Talk:Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The western `so called' Sanskrit scholars interpreted some sanskrit verse in their advantage to say that aryan are white & south indian people ( dravid people )are black.But in any ancient Indian text there is no mention of Arya as race or different people. Arya in those texts like Ved ( which means knowledge in Sanskrit ), Ramayan , Mahabharat etc. is mentioned as respect gesture in speaking like it's said in English Respected Sir or Madam OR `My Lord' in courts. Arya means one whose is noble in character and this is not said to any person who is Non-virtueous in nature.This is true for virtueous mother like Gandhari who was Duryodhan's mother but the same is not called for Duryodhan who was very non-virtueous person. So, coining `Arya' term as separate race only proved to be disastrous not only on Germans but also on Jews,Gypsies etc.Germany whose Max Muller initially called Arya as separate race but when Hitler's Aryan madness started affecting Germans negatively , after many years gulped the same words and said that by Arya he does not mean any person or race but purely language and not carriars of language.But it was very late and the world saw Second World War.

Arya word is also found in Old Pesian texts, Rock enscripts by kings to mention that they are `Arya' means noble and not any special race. Avesta by Zorostrians will show that there are words which start with `S' in Sanskrit but it's starting with `H' which is very common `apabhransh' ( in Sanskrit it means degraded form )word speaking. Similar types of Apabhransh is found in Modern Indian languages which derives heavily from Sanskrit. (Like `V' becoming `B' in Bangla language ) And these Apabhransh is more nearer than any Non-Indian language word.

In ancient India Dravid term was used to mention south beyond Vindhya Mountain range in central India which roughly divides North & South. But Maharahtra and Gujarat people are also called Dravida in that sense by South Indian texts but there languages means Marathi & Gujarati are called as IE one. Now let me ask you all, is Italic - Greek and Norway - finnish person is not different in look and skin tone wise. Norway is in extreme North and Italy - Greece in South getting Mediteranian sun shine. So clearly more darker then Finnish poeple. So, can we say them as different racially ? ( As same logic is implied on India ). Do you know Lithuanian & Latvian has very much similarity in Grammer & structure wise with Sanskrit. Why these `so called Baltic' group is showing much more similarity with Sanskrit. If you know Sanskrit then it can called very much scientific language. Do you feel that any nomad people in central asia can produce such a scientific language ? Right or wrong ? If right then Why after many milleniums Central Asia is not advanced in language & science wise if same people who have migrated in India in form of `Aryan Migration Theory'. The Aryan Invasion becomes Migration theory ( ya, it's only theory without any proof. Right? ) And what about finding of ancient Saraswati river in NW India with all types of proofs.This same Saraswati river is cherished in Rigveda with naming her Mother River and Greatest River. This river totally stopped flowing Indian soil around 1900 BC and then in 1500 BC ( date given by Max Muller ) so called Aryans migrates to India and writes poems in praise of Saraswati river. Really they have great feeling for the dead river then their `original' central asian homeland river that they are saying verses to praise that river whose width was 3 to 10 Km in width during her hay day. Secondly, I want to quate that when Alexander came to NW India then they were amazed to see big rivers of NW India which is written as very much bigger than any European,Persian or Nile in Egypt.

I say that a great culture like Indus valley civilization ( which had common weights & measurements, planned towns with waste water underground pipelines, very advanced astrology and mathamatics, having area much bigger than ancient Greek , Mesopotamia , Egypt civilizations all combined ) ; very very civilized than central asian nomad wonderers can only produce very logical, phonetical and very structural language like Sanskrit and not nomad people of Steppes. Phonetic's separate understanding is not required ( unlike in English ) in Sanskrit and other Indian languages which is writtern exactly in the same way letters are pronounced. This was biggest feat of Devnagari script in which this became possible.

