and then through India and all the way to the far reaches of Australia, before they swung up into Europe." . 
- Limited Geographic Scope: The study sample was limited to one Indian southern state Andhra Pradesh. A better sample would be drawn on random from all regions of India.
=== some (incomplete) comments on the genetics section ===
*Some other studies:
*‘There is much greater homogenization in terms of morphological and genetic traits at the regional level’, says the report. For example, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu (esp. Iyengars) share more traits with non-Brahmins in the state than with fellow Brahmins in western or northern India. (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: N. V. Subramaniam: “The way we are. An ASI project shatters some entrenched myths”, Sunday, 10-4-1994. about a report by Kumar Suresh Singh) (...)Kailash C. Malhotra: “Detailed anthropometric surveys carried out among the people of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bengal and Tamil Nadu revealed significant regional differences within a caste and a closer resemblance between castes of different varnas within a region than between sub-populations of the caste from different regions. .... “A more detailed study among eight Brahmin castes in Maharashtra on whom 18 metric, 16 scopic and 8 genetic markers were studied, revealed not only a great heterogeneity in both morphological and genetic characteristics but also showed that 3 Brahmin castes were closer to non-Brahmin castes than [to the] other Brahmin castes. P. P. Majumdar and K. C. Malhotra (1974) observed a great deal of heterogeneity with respect to OAB blood group system among 50 Brahmin samples spread over 11 Indian states.  (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: K. C. Malhotra: “Biological Dimensions to Ethnicity and caste in India”, in K. S. Singh: Ethnicity, Caste and People, Manohar, Delhi 1992, p. 65. Reference is to H. K. Rakshit: “An Anthropometric Study of the Brahmins of India”, in Man in India #46; and P. P. Majumdar & K. C. Malhotra: OAB Dynamics in India: A Statistical Study, Calcutta 1974. )
*The anthropology of Harappan skeletons has shown a substantial similarity with modern populations from a nearby area (Dutta , 1984) 
*Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar four thousand years ago. (David Frawley, Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory)
*(...) two recent articles in Current Biology (London), vol.9, nrs.22 and 24, by T. Kivisild et al. ("Deep common ancestry of Indian and Western-Eurasian mitochonrdial DNA lineages") and by Todd R. Disotell ("Human evolution: the southern route to Asia"), about genetic connections between India and "Western Eurasia". One finding is that during or before the Ice Age, a group of human beings migrated from Ethiopia and Somalia through Yemen and Oman to Gujarat and into India. The more important finding for our present purposes is that for the parameters studied, there is no north/south or Aryan/Dravidian divide in India; that one of the lineages showed a common origin between Indians and West-Asians in ca. 53,000 years before the present (this may be the spread of homo sapiens outside Africa, hence not very informative about more recent splits in the human family); that the West-Asian connection was highly minoritarian in the Indian gene pool, indicating only a small contribution by invaders from the West; and that the youngest split indicated by the genetic material dates to ca. 9,300 years BP. This neatly fits the earlier findings of non-genetic (morphological) physical anthropology, viz. that the population type of northwestern India has remained the same for at least 8,000 years. Also: "Recent work suggests that the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,00 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed." In deference to established indological opinion, they make a perfunctory nod toward the "supposed" Aryan invasion, only to state that they have found no evidence for this popular supposition...There is no trace of their descending on India after 8000 BC, since when the skeletal record shows the same population living in the Indus basis as lives there today. (Koenraad Elst)
*An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al state that there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some degree. (David Frawley Update on the Aryan Invasion Theory)
*Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations are between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation (Roychoudhury et al 2000).
*Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa," 
One of the major points that Oppenheimer harps on is that India is the major node in Eurasia. He argues that the origin of most Eurasian haplogroups can be found in the subcontinent.
In a trail blazing work prominent geneticist Stephan Oppenheimer has 
convincingly argued that all the non African peoples of the world have 
descended from the first Out of Africa Eve mtDNA strain known as L3 
and the first Out of Africa Y chromosome line labeled as M168. 
Moreover, South Asia and in particular India has been a major location 
of flowering for L3 and M168 as they spread through out the rest of 
the world about 90,000 years before present. The story according to 
Oppenheimer (2003) is as follows. The African people carrying L3 and 
M168 left that continent across south Red sea across the southern part 
of the Arabian peninsula towards Pakistan and India. On the maternal 
side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer 
labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India 
the birthplace of Nasreen is uncertain tentatively placed by 
Oppenheimer in southern Iran or Baluchistan. Manju and Rohani (should 
be Rohini), Nasreen's most prolific daughter both born in India are 
the progenitors of all non African peoples. 
The story on the paternal side is a lot more complex. M168 had three 
sons, of which Seth was the most important one. Seth had five sons 
named by Oppenheimer as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishnna. Krishnna born 
in India turned out to be the most prolific of Seth's sons. Krishnna 
through his son Ho, grandson Ruslan through Polo, and great grandson 
M17 through Ruslan, played a major role in the peopling of South 
Asian, East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (see 
Appendix 2, p. 374-375 of Oppenheimer 2003). Oppenheimer (2003) has 
this to say about M17 and his father Ruslan: 
"For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate 
origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates 
and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern 
Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in 
South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity *characterizes* its 
presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any 
theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India', (p. 
152)." 
"Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic 
branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, 
arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently 
spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to 
Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia 
(p. 153)." 
Indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia. 
:See  and 
* Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen report on their study of the migration of genetic traits (with reference to AIT advocate Asko Parpola): “Parpola’s suggestion of movement of Proto-Rg-Vedic Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley by 1800 BC is not supported by our data. Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era.”(Hemphill & Christensen: “The Oxus Civilization as a Link between East and West: A Non-Metric Analysis of Bronze Age Bactrain Biological Affinities”, paper read at the South Asia Conference, 3-5 November 1994, Madison, Wisconsin; p. 13. ) The inflow which they do find, around the turn of the Christian era, is apparently that of the well-known Shaka and Kushana invasions. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy reaches similar conclusions from his physical-anthropological data: “Evidence of demographic discontinuities is present in our study, but the first occurs between 6000 and 4500 BC (a separation of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations of Mehrgarh) and the second is after 800 BC, the discontinuity being between the peoples of Harappa, Chalcolithic Mehrgarh and post-Harappan Timargarha on the one hand and the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age inhabitants of Sarai Khola on the other. (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. On p. 42, Kennedy quotes the suggestion that “not only the end of the [Harappan] cities but even their initial impetus may have been due to Indo-European speaking peoples”, by B. and F. R. Allchin: The Birth of Indian Civilization, Penguin 1968, p. 144. ).....“Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. )
*Archaeogenetics: The skeletons of Timargarha (“Vedic Aryans”) are similar to the the ones of the ancient Harappans. The Indus-Valley population appears, on the available evidence, to have remained more or less stable to the present day.”There are no indications that the racial composition and distribution of the Indian population has substantially changed since the start of the IE dispersal, which cannot reasonably be placed much earlier than 6,000 BC.(K. Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate)
*Limited study: The Bamshad study is limited to one single Indian state, Andrah Pradesh. It is also limited to a small sample size of people. 
:Michael Bamshad also wrote in 2004: In India alone, for example, thousands of different castes/sub-castes and ~450 tribal groups comprising approximately one-fifth of the world population have been documented, but molecular genetic data are available for only a handful. Indeed, much of the genetic data available on many populationsis limited to genotypes of the mitochondrial genomeand the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome. But assessments of patterns of variation based onsingle-locus analyses fundamentally lack power. What is needed instead is an unbiased sampling of variation (for example, through resequencing) across the genome from individuals in well-characterized communities sampled from contiguous geographical regions throughout the world.(DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE, Michael Bamshad et al, 2004)
*The Michael Bamshad et al (2001) study:
*The coalescence estimate of Indian haplogroup-M haplotypes is 48,000 ± 1500 yr, suggesting that Indian-specific mtDNA haplotypes split from a proto-Asian ancestor in the late Pleistocene.
:This does not agree with other studies. The "M" group is said to be the earliest "out of Africa" group. The earliest out of africa goes back to some 120 -> 170 K years, depending on who writes what. The timeline doesn't agree. The earliest "out of Africa" group WAS the wrongly termed "proto-Asian ancestor". It can't be "proto" anything as in the context it is an artificial and theoretical concept. This claim of "proto-" ASSUMES an existence, unproved and undefined earlier group of people. It is a totally unsubstantiated claim and belongs with the fairies.  
:Slide no3 indicates the first haplogroup-M. The following slide shows Australia and refer to Mungo Man, older than 40K years. Population in Australia is argued to go back to about 60 -> 65K ago, and are indeed related to people in India. This places early HS (Homo Sapien) in India before the attributed date in the study. 
*Therefore, to resolve further the relationships of Europeans and Asians to contemporary Indian populations, we defined the identities of specific mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes. ...... defines a haplogroup ... M,... (...)Most of the common haplotypes found in Telugu- and Hindi-speaking caste populations belong to haplogroup M... 
:This is absolute CRAP! Table 2 makes this a lie, it shows a similar Dravidic % (if that table can be understood at all)! 
:Haplogroup M is but ONE of MANY haplogroups all people have. It is totally BOGUS to claim anything on a single haplogroup alone. It is far, far too narrow a comparisonto be of any value. FACT: ALL people (as a group of people) share haplotypes. To what extent is the guide, is the one that indicates, in the case of mtDNA, a maternal migration and admixture of people. Focusing on a single haplogroup HIDES a lot of admixture of other groups. 
:The proof is this. In fig 2 notes it says "ancestral to haplogroups B, F, H, T, J, V, and U ". The "U2" is a sub group of U.... which is a subgroup of V, IIRC. 
:Also "About 99% of European mtDNAs fall into one of ten haplogroups: H, I, J, K, M, T, U, V, W or X" - (Torroni et al. 1996a). So from this we see that the common "European" hap-groups are, H, J, M, T, V, U at the very least. Note "H" is also an African hap. The other haplogroups identified in fig 2 notes B, F belong to Mongolian -> Siberian areas, while others point to China and Asia in general. 
*Table 2. MtDNA Haplogroup Frequencies in Dravidic and Hindi-Speaking Indians
:God only knows what they intend to show with this table. The % in "()" are error margins. These error margins are often as large as the claimed incident of haplotype. But there are TWO very serious erroneous claims! There are NO haplogroup known as "asian" (after all INDIA is in ASIA). There are NO haplogroup known as "West Eurasian"!! It is wrong to show BOTH the top level haplogroup AND the sub-groups as well - they are already in the top level count! This on its own renders the table USELESS, even IF one was able to decipher what they hell they try to show with it. 
*It is also possible that haplotypes with an older coalescence were introduced by Dravidians, This claim is pure fluff and raw speculation. 
*Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers ... How odd!! Up to this point they speak ot mtDNA which is NOT part of the nucleus of a cell, as an autosome is (part of the non-sex chromosomes). Then they go on and say "The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes...." is that intended as  "caste Y" or "Y-chromosomes" - I'll assume the latter. Strictly speaking there is no "Y-chromosome", as it is only counted as HALF a chromosome - and this is one "half" that cannot and is not called an "autosome". 
*The autosomal Alu and biallelic Y-chromosome polymorphisms, in contrast, have a slower rate of drift than Y-chromosome STRs because of a higher effective population size, and their mutation rate is very low. Thus, the Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms and autosomal Alu markers may serve as more stable markers of worldwide population affinities.
:Fact is that Y-chromosomes are rather prone to drift, and are NOT good for long term studies. Hell the oldest Y-chromosome "Adam" is only 80K years, while the mtDNA Eve is about double that. This means certain lineages of Y-chromosomes have disappeared completely. See:  
:A human has 23 PAIRS of chromosomes, only ONE is not an autosome, chromosome 23 and it is the sex chromosome of XY or XX. Some count this as TWO chromosomes X AND Y. The Y-chromosome has a portion that is re-mixed at every passing, and an offspring (male only) has merely a 25% chance of inheriting the fathers same genes. See fig 1, it is the top half, the important bits of a person's physical makeup. The rest of it is what makes a person a male, produces more testosterone than oestrogen... etc etc.... 
:The study mentions 5 CLASSES of casts, the 5th being the "untouchables". Yet the study itself only recognises 3 CLASSES of humans, but that claim is contradicted in the Abstract, where it says "...265 males from eight castes of different rank...." -the sample size and composition. BUT then they also go on to say they compared them to ".....and other Indians." among others!! It therefor cannot support anything claimed for it, as it crosses the class boundaries. The study is LIMITED in geographic scope, otherwise appears to have a reasonable numbers purely - I would have liked family connection to be far more remote than the study's criteria was. 