From Vedic times , great Rishis had put great emphasis on right pronunciation of Sanskrit words as Sanskrit words are derived from some particular word root and so the word should be properly pronounced. That's why all Vedas,Upnishads etc. are available today in the same proper words without any deviation from last atleast 5,000 years. This Vedic Rishis have always believed that Good teachings passed on to future generations is more important and will be more remembered than any Strucure which can / will be destroyed by passing ages. Vedas are written in Poetic forms with Superb mathematical type joining of words ( found only in Sanskrit & it's daughter Indian languages).This makes remembering them much easier. (What do you remember your childhood poems or pros in better way ? Naturally poems, right ! This is the simple logic of composing Vedas, Upnishads, Ramayan, Mahabharat in verse form so that they are perfectly remembered. That's why Vedas are the first ancient literature available in the world. There are unique mathematical links available in Rig Veda. Also it mentions some unique astronomical observations from which one can get the time of creation of that verse.All this is ignored by Max Muller and his followers and said that they are absurds or written much after than actually happened. If that is possible to write down that unique astronomical situations then it means that ancient Indians were having very highly computer type mind as back dating observations can be known only by today's complicated computer softwares as to do mathematically is impossible. All this to give credit to nomads of steppes is like attributing USA's current achivements to Eskimos by some `Max Muller' after some milleniums in future.

If `so called Aryans' are Non-Indian origin then why major Hindu gods like Vishnu,Ram,Krishna,Shiva are portrayed as Dark Bluish / Black in skin colour for which `so called white aryans' should have allergy.( Color racism was till recently official in South Africa )

Secondly, Tamil people attribute their language to Sage Agatsya who was ancient great sage ( Rishi ) from `so called Aryan world'. Just explain these riddle please !

In Mahabharat it is mentioned that during that time Saraswati was not perennial river and instead of ending in sea , it is ending in land area. If Mahabharat is thought to be during around 3300 BC then it means that from 3300 BC to 1900 BC ( when Saraswati was almost totally stopped flowing ) the river was flowing and ending in land area. ( Note that Dr. Vartak has scientifically decoded the dating mystery associated with it by using deep knowledge of Indian astonomy and extracting some unique time indiacating verses and told us that Mahabharat actually happened on 16 th October 5561 BC with exact dates and proof of arriving at the date. This available on the net but to understand it you require knowledge of Indian astronomic terms which are from Vedic times and still in use very actively )

In Mahabharat also Saraswati is thought to be ceasing continuously. That means the reason because of which Saraswati river got affected and Satluj & Yamuna stopped of being it's tributory ( this is said on proofs and is not theory ) is much older phenomenon then Mahabharat. Also, Krishna was born in Mathura & spent childhood in Gokul which is on the banks of Yamuna. So, Yamuna diverting from Saraswati to Ganga is very older than Mahabharat itself.

Secondly, Mahabharat is some what urben type and many kingdoms mentioning saga. In it Ganga is prominent.

Indians say that Prayag ( Allahabad in U.P. state ) as Triveni Sangam ( confluence ) of Ganga, Yamuna & Saraswati rivers. `Saraswati is thought to be flowing underground & meeting here'. This is though a myth gives idea that Yamuna which was meeting Saraswati in the past , is now meeting Ganga and by underground of Saraswati mentions vanishing of Saraswati in Land area & thinking that it's going underground to meet sea ( which it was previously ).

This is combination of thought based on some real history.

Secondly, in dry Saraswati river area like Pushkar in Rajasthan or Sidhpur in North Gujarat there still small river named saraswati. In Sidhpur, there is also old temple after Saraswati. Both area are found to on dry river bed of ancient saraswati river. Indians seem to be remembering very ancient things very nicely. ONLY THEY FORGOT ARYAN INVASION OR MIGRATION THEORY. Really sad for Western so called scholars !

If any thing is required to defend that then write it pure logical manner.

The AIT theory was inspired by British political people to say about its legitimacy of its occupation of India,to get some answer of then found similarity between Sanskrit & other European languages and to facilitate Christian Missionery which were facing hard times to convert Hindu. This will be their agenda of `Divide & Rule' which Britishers used ( I don't have any bad feeling for current Brits ). The details are available on the net. India was the richest country in the world before Britishers rule on India ( like US is today ) and the current situation of poor Indians will give shock to those Western people who are not aware about where India lies geographically ( forget about their knowledge of India's past which is seen with the false fabrication & misrepresented stories). If you want to know about Britishers policy then just know that even though India was highest producer of Cotton crop but then also it was not allowed to make cloth on machine ( to make England rich ).Everything was to be imported from Briton and it was one major reason because of which Briton's economy was steaming ahead.

HOW WILL YOU REACT IF YOUR RULER BREAKS THE CHURCH AND CONSTRUCTS THE MOSQUE ON THE SAME SITE. FOR YOU SPAIN IS EXAMPLE. THE SAME IS WITH INDIA. WHEN IT WAS FOR SPAIN THEN IT IS CHERISHED CHRISTIAN REACTION BUT WHEN IT COMES TO INDIA THEN IT'S HINDU FASICSTS. WHY CHURCH IS RIGHT AND TEMPLE OF RAM ON HIS BIRTHPLACE IS WRONG ? For this even historical records speak that there was Ram Temple which Babar broke and made Mosque on it ( like thousands of beautiful temples were broken and that's why you find few temples before Muslim invasion. It's good that Angkor Wat is in Camodia & not in India ). If you have visited Qutab Minar in Delhi then that complex is made from previous Hindu & Jain temples there. Yes, India was so advanced that more than 1600 years old Iron Pillar is not rusted. To make such a long pillar now is also engineering problem or puzzle by Modern Iron makers. Read about it on the net and you will understand India had not only made advanced progress in other subjects but also in Chemistry, Metallurgy. You can say that for almost all subjects which Europeans says sign of culture, you can find lots of systematic written work. Sanskrit written work ( even after huge losts ) is much more than all combined work till 17 - 18 century. Even Indian dance & music has scientific & mathematical basis ( unlike Pop & Disco dance & music. But today's majority Indian youth find hard to understand the science behind Indian Music & Classical dances which not only gives pleasure to body but also mind. That's why they do not require any Heroin,Escatcy type drugs or alcohol to get temporary high which is very bad for youths in every way )

Indians are having very ancient traditions that the first civilization spunge up on Indian soil. It was concepulised by Vedic Rishis ( Sages ) who developed very high standards & virtues. For them Knowledge was very much sought after. This also made Ayurveda to develop. Still today their concepts are true. Ancient Indians have observed their land, sky, plants to that deep level that they were having better knowledge about human body better than few centuries before Europeans.

To go extreme deep in their knowledge about undestanding this world which led them to develop Ancient Indians to develop major treaties of science, maths , language, arts , music etc. Their systematic development was such that India was sought after by Non-Indian Students in ancient days for Knowledge to Columbus ( who left to search Indian sea route as land route was blocked by Turks by capturing Istambul ), Vasco-Da-Gama to Britishers for HUGE PROFIT etc.

`Femine of Bengal' in 19th century under British Rule which caused millions of people to die. But why this femine occured. It was not at all due to lack of rain. Bengal region ( current West Bangal + Bangladesh which is highly populated but very poor ) is such that it will alway receive very good rains ( If it does not rain in Bangal or Konkan then whole India will not get any rain - due to Monsoon winds mechanism ). Also , Bengal region is fully mouth area of Ganga & Bramhaputra rivers which will never have problem of water ). IT WAS DUE TO INDIGO CROPS THAT WAS TAKEN FOR SOME YEARS CONTINUOUSLY AS IT WAS FORCED BY THEN BRITISH RULERS WHICH WAS PROVIDING HUGE PROFIT TO THEM. But this Indigo crop which was only source of Blue colour before advent of Artificial Chemical Dyes should not be taken continuously from the same land as it extracts all fertile power of land. Due to this continuous Indigo crops , the land became non-productive for their staple Rice crop. Due to this Rice crop for some years could not happen and millions of Bengalis died. BUT THE WHOLE STORY IS NAMED AS `FEMINE OF BENGAL' AS IF THAT RICE CROP FAILED DUE TO LACK OF WATER. THIS IS SAME MISGUIDING LIKE `FIRE OF SAN FRANSISCO'. THE FIRE WAS DUE TO TERRIBLE EARTHQUAKE BUT IT WAS MISQUOTED AS DURING S.F. WAS PROSEPROUS CITY IN USA AND IF EARTHQUAKE GHOST WILL REMAIN IN OTHER US PEOPLE THEN IT WOULD BAD FOR SF'S ECONOMY.