::Conclusion: The study is seriously lacking in that it does NOT show, rather than what it DOES show. A study WITHIN "classes" always shows a greater  genetic diversity than there ever is BETWEEN "classes". This is missing as the three groups have been averaged to make the diversity  disappear.
::There is a division based on language - a serious danger exists that  it is understood by some that a "language" is inherited or "genetic  based".... or that it is an "ethnicity" therefor classification as  "Ubermenchen" or not is justified on the basis of language. 
::The abstract says: "For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most  similar to Asians." - this does give a hint of the least difference is  BETWEEN groups. That is to say "most similar to each other"!! But the claim "most similar to Asians" is not rocket science either, as (1)  India IS part of Asia. (2) that was "the road" early migration took to  the rest of SE and E Asia, Australia and PNG and therefor NZ as well  (though via a much longer road). A road that began in Africa and  eventually ended up in the Americas and Australasia. 
*Also, even though the Bamshad study is more constructed to support a theory, than to illuminate the facts, some of the conclusions reached in the Bamshad 2001 paper are not mentionned in the article:
The distance between Europeans and lower
castes is larger than the distance between Europeans
and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans
and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-
European distance.''
This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya
(an upper caste), whose members served as warriors,
are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data
not shown).''
This pattern is further accentuated by
separating the European population into Northern,
Southern, and Eastern Europeans; each caste group is
most closely related to Eastern Europeans.''
*Unlike the mtDNA papers, there are those who dispute the exogenous origins of the haplogroups in question, so I tend to think that a predominantly indigenous (that is, lineages extent in South Asia prior to 10,000 years ago) narrative is more probable (that is, the case for mtDNA being indigenous is stronger than that of the Y being exogenous). 
*The similarities between upper castes and Eastern Europeans should not be overplayed; it really depends what locus you look at. Some loci (especially on the Y) appear to be very similar to Eastern European populations among upper castes, while some autosomal loci do not. 
some references:
Important references are the studies of Kivisild et al. They include a lot of relevant information that cannot be summarized here. See the links. Then there are also studies by Metspalu, Hemphill, Kennedy, etc.
*Kivisild et al 1999, Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages 
*Kivilsind et al 1999b, The Place of the Indian mtDNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World 
*Kivisild et al 2000, An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond 
*Kivilsid et al 2003a, The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India 
*Kivilsid et al 2003b, The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal
and Caste Populations 
*Mait Metspalu et al, 2004: Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans  and 
*Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa," See also  and 
*Science Forum 
*Koenraad Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate 
*N.S. Rajaram 
--Ilyacqd 15:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:68.251.112.161]]'s contentions on [[Aryan invasion theory#Genetic Evidence on caste system and its origins]] 

message: *Some other studies:
*‘There is much greater homogenization in terms of morphological and genetic traits at the regional level’, says the report. For example, the Brahmins of Tamil Nadu (esp. Iyengars) share more traits with non-Brahmins in the state than with fellow Brahmins in western or northern India. (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: N. V. Subramaniam: “The way we are. An ASI project shatters some entrenched myths”, Sunday, 10-4-1994. about a report by Kumar Suresh Singh) (...)Kailash C. Malhotra: “Detailed anthropometric surveys carried out among the people of Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Bengal and Tamil Nadu revealed significant regional differences within a caste and a closer resemblance between castes of different varnas within a region than between sub-populations of the caste from different regions. .... “A more detailed study among eight Brahmin castes in Maharashtra on whom 18 metric, 16 scopic and 8 genetic markers were studied, revealed not only a great heterogeneity in both morphological and genetic characteristics but also showed that 3 Brahmin castes were closer to non-Brahmin castes than [to the] other Brahmin castes. P. P. Majumdar and K. C. Malhotra (1974) observed a great deal of heterogeneity with respect to OAB blood group system among 50 Brahmin samples spread over 11 Indian states.  (Koenraad Elst, Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate: K. C. Malhotra: “Biological Dimensions to Ethnicity and caste in India”, in K. S. Singh: Ethnicity, Caste and People, Manohar, Delhi 1992, p. 65. Reference is to H. K. Rakshit: “An Anthropometric Study of the Brahmins of India”, in Man in India #46; and P. P. Majumdar & K. C. Malhotra: OAB Dynamics in India: A Statistical Study, Calcutta 1974. )
*The anthropology of Harappan skeletons has shown a substantial similarity with modern populations from a nearby area (Dutta , 1984) 
*Anthropologists have observed that the present population of Gujarat is composed of more or less the same ethnic groups as are noticed at Lothal in 2000 BC. Similarly, the present population of the Punjab is said to be ethnically the same as the population of Harappa and Rupar four thousand years ago. (David Frawley, Myth of Aryan Invasion Theory)
*(...) two recent articles in Current Biology (London), vol.9, nrs.22 and 24, by T. Kivisild et al. ("Deep common ancestry of Indian and Western-Eurasian mitochonrdial DNA lineages") and by Todd R. Disotell ("Human evolution: the southern route to Asia"), about genetic connections between India and "Western Eurasia". One finding is that during or before the Ice Age, a group of human beings migrated from Ethiopia and Somalia through Yemen and Oman to Gujarat and into India. The more important finding for our present purposes is that for the parameters studied, there is no north/south or Aryan/Dravidian divide in India; that one of the lineages showed a common origin between Indians and West-Asians in ca. 53,000 years before the present (this may be the spread of homo sapiens outside Africa, hence not very informative about more recent splits in the human family); that the West-Asian connection was highly minoritarian in the Indian gene pool, indicating only a small contribution by invaders from the West; and that the youngest split indicated by the genetic material dates to ca. 9,300 years BP. This neatly fits the earlier findings of non-genetic (morphological) physical anthropology, viz. that the population type of northwestern India has remained the same for at least 8,000 years. Also: "Recent work suggests that the supposed Aryan invasion of India 3,000-4,00 years ago was much less significant than is generally believed." In deference to established indological opinion, they make a perfunctory nod toward the "supposed" Aryan invasion, only to state that they have found no evidence for this popular supposition...There is no trace of their descending on India after 8000 BC, since when the skeletal record shows the same population living in the Indus basis as lives there today. (Koenraad Elst)
*An examination of human skeletal remains also does not show any discontinuity from 1900-800 BCE, the period of the proposed Aryan entrance into India. In a recent article, Hemphill et al state that there are two discontinuities in the area in so far as the human remains are concerned. One occurred between 6000-4500 BCE and the other occurred between 800-200 BCE. In the intervening period, there is a general biological continuity, notwithstanding a limited interaction with the populations from the west that has always occurred to some degree. (David Frawley Update on the Aryan Invasion Theory)
*Most of the mtDNA diversity observed in Indian populations are between individuals within populations; there is no significant structuring of haplotype diversity by socio-religious affiliation, geographical location of habitat or linguistic affiliation (Roychoudhury et al 2000).
*Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa," 
One of the major points that Oppenheimer harps on is that India is the major node in Eurasia. He argues that the origin of most Eurasian haplogroups can be found in the subcontinent.
In a trail blazing work prominent geneticist Stephan Oppenheimer has 
convincingly argued that all the non African peoples of the world have 
descended from the first Out of Africa Eve mtDNA strain known as L3 
and the first Out of Africa Y chromosome line labeled as M168. 
Moreover, South Asia and in particular India has been a major location 
of flowering for L3 and M168 as they spread through out the rest of 
the world about 90,000 years before present. The story according to 
Oppenheimer (2003) is as follows. The African people carrying L3 and 
M168 left that continent across south Red sea across the southern part 
of the Arabian peninsula towards Pakistan and India. On the maternal 
side the mtDNA strain L3 split into two daughters which Oppenheimer 
labels Nasreen and Manju. While Manju was definitely born in India 
the birthplace of Nasreen is uncertain tentatively placed by 
Oppenheimer in southern Iran or Baluchistan. Manju and Rohani (should 
be Rohini), Nasreen's most prolific daughter both born in India are 
the progenitors of all non African peoples. 
The story on the paternal side is a lot more complex. M168 had three 
sons, of which Seth was the most important one. Seth had five sons 
named by Oppenheimer as Jahangir, H, I, G and Krishnna. Krishnna born 
in India turned out to be the most prolific of Seth's sons. Krishnna 
through his son Ho, grandson Ruslan through Polo, and great grandson 
M17 through Ruslan, played a major role in the peopling of South 
Asian, East Asia, Central Asia, Oceania and West Eurasia (see 
Appendix 2, p. 374-375 of Oppenheimer 2003). Oppenheimer (2003) has 
this to say about M17 and his father Ruslan: 
"For me and for Toomas Kivisild, South Asia is logically the ultimate 
origin of M17 and his ancestors; and sure enough we find highest rates 
and greatest diversity of the M17 line in Pakistan, India, and eastern 
Iran, and low rates in the Caucasus. M17 is not only more diverse in 
South Asia than in Central Asia but diversity *characterizes* its 
presence in isolated tribal groups in the south, thus undermining any 
theory of M17 as a marker of a `male Aryan Invasion of India', (p. 
152)." 
"Study of the geographical distribution and the diversity of genetic 
branches and stems again suggests that Ruslan, along with his son M17, 
arose early in South Asia, somewhere near India, and subsequently 
spread not only south-east to Australia but also north, directly to 
Central Asia, before splitting east and west into Europe and East Asia 
(p. 153)." 
Indeed, nearly all Europeans — and by extension, many Americans — can trace their ancestors to only four mtDNA lines, which appeared between 10,000 and 50,000 years ago and originated from South Asia. 
:See  and 
* Brian E. Hemphill and Alexander F. Christensen report on their study of the migration of genetic traits (with reference to AIT advocate Asko Parpola): “Parpola’s suggestion of movement of Proto-Rg-Vedic Aryan speakers into the Indus Valley by 1800 BC is not supported by our data. Gene flow from Bactria occurs much later, and does not impact Indus Valley gene pools until the dawn of the Christian era.”(Hemphill & Christensen: “The Oxus Civilization as a Link between East and West: A Non-Metric Analysis of Bronze Age Bactrain Biological Affinities”, paper read at the South Asia Conference, 3-5 November 1994, Madison, Wisconsin; p. 13. ) The inflow which they do find, around the turn of the Christian era, is apparently that of the well-known Shaka and Kushana invasions. Kenneth A. R. Kennedy reaches similar conclusions from his physical-anthropological data: “Evidence of demographic discontinuities is present in our study, but the first occurs between 6000 and 4500 BC (a separation of the Neolithic and Chalcolithic populations of Mehrgarh) and the second is after 800 BC, the discontinuity being between the peoples of Harappa, Chalcolithic Mehrgarh and post-Harappan Timargarha on the one hand and the late Bronze Age and early Iron Age inhabitants of Sarai Khola on the other. (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. On p. 42, Kennedy quotes the suggestion that “not only the end of the [Harappan] cities but even their initial impetus may have been due to Indo-European speaking peoples”, by B. and F. R. Allchin: The Birth of Indian Civilization, Penguin 1968, p. 144. ).....“Our multivariate approach does not define the biological identity of an ancient Aryan population, but it does indicate that the Indus Valley and Gandhara peoples shared a number of craniometric, odontometric and discrete traits that point to a high degree of biological affinity.” (K. A. R. Kennedy: “Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?”, in George Erdosy, ed. : The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, p. 49. )
*Archaeogenetics: The skeletons of Timargarha (“Vedic Aryans”) are similar to the the ones of the ancient Harappans. The Indus-Valley population appears, on the available evidence, to have remained more or less stable to the present day.”There are no indications that the racial composition and distribution of the Indian population has substantially changed since the start of the IE dispersal, which cannot reasonably be placed much earlier than 6,000 BC.(K. Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate)
*Limited study: The Bamshad study is limited to one single Indian state, Andrah Pradesh. It is also limited to a small sample size of people. 
:Michael Bamshad also wrote in 2004: In India alone, for example, thousands of different castes/sub-castes and ~450 tribal groups comprising approximately one-fifth of the world population have been documented, but molecular genetic data are available for only a handful. Indeed, much of the genetic data available on many populationsis limited to genotypes of the mitochondrial genomeand the non-recombining portion of the Y chromosome. But assessments of patterns of variation based onsingle-locus analyses fundamentally lack power. What is needed instead is an unbiased sampling of variation (for example, through resequencing) across the genome from individuals in well-characterized communities sampled from contiguous geographical regions throughout the world.(DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE, Michael Bamshad et al, 2004)
*The Michael Bamshad et al (2001) study:
*The coalescence estimate of Indian haplogroup-M haplotypes is 48,000 ± 1500 yr, suggesting that Indian-specific mtDNA haplotypes split from a proto-Asian ancestor in the late Pleistocene.