THE SAME WAY `ARYAN INVASION THEORY' WAS FABRICATED TO MISGUIDE THE WORLD BY THEN THEIR `GOBBLE'S ' PROPOGANDA. The reasons are well adressed on the internet which I will not repeat again here.

Written by Win

This is not supposed to become a pov fork of Indo-Aryan migration. Rather, that article was swamped by historical controversies, so that a separate article became necessary to address 19th century views, and the history of the concept. dab (ᛏ) 07:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To categorize AIT under Hindutva without categorizing it as well under categories like Eurocentrism or Dravidian chauvinism is pov. Some supporters and critics of the AIT would fall in such categories, but the AIT is first of all a historical (not political) theory. Many supporters, critics or scholars on the AIT do not fall in such political categories, and thus the categorization is too generalizing and pov. --Machaon 14:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no category. After going through above points one can give some proper & logical answer to above whole points. But it seems that when ever some logical conversation is required , the AIT supporter slips to that words which is not at all connected with the topic and something ( probably ) they only can understand.

The whole concept of the Aryan Invasion Theory needs to be put into perspective. The time when this was written, the Europeans had at last conquered the world, and to solidify their feelings of control, they needed a creation myth. When the Europeans saw the Polynesian Easter Island sculptures, they immediately claimed to be the creators. They said their Europeans ancestors had somehow managed to sail all the way there and built the sculptures. They said this because they did not want to believe that the native peoples of the region had the faculties for such complex construction. This kind of Cultural appropriation is common for 19th Century Europeans. Everything from the Egyptian and Mayan pyramids to the ruins of African city-states were claimed by Europeans. Because India had a 4000-year old history, and was a land full riches and knowledge, the Europeans sought to use it as the start for their creation myth. When the Japanese defeated the Russians, the Europeans did not see the Japanese as Asian any more, instead, they made the " honorary whites". Cultural appropriation is the only explanation for the ridiculous theory that Max Müeller put forward. Vvuppala 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Vvuppala, have you read any of Max Müller's books? I do wonder, because there is nothing "ridiculous" about what he wrote, though of course it has been superceded by more modern research. Look at his essay The Home of the Arya. The notion that the Arya migrated into India is no more insulting to Indians than the accepted notion that the Hellenes migrated into Greece is insulting to the Greeks. I guess it's true that some Europeans have claimed that Mayan pyramids and other artefacts were built by migrating Europeans, but even in the 19th Century this would be a rather minority view. Paul B 16:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I haven't read any of Müller's writing, though in the days since I made the comment, I have done a lot of research into the topic. Certainly I agree it isn't insulting to Indians that our history is one of migrations and invasions.

What I do want to clarify is that notions amongst Europeans as to their conception of race and their attitude towards non-Christians, non-Whites, and non-Europeans in general was one of chauvinist hostility. It was by no means a minority view point, though I think it interesting that you believe it to be so.

If you take a look at Social Darwinism, you'll see just what I mean about the concept of breaking the Human Diaspora into a set of "races" which then have certain characteristics based on European stereotypes of them. Thus, the propensity of East Asians for slanted eyes means (insert demeaning slur here), etc.

As for cultural appropriation, regardless of what modern genetics says, the 19th Century theory of Aryan invasion was an attempt to justify British presence in India, and was a part of a movement of Cultural Appriation that was rapidly developing in Europe at the time (it was not part of Müller's assertions, as I found out in my research).

I am seriously considering making research into the whole European appropriation of culture as my honors thesis as I go into my last 3 semesters here at UMass/Amherst. Look forward to an in-depth article explaining just what I am trying to get across here about the magnitude of European social thought about the acheivements of European culture.

It basically boils down to this: Africans aren't claiming that all the worlds acheivements are their own, because of its role as the starting place of modern man. (Many, according to me) Europeans (some, none the less), in the 19th century, asserted that because ancestral Indians shared origin with them, that they therefore were responsible for Hinduism, for India. This assertion is false. While Europeans and Indians shared the same ancestry, for 19th Century Europeans to claim that they in any way had started and introduced Hinduism into India is utter nonsense. That is what I will attempt to prove beyond doubt.

Vvuppala 03:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that you attribute to me statements that I did not make at all. I said the claim that Mayan pyramids and Easter Island heads were built by migrating Europeans was a minority view, even in the nineteenth century. I did not say that nineteenth century Europeans did not have chauvanist or racialist ideas. "Social Darwinism" is a term covering ideas that meant different things to different theorists. Theories of racial divisions and hierarchies certainly were maintream after the 1850s, and were consistent with many different attitudes to Darwinian ideas. Prior to that they had been justified on biblical grounds. I think you underestimate the extent to which ideologies are adaptable. The notion of a superior "Indo-European" or Aryan people would have served European imperialist ideologists just as well if these people had been proven at the time to have originated in India. All you do is say that the original Indian population advanced yet further up the evolutionary ladder as it moved into Europe. It would be the same argument used by racists to associate Africans with "lower" stages of development, by arguing that the more advanced and energetic individuals moved on, creating the "higher" races. This kind of argument was common at the time. Paul B 11:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Paul, I wasn't suggesting that you denied the existence of racist ideas in 19th century Europe. My comment was simply expanding on all the points I initially made. You do make a good point about how some theory or another would have been formed to justify colonialism. Vvuppala 13:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

---

---

This is for all those supporters of Aryan Invasion / Migration theory. Please read http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/mar/08kak.htm and find that how best this issue should be addressed now. It proves scientifically that non-african people originated in Indian sub-continent.AND THIS IS NOT ANY SO CALLED THEORY BUT BASED ON GENOLOGY WHOSE RESULTS CAN NOT BE DENIED.

How much more of this drivel do you intend to add? Paul B 13:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, who are you talking to? why are you so hostile? i've seen Nothing on the Talk page for this article that deserves that kind of rhetoric. Tone it down a bit, eh? Vvuppala 15:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not specially for you on the talk page but to all other Aryan Invasion / Migration supporters. And I am not hostile compared to what previous century Brishers have done to falsely fabricate the true Indian History. Instead of it do write some more serious stuff to counter attack my above points. But it is true that it's not possible for non-Indian to advocate AIT or AMT now as deep rooted Indian will have much sound things to say than any bla, bla, bla. And now even Genology disproves AIT / AMT. This anguish is for those people and their supporters who are ignoring any proof indication from Indus Valley Civilization or Ancient Indian scriptures like Ved ,Upnishads, Ramayan , Mahabharat etc. They are clearly ignoring or saying it absurd because if they accept then there will be a major blow to World History which will require total re-writing of Indian and hence European past which can be unpleasing for them. For them Stonehenge's rocks are more scientific then Indus Valley's planned town excavations. They try desparately to prove their Eurocentric views by saying any non-related & sometimes humourously absurd things without any scientific basis to it.

Attacking AIT would not "a major blow to world history" at all, but rather a relatively minor matter about the dates of ancient linguistic and cultural movements. Your arguments above actually have nothing to do with AIT. They are about very ancient migrations out of Africa during the stone age. Aryan migrations are supposed to have happened in the late bronze age - many many thousands of years later. The article you cite simply states that during the Ice Age Europe was too frozen and cold for modern humans, so that the first migrants from Africa stuck to the warmer areas, which included India. When the ice receded humans migrated into Europe. This has nothing whatever to do with AIT. It's like arguing that the Romans never invaded Egypt by pointing to evidence that stone age people lived in Egypt before Rome was founded. Paul B 08:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The world civilization history is very important as that laid foundation for today's civilizations across the world and everything today you do in life like learning,science,maths,arts,music,dance which makes we human different from Monkeys is due to cililization. So, history of human civilization is important to us.