:This does not agree with other studies. The "M" group is said to be the earliest "out of Africa" group. The earliest out of africa goes back to some 120 -> 170 K years, depending on who writes what. The timeline doesn't agree. The earliest "out of Africa" group WAS the wrongly termed "proto-Asian ancestor". It can't be "proto" anything as in the context it is an artificial and theoretical concept. This claim of "proto-" ASSUMES an existence, unproved and undefined earlier group of people. It is a totally unsubstantiated claim and belongs with the fairies.  
:Slide no3 indicates the first haplogroup-M. The following slide shows Australia and refer to Mungo Man, older than 40K years. Population in Australia is argued to go back to about 60 -> 65K ago, and are indeed related to people in India. This places early HS (Homo Sapien) in India before the attributed date in the study. 
*Therefore, to resolve further the relationships of Europeans and Asians to contemporary Indian populations, we defined the identities of specific mtDNA restriction-site haplotypes. ...... defines a haplogroup ... M,... (...)Most of the common haplotypes found in Telugu- and Hindi-speaking caste populations belong to haplogroup M... 
:This is absolute CRAP! Table 2 makes this a lie, it shows a similar Dravidic % (if that table can be understood at all)! 
:Haplogroup M is but ONE of MANY haplogroups all people have. It is totally BOGUS to claim anything on a single haplogroup alone. It is far, far too narrow a comparisonto be of any value. FACT: ALL people (as a group of people) share haplotypes. To what extent is the guide, is the one that indicates, in the case of mtDNA, a maternal migration and admixture of people. Focusing on a single haplogroup HIDES a lot of admixture of other groups. 
:The proof is this. In fig 2 notes it says "ancestral to haplogroups B, F, H, T, J, V, and U ". The "U2" is a sub group of U.... which is a subgroup of V, IIRC. 
:Also "About 99% of European mtDNAs fall into one of ten haplogroups: H, I, J, K, M, T, U, V, W or X" - (Torroni et al. 1996a). So from this we see that the common "European" hap-groups are, H, J, M, T, V, U at the very least. Note "H" is also an African hap. The other haplogroups identified in fig 2 notes B, F belong to Mongolian -> Siberian areas, while others point to China and Asia in general. 
*Table 2. MtDNA Haplogroup Frequencies in Dravidic and Hindi-Speaking Indians
:God only knows what they intend to show with this table. The % in "()" are error margins. These error margins are often as large as the claimed incident of haplotype. But there are TWO very serious erroneous claims! There are NO haplogroup known as "asian" (after all INDIA is in ASIA). There are NO haplogroup known as "West Eurasian"!! It is wrong to show BOTH the top level haplogroup AND the sub-groups as well - they are already in the top level count! This on its own renders the table USELESS, even IF one was able to decipher what they hell they try to show with it. 
*It is also possible that haplotypes with an older coalescence were introduced by Dravidians, This claim is pure fluff and raw speculation. 
*Our analysis of 40 autosomal markers ... How odd!! Up to this point they speak ot mtDNA which is NOT part of the nucleus of a cell, as an autosome is (part of the non-sex chromosomes). Then they go on and say "The high affinity of caste Y chromosomes...." is that intended as  "caste Y" or "Y-chromosomes" - I'll assume the latter. Strictly speaking there is no "Y-chromosome", as it is only counted as HALF a chromosome - and this is one "half" that cannot and is not called an "autosome". 
*The autosomal Alu and biallelic Y-chromosome polymorphisms, in contrast, have a slower rate of drift than Y-chromosome STRs because of a higher effective population size, and their mutation rate is very low. Thus, the Y-chromosome biallelic polymorphisms and autosomal Alu markers may serve as more stable markers of worldwide population affinities.
:Fact is that Y-chromosomes are rather prone to drift, and are NOT good for long term studies. Hell the oldest Y-chromosome "Adam" is only 80K years, while the mtDNA Eve is about double that. This means certain lineages of Y-chromosomes have disappeared completely. See:  
:A human has 23 PAIRS of chromosomes, only ONE is not an autosome, chromosome 23 and it is the sex chromosome of XY or XX. Some count this as TWO chromosomes X AND Y. The Y-chromosome has a portion that is re-mixed at every passing, and an offspring (male only) has merely a 25% chance of inheriting the fathers same genes. See fig 1, it is the top half, the important bits of a person's physical makeup. The rest of it is what makes a person a male, produces more testosterone than oestrogen... etc etc.... 
:The study mentions 5 CLASSES of casts, the 5th being the "untouchables". Yet the study itself only recognises 3 CLASSES of humans, but that claim is contradicted in the Abstract, where it says "...265 males from eight castes of different rank...." -the sample size and composition. BUT then they also go on to say they compared them to ".....and other Indians." among others!! It therefor cannot support anything claimed for it, as it crosses the class boundaries. The study is LIMITED in geographic scope, otherwise appears to have a reasonable numbers purely - I would have liked family connection to be far more remote than the study's criteria was. 
::Conclusion: The study is seriously lacking in that it does NOT show, rather than what it DOES show. A study WITHIN "classes" always shows a greater  genetic diversity than there ever is BETWEEN "classes". This is missing as the three groups have been averaged to make the diversity  disappear.
::There is a division based on language - a serious danger exists that  it is understood by some that a "language" is inherited or "genetic  based".... or that it is an "ethnicity" therefor classification as  "Ubermenchen" or not is justified on the basis of language. 
::The abstract says: "For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most  similar to Asians." - this does give a hint of the least difference is  BETWEEN groups. That is to say "most similar to each other"!! But the claim "most similar to Asians" is not rocket science either, as (1)  India IS part of Asia. (2) that was "the road" early migration took to  the rest of SE and E Asia, Australia and PNG and therefor NZ as well  (though via a much longer road). A road that began in Africa and  eventually ended up in the Americas and Australasia. 
*Also, even though the Bamshad study is more constructed to support a theory, than to illuminate the facts, some of the conclusions reached in the Bamshad 2001 paper are not mentionned in the article:
The distance between Europeans and lower
castes is larger than the distance between Europeans
and upper castes, but the distance between Europeans
and middle castes is smaller than the upper caste-
European distance.''
This is underscored by the observation that the Kshatriya
(an upper caste), whose members served as warriors,
are closer to Europeans than any other caste (data
not shown).''
This pattern is further accentuated by
separating the European population into Northern,
Southern, and Eastern Europeans; each caste group is
most closely related to Eastern Europeans.''
*Unlike the mtDNA papers, there are those who dispute the exogenous origins of the haplogroups in question, so I tend to think that a predominantly indigenous (that is, lineages extent in South Asia prior to 10,000 years ago) narrative is more probable (that is, the case for mtDNA being indigenous is stronger than that of the Y being exogenous). 
*The similarities between upper castes and Eastern Europeans should not be overplayed; it really depends what locus you look at. Some loci (especially on the Y) appear to be very similar to Eastern European populations among upper castes, while some autosomal loci do not. 
some references:
Important references are the studies of Kivisild et al. They include a lot of relevant information that cannot be summarized here. See the links. Then there are also studies by Metspalu, Hemphill, Kennedy, etc.
*Kivisild et al 1999, Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages 
*Kivilsind et al 1999b, The Place of the Indian mtDNA Variants in the Global Network of Maternal Lineages and the Peopling of the Old World 
*Kivisild et al 2000, An Indian Ancestry: a Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond 
*Kivilsid et al 2003a, The Genetics of Language and Farming Spread in India 
*Kivilsid et al 2003b, The Genetic Heritage of the Earliest Settlers Persists Both in Indian Tribal
and Caste Populations 
*Mait Metspalu et al, 2004: Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans  and 
*Oppenheimer, Stephen (2003), "The Real Eve: Modern Man's Journey ouf of Africa," See also  and 
*Science Forum 
*Koenraad Elst: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate 
*N.S. Rajaram 
--Ilyacqd 15:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  some (incomplete) comments on the genetics section 

message: However, most of the pro-invasionist papers imply that R1a1 is the genetic marker that is representative of an invasion, due to its high frequency in Euro-asia. But an equally likely genetic marker is haplogroup L. This haplogroup is present in Greek, Turkish, Lebonese, Iranians, Central Asian and Indian populations (and Europe, see Kivisild). This marker is found in locations where written sources record the presence of Indo-European languages and people: i.e. Greek, Hittite, Hyksos, Mitanni, Iranians and Indians. Its peak frequency is found in Indo-Iranian populations. Another possible marker is J2. Also the 'Western Euroasian' components that are found in Indian mtdna show a distribution closer to that found in the Southern Caucasus and Middle East, than in Eastern Europe. There is also the question of why one should assume only one Y haplogroup is representative of the Aryan gene pool. R1a1, R1b, J2, L and H - all of which are present in India and Central and West Asia - are all possibilities.
Interestingly,studies show that there has been very little mixing of the male line between castes,clans for sometime.They show distinct haplotypes even though many clans(castes) within a region have similar haplogroups.For instance North West Indians contain mainly haplogroups R1a1,R1b,J2 and L ,yet there is very little sharing of haplotypes with other castes(clans) in the same region.In fact according to the yhrd.org database Jats (mainly Jat Sikhs(Punjab)) have more haplotypes in common with Germans ,Balts and Slavs (between 2%-10% ,1-5 haplotypes ,mainly R1a1) than with neighbouring Indo-Iranians.The question arises that if Aryans came from outside India(or Pakistan) ,how is it that they where able to separate into distinct clans without any of the clans sharing a considerable percentage of haplotypes?.
If we make a similar comparison within European populations we see these populations share a number of haplotypes (R1b?).For example comparing Irish-Italian haplotypes using the Yhrd.org database,we see that they share a considerable frequency ,even though these two populations have been separated from each other by the Alps, the Western European landmass and the English Channel since the end of the last ice age,(or at least since Celtic migrations relating to the spread of the Urnfield culture about 3000 years ago.
Even if one assumes a high mutation rate for haplotypes,the Irish-Italian example shows that for a complete mismatch of Y chromosome haplotypes in the Indo-Iranians to occur (as seems to be the case),these castes(clans) would need to have formed much earlier than the supposed aryan invasion about 3500 years ago ,(possibly as far back as the end of the last ice age).Since the mismatch in the Indo-Iranians seems to apply within all haplogroups (J2,L,R1a1,R1b) one has to question associating the  Kurgan culture with the  origin of R1a1 .Alternatively ,if we assume a more recent separation of castes(clans),we are still left with the result that before separation the population consisted of a mixture of haplogroups (J2,L,R1b,R1a1).Hence the Kurgan/Aryan/caste/R1a1 connection is untenable,(although this does not exclude the possibility that Aryan males consisted of a subset of R1a1)
I now added some material to the article. I couldn't to this earlier because I hadn't the time. I think I will remove the npov tag from the text. But that does not mean that I think that the section is completely npov, but that now at least other studies are mentioned and discussed in more than approx. one sentence, and not only the study of Bamshad (2001). I think that the section could still be much improved. It would be nice if a geneticist could to this. Since I'm not a geneticist, I couldn't of course write as much as I otherwise would have done. There's still a lot of information that could be added, and the results of the Bamshad study, despite its length in the article are only mentionned but not discussed or criticized. --Ilyacqd 17:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caste and Aryans, is there a relationship ?

message: Although one might say these are metaphorical verses for some type of spiritual victory, rather than literal histories, one also has to wonder just what kind of experiences one would have to have to understand such metaphors, to invent such metaphors. Therefore, perhaps they are not metaphors after all.
"Let these who have no weapons suffer sorrow."
RV4.5.14
"Upstanding in the Car the skilful Charioteer guides his strong Horses on whithersoe'er he will"
RV6.75.6
"Thou, Indra, also smotest down Kulitara's son Sambara,
The Dasa, from the lofty hill.
Of Dasa Varcin's thou didst slay the hundred thousand and the five,
Crushed like the fellies, of a car....
For Divodasa, him who brought oblation, 1ndra overthrew
A hundred fortresses of stone.
The thirty thousand Disas he with magic power and weapons sent
To slumber, for Dabhiti's sake."