Please don't quote or write any misguiding sentences like comman AIT/AMT supporter. If AIT/AMT is not important to you then the language in which we are writing and other European languages would not have been bearing some heavy Sanskit `Apbhransh' ( degraded ) words. It's like pretending to have happened nothing even after getting major electric shock. So, please read carefully the full article and read below points from the same article which you seem to have read how previous AIT/AMT supporters have overlooked astronomical datings and mis-interpretating Sanskrit verses.But here it's only English which can not be misinterpreted to the whole world.

Oppenheimer concludes with two extraordinary conclusions: 'First, that the Europeans' genetic homeland was originally in South Asia in the Pakistan/Gulf region over 50,000 years ago; and second, that the Europeans' ancestors followed at least two widely separated routes to arrive, ultimately, in the same cold but rich garden. The earliest of these routes was the Fertile Crescent. The second early route from South Asia to Europe may have been up the Indus into Kashmir and on to Central Asia, where perhaps more than 40,000 years ago hunters first started bringing down game as large as mammoths.''

Ancient Indian books mention Western Movement of people by way of King Yayati expelling his two from five sons to West. Ancient scriptures do mention westward movement but not any into India kind of movement which they should definitely mention as the language and people writing those are supposed to be Central Asian Aryan tribe people and not Indus Valley people. Any Indian scripture do not mention any `Aryan tribe' coming to India. If Indian Civilization/scriptures are credited with any Aryan tribes coming to India via AIT/AMT then they will certainly mention it as they were able to implant their language which is said as Proto Indo European on much much much larger population of then India.

Regarding Aryans it is said that they introduced Horses & Chriots in India. But Ved mentions 17 pair of rib horses and not 18 pair of rib horse which is central asian type one. 17 paired rib horse is uniquely Indian breed of horse like unique Indian Elephant.But why still AIT/AMT supporter wish to ride on that horse topic ? And,Wheel diagrams are found in Indus Valley's planned towns excavations so why still old misguiding points are written as some big point in support of AIT/AMT.At the starting of Mahabharat war it is written that planatary positions are very unique and the same will not be seen again in the Earth's life. Please go through http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_vartak.html Also read http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/mahabharat/mahab_abhijit.html

If you want to answer then write point to point wise to counter attack my above mentioned points. ( But I am sure that some AIT/AMT supporter will find this proof absurd without knowing ancient Indian Astonomical terminology which is still prevalent in India. )

By Win

Win, by all means add more of you own comments, but do not delete those of other contributors. Paul B 12:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

restored reply:

There's nothing remotely extraordinary about these conclusions and they have nothing to do with AIT. They are about very early primitive humans — paleolithic hunter-gathers. Hence the references to mammoths! Mammoths were extinct by the time the Vedas were written, unless you are suggesting that they were written in the Paleolithic era (i.e. "more than 40,000 years ago"). Do you think that chariots and bronze weaponry were used to bring down mammoths? If so you need to do a bit of research. The astronomical argument is usually considered to be a highly dubious method of dating because of its inherent ambiguity, since it is based on interpreting vague poetic imagery. European languages do not bear "Sanskrit degraded words" any more than Sanskrit bears Greek degraded words, as one anti I-E writer once claimed. Paul B 11:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

The genology article's points are given here by me to tell that Indians and Europeans are same racially ( Cacacius type ) so how Aryan term is coined separately by past century Britishers and Dravid term is used by them as different racial people leaving in South India , both are absurd racial term. To tell that it's written here. And if Aryan & Dravid are not any special races then why any separate terminology should be given to misguide the world !

I am Indian and from West Indian region. For me Bengali is as difficult to understand as Malayalam. Bengali is termed as Indo -European language and Malayalam as Dravid language. But mind you both heavily contains Sanskrit world which is possible to understand but not the typical grammer.

I am wondering that do you know Sanskrit or any Indian language that you are saying anything that Sanskit bearing some Greek words. Then read below sentences very properly.

`The Ashkelon facility, on Israel's southern Mediterranean coast, is the first in a series of large-scale seawater desalination units. Others are planned for Ashdod, Palmahim, Kishon and Caesarea.'

The above sentences are from some Israelly website.

Kishon is kishan ( or krishna's Apbransh. Caesarea means Kesaria ( which is also very sanskrit ) and this name is also related with Krishna.Palmahim is word in Sanskrit and used specially for Kings. This word is used like ` My Lord ' used for Justice in Courts.

Now answer that how Israelly place names are typical Sanskrit ? For your reference there is one article which says that in some 19th century someone has researched Hebrew & Sanskrit and told that Hebrew can be termed as derived from Sanskrit.Read http://www.viewzone.com/matlock.html

And, why you are not defending on any above written points ?

== The AIT nonsense ==

Aryan invasion theory (AIT)is a pure fiction concocted by some racist Europeans. According to this theory Aryan tribes supposedly invaded India from Europe around 1500BC, when the Harappan civilisation was already in decline. Aryans tribes were supposed to be a nomadic warrior race that displaced the remnants of the earlier Harappan (or Dravidian) people. If this were true, they achieved the impossible with in a short span of time. First Aryans defeated and drove out the Harappans all the way down to South India. Next, Aryans began to compile Rig Veda at a furious pace because they had to complete this task before the beginning of Mauryan Dynasty. The Aryan saints who compiled Rig Veda apparently suffered from collective amnesia because there is no mention of external origins anywhere in Rig Veda. Aryan tribes also changed their nomadic life style and became farmers and even town folks! Meanwhile the defeated Harappans renamed meekly settled down in South India and forgot their Harappan origins. All these dramatic changes were supposed to have taken place without creating any historical or religious records or even any legends. Aryan invasion theory sounds may sound utter rubbish to many Indians now, but please remember such theories have caused divisions and was even responsible for the holocaust during the Second World War. Written by i55g-news@yahoo.com.

==========================================================================================

I want to add something here,

The number system was invented by India. Aryabhatta was the scientist who invented the digit zero.

Sanskrit is considered as the mother of all higher languages. This is because it is the most precise, and therefore suitable language for computer software. ( a report in Forbes magazine, July 1987 ).

Chess was invented in India.

Algebra, Trigonometry and Calculus are studies which originated in India.

The' place value system' and the 'decimal system' were developed in 100 BC in India.

The World's First Granite Temple is the Brihadeswara temple at Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu. The shikhara is made from a single ' 80-tonne ' piece of granite. Also, this magnificient temple was built in just five years, (between 1004 AD and 1009 AD) during the reign of Rajaraja Chola

The game of snakes & ladders was created by the 13th century poet saint Gyandev. It was originally called 'Mokshapat.' The ladders in the game represented virtues and the snakes indicated vices. The game was played with cowrie shells and dices. Later through time, the game underwent several modifications but the meaning is the same i.e good deeds take us to heaven and evil to a cycle of re-births.

The World's first university was established in Takshila in 700 BC. More than 10,500 students from all over the world studied more than 60 subjects. The University of Nalanda built in the 4th century was one of the greatest achievements of ancient India in the field of education.

Ayurveda is the earliest school of medicine known to mankind. The father of medicine, Charaka, consolidated Ayurveda 2500 years ago.

Although modern images & descriptions of India often show poverty, India was one of the richest countries till the time of British in the early 17th Century. Christopher Columbus was attracted by India's wealth and was looking for route to India when he discovered America by mistake.

The art of Navigation & Navigating was born in the river Sindh 6000 over years ago. The very word 'Navigation' is derived from the Sanskrit word NAVGATIH. The word navy is also derived from the Sanskrit word 'Nou'.