RV4.30.14-15 and .20-21
"Thou, kindly giving Raji to Pithinas, slewest with might, at once, the sixty thousand...So may we he thy friends, thy best beloved, O Indra, at this holy invocation...
Best be Pratardani, illustrious ruler, in slaying foemen and in gaining riches"
RV 6.26.6 and .8
"He, self-reliant, mighty and triumphant,
brought low the dear head of the wicked Dasas.
Indra the Vritra-slayer, Fort-destroyer,
scattered the Dasa hosts who dwelt in darkness.
For men hath he created earth and waters,
and ever helped the prayer of him who worships.
To him in might the Gods have ever yielded,
to Indra in the tumult of battle.
When in his arms they laid the bolt,
he slaughtered the Dasyus
and cast down their forts of iron."
RV 2.20.7-8
"Lower than all besides hast thou, O Indra, cast down the Dasyus, abject tribes of Dasas.
Ye drave away, ye put to death the foemen, and took great vengeance with your murdering weapons"
RV4.28
"They laud the mighty acts of him the Mighty, the many glorious deeds performed by Indra.
He in his strength, with all-surpassing prowess, through wondrous arts crushed the malignant Dasyus...Indra obtained the Cow who feedeth many.
Treasure of gold he won; he smote the Dasyus, and gave protection to the Aryan colour." RV3.34.6 and .9
I'd like to point out that one contemporary interpretation of the invasion theory cannot be used to justify imperialism; namely the Chalice and the Blade theory of Rianne Eisler, which doesn't concern South Asia much at all, but points out that advanced cultures were frequently invaded by less advanced ones, who often had offspring with the females among the original inhabitants. Rather than justifying imperialism, Eisler's theory reveals its consequences. --Munge 07:59, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal evidence from the Rig Veda 

message: What's with the excessive lack of spaces, or misuse of spaces (such as before a comma) in this article? It looks like most of this was either typed really fast, typed with a faulty space bar, or typed really fast with a faulty space bar.
:I have gone through fixing spacing problems wherever I could find them. I also fixed comma splices. There may be some that I missed. Judging by the pattern of the syntactic errors and the fact that they occurred in gluts, my guess is that they were all sections added by the same person. These sections also include redundancies and possible non-neutral POVs that should be addressed. --InformationalAnarchist 03:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar/punctuation 

message: I collected all the sections titled Bibliography, Literature, or References together, placed them just before See also, alphabetised them, and reformatted the first few citations according to the guide in Wikipedia:Cite sources.
Some of the references are unattributed.  I sorted these separately from attributed ones, but authors should be found for these if possible so that they can be incorporated into the main list of references. MichaelSlone 20:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: o dear, this article is still in rather sad shape. For one thing, it is still obsessed with the 19th century. So rather than suggesting a move, I am now suggesting a split between Aryan invasion theory and Indo-Aryan migration. AIT can look at the flaws of Max Muller's views to its heart's content, but the Indo-Aryan migration article will be organized as representing the current discourse. I hope this will reduce the strawman attacks that the theory was originally forwarded by colonialists, which is unrelated to it still being accepted as a matter of fact (with modifications), by non-colonialists. dab (ᛏ) 12:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Perhaps most of the discussion on the "international conspiracy against Indians" founded by Max Muller and the colonialists can be moved to an article named History of the Aryan invasion theory?--Wiglaf 14:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, I agree. The article is such a mess now that it need to be sorted out with radical measures. Paul B 10 August, 15:52 2005 (UTC)
I was about to comment that the article is a complete mess, and I see that others are before me on this.  As so often with these kinds of articles, it seems as though generally acknowledged flaws in 19th century theories are being used to attack the generally accepted present-day theory and prop up highly dubious nationalist claims.  Personally, I don't see that radical Hindu nationalist theories should be mentioned in the introduction at all. john k 16:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not only radical Hindus who support the counter-theory.   --goethean ॐ 16:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Goethean, your authority is an authority on YOGA .--Wiglaf 17:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please be civil. I don't recall using the word authority. I didn't write, and don't support, all of the material that is currently at "Theory that Vedic Aryan culture originated in India". That said, I think that it is appropriate to mention the counter-theory briefly in the intro. --goethean ॐ 17:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are so many fringe theories out there and I never think that they deserve being mentioned in the intro.--Wiglaf 18:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, Hindu nationalists and crackpots, I'm sorry. The idea that the Indo-European languages arose in India simply contradicts everything we know about linguistics.  The idea that the Indus Valley civilization spoke Indo-Aryan languages and represents the civilization described in the Vedas seems nearly as problematic. john k 18:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I support a truthful, honest reference to the Saraswati theory in the article. But your ignorant, tribalistic equation of academia with racism is indicative of the problem, not the solution. You think that only third-world or oppressed people can have a correct theory of history or linguistics? If you want to join in this debate, you need to read some history and then defend your beliefs logically rather than throwing around accusations that have no merit or meaning. The irresponsible anonymous changes to this article is why it needs to be completely overhauled. The new version will probably ignore the Saraswati theory completely, and that's the fault of the anonymous irresponsible editors, not the fault of adherents to the Aryan invasion theory. It is your attitude and lack of integrity, rather than the kneejerk reactions above that make me embarrassed to even be interested in the Sarswati theory. Either contribute or stop complaining.  --goethean ॐ 17:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Linguistics can give strong evidence as to the geographical origins of languages, although it can't be decisive.  The fact that of all the known branches of Indo-European, the vast majority are not in India, but are (mostly) in Europe or, in the case of Anatolian and Armenian, very close to Europe; while in India we only have the Indic languages which are themselves only a single subbranch of the Indo-Iranian languages - by all principles of historical linguistics this indicates that India was not the point of origin for the Indo-European languages.  If India were the point of origin, you'd expect there to be tons and tons of branches of Indo-European in India, and then one "European" branch which accounts for all the languages outside India.  This not being the case, the Indo-European languages cannot have originated in India. john k 16:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

text: In an attempt to defuse this conflict, I will summarize Feuerstein's arguments for the Saraswati civilization in a new article at In Search of the Cradle of Civilization. Perhaps the migration proponents here will allow a link to that article in lieu of Saraswati-pushing verbiage at Aryan invasion theory. --goethean ॐ 19:36, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: oh man

message: I finally attempted to separate the "Hindu nationalists vs. 19th century colonialists" debate from the factual debate. It is still an enormous mess. A lot of stuff had to be pruned, since it was simply repetitive or offtopic. This article cannot be the place to explain Indo-European linguistics, the Indus Valley civilization, the Rigveda, or Hinduism. These concepts all have their own articles. The focus of this article is evidece pertinent to Indo-Aryan migrations from
*Linguistics
*the Rigveda
*Mitanni records
*Archaeology
*Genetics
A Vedic continuity theory may deserve its own articles, but as far as it is simply attacking 19th century strawmen, it can go on Aryan invasion theory. Naturally, all criticism dealing with contemporary, genetic, linguistic or archaeological, views, is relevant here, but let's just try to keep nationalism and religion out of this (wishful thinking, I know). dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: move/split

message: I went through the article and removed the most inflammatory claims, but have still left in the competing theories for the sake of NPOV.  What needs to be changed is the weight given to the "alternative" theories.  The standard Kurgan hypothesis is pretty much completely ignored in favor of fringe Indocentric models of IE migrations and, to a lesser extent, Colin Renfrew's minority view.  Completely irrelevant studies about paleolithic population movements are in the genetics section, although I tried to delete most of them.  The claims of there being no evidence for population movements from Central Asia into India in the second millenium are just false- the Gandhara Grave culture of the Punjab shows ceramic links with the Grey Ware tradition of Iran and the East Caspian (Mallory, 1989).
Why there's so much controversy here is beyond me.  Yes, racists have abused Indo-European studies for their own agendas.  That doesn't mean you throw out historical linguistics as a whole.--Rob117 03:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, "Kazakhstan centric", and "like discussing Greek history by dismissing Greek fairy tales". dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article may need to be overhauled 

message: Discussion of contemporary Indian politics, and of 19th century scholarship, goes to the AIT article, thanks. Saty on topic please. This article is not about the IVC, so why do we have a major section on IVC archaeology? Of course the IVC should be discussed for context, but details should go on articles about the IVC. dab (ᛏ) 11:22, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The IVC and related archaeology is an important aspect of the debate, and most of the information is related to the Indo-Aryan migration in particular. Since archaeology is such an important aspect, I think it will have to be discussed in some detail somewhere. But if one section is too long, we should probably export it a separate article. For example, the History section to AIT, Sarasvati to Sarasvati River, Ayas to Ayas, some of Horse and Chariot to "Horse in South Asia", some of Linguistics to Indo-Aryan languages etc. Maybe we could make an article "Archaeology of the Indus Valley Civilization" or Archaelogy and the IA migration debate? BTW, we also have an image in the archaelogy section that is not clearly related to the AMT, even in its Andronovo variant, because Arkaim is "probably post-dating the breakup of Proto-Indo-Iranian." I don't object much to the image, but is seems a bit off-topic? --Machaon 15:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Aryan invasion theory]]

message: Firstly, 'Indo-Aryan migration' is incorrect term for 'Indo-Aryan Invasion'. Secondly, using 'India' to define South Asia is unacceptable. User:Siddiqui 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the geographical term South Asia is better here, but I think "migration" is more neutral - how much conflict there was during the process is unclear, and should not be prejudged by the choice of terminology. -- Danny Yee 07:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Mr Siddiqui has apparently done a lot of work in Wikipedia replacing Indian subcontinent with South Asia. In that site of his, he mentions every other possible country except India. Bareilly near the border of Nepal in South Asia. Ridiculous! pl keep yr bullcrap ideology out of Wikipedia. --Spartian 11:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: FYI, a major new study has been done analyzing haplogroups within the Indian subcontinent and comparing them to external populations. The abstract is available here and can be downloaded as an e-publication from PNAS. I've read the study; it's quite good and has lots of data to validate it. The essential conclusion is for an indigenous origin for both Indian caste and tribal populations and argues against any external migrations from Central Asia. Graft 13:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, considering the exact same thing is true of Indo-European speaking Europeans as well - they have more in common genetically with Pre-Indo-European populations. It was a "migration" of language and culture, not genetics. --86.135.217.213 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whuut? I'm not sure how you draw the latter conclusion, or how the former is similar to the conclusions reached by the above study. A "migration" of language and culture seems unlikely without a migration of peoples - there was no radio or internet at the time, or even written language to speak of, so how could culture be propagated if there was no migration of peoples? And if we see no evidence of the latter, why should we conclude the former? Graft 19:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I meant that it is more accurately viewed in terms of language and culture, not genetics. The initial migration of the Indo-Aryans across Central Asia and to India was obviously one of people physically moving, but the subsequent gradual mixing of their culture with that of the natives in South Asia was not a matter of genetics - you don't need to be Indo-Aryan to speak an Indo-Aryan language. Just as in Europe, the much larger native population remained and remains almost unchanged, genetically, despite their adoption of Indo-European language. --86.135.217.213 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PNAS study 

message: : Proponents of the claim that Indo-European originated in India further note that Sanskrit names of purely Indian animals have IE etymologies: mayUra for peacock; vyAghra for tiger; mahiSa for buffalo; pRshatI for spotted deer; iBha and hastin for elephant. -- The claim for mayUra is disputed: one specialist (Prof. M. Witzel) finds that the word has nonIE -- Dravidian -- roots.
: Indo-Europeanists note that these names appear to be derived rather than basic words — for instance, hastin is Sanskrit for "having a hand" (i.e. its trunk) — and that they cannot be reconstructed for Proto-Indo-European. Anti-migrationists find this last unsurprising, since one would expect such words to have been lost by people traveling to regions without peacocks and elephants. But:- PIE is older than IE. Therefore such words must be reconstructible in PIE -- if, that is, PIE arose in India.  
: However, many animal names reconstructable in PIE are also derivatives (cf. rkþos "harmer, bear", wlkwos "ripper, wolf", and bhebheru "brown one, beaver/mongoose"). The roots of these words retain their meanings in Sanskrit (rksh "harm", vrk "rip", bhr "brown"). -- This point cuts both ways, of course.
This seems to be claiming that some Sanskrit words have PIE etymologies, but that they can't be reconstructed. So how do we know that these supposed etymologies exist? User:Ben Standeven as 70.249.220.170 07:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a self-contradictory set of arguments, until it can be clarifed.