Bhaskaracharya rightly calculated the time taken by the earth to orbit the sun hundreds of years before the astronomer Smart. His calculations was - Time taken by earth to orbit the sun: ( 5th century ) 365.258756484 days.

The value of "pi" was first calculated by the Indian Mathematician Budhayana, and he explained the concept of what is known as the Pythagorean Theorem. He discovered this in the 6th century, which was long before the European mathematicians.

Algebra, trigonometry and calculus also orignated from India. Quadratic equations were used by Sridharacharya in the 11th century. The largest numbers the Greeks and the Romans used were 106 whereas Hindus used numbers as big as 10*53 ( i.e 10 to the power of 53 ) with specific names as early as 5000 B.C. during the Vedic period. Even today, the largest used number is Tera: 10*12( 10 to the power of 12 ).

Until 1896, India was the only source for diamonds to the world. ( Source . Gemological Institute of America )

Sushruta is regarded as the father of surgery. Over 2600 years ago Sushrata & his team conducted complicated surgeries like cataract, artificial limbs, cesareans, fractures, urinary stones and also plastic surgery and brain surgeries.

Usage of anesthesia was well known in ancient India medicine. Detailed knowledge of anatomy, embryology, digestion, metabolism, physiology, etiology, genetics and immunity is also found in many ancient Indian texts.

---

New report on the BBC dumping the Aryan Invasion Theory

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/history/history5.shtml

This conclusion is very clear about the validity of the Aryan Invasion Theory. The text of the link is given below.

The Aryan Invasion Theory One of the most controversial ideas about Hindu history is the Aryan invasion theory.

This theory, originally devised by F. Max Muller in 1848, traces the history of Hinduism to the invasion of India's indigenous people by lighter skinned Aryans around 1500 BCE.

The theory was reinforced by other research over the next 120 years, and became the accepted history of Hinduism, not only in the West but in India.

There is now ample evidence to show that Muller, and those who followed him, were wrong.

Why is the theory no longer accepted? The Aryan invasion theory was based on archaeological, linguistic and ethnological evidence.

Later research has either discredited this evidence, or provided new evidence that combined with the earlier evidence makes other explanations more likely.

Modern historians of the area no longer believe that such invasions had such great influence on Indian history. It's now generally accepted that Indian history shows a continuity of progress from the earliest times to today.

The changes brought to India by other cultures are not denied by modern historians, but they are no longer thought to be a major ingredient in the development of Hinduism.

Dangers of the theory The Aryan invasion theory denies the Indian origin of India's predominant culture, but gives the credit for Indian culture to invaders from elsewhere.

It even teaches that some of the most revered books of Hindu scripture are not actually Indian, and it devalues India's culture by portraying it as less ancient than it actually is.

The theory was not just wrong, it included unacceptably racist ideas:

- it suggested that Indian culture was not a culture in its own right, but a synthesis of elements from other cultures

- it implied that Hinduism was not an authentically Indian religion but the result of cultural imperialism

- it suggested that Indian culture was static, and only changed under outside influences

- it suggested that the dark-skinned Dravidian people of the South of India had got their faith from light-skinned Aryan invaders

- it implied that indigenous people were incapable of creatively developing their faith

- it suggested that indigenous peoples could only acquire new religious and cultural ideas from other races, by invasion or other processes

- it accepted that race was a biologically based concept (rather than, at least in part, a social construct) that provided a sensible way of ranking people in a hierarchy, which provided a partial basis for the caste system

- it provided a basis for racism in the Imperial context by suggesting that the peoples of Northern India were descended from invaders from Europe and so racially closer to the British Raj

- it gave a historical precedent to justify the role and status of the British Raj, who could argue that they were transforming India for the better in the same way that the Aryans had done thousands of years earlier

- it downgraded the intellectual status of India and its people by giving a falsely late date to elements of Indian science and culture

---

Sandith (www.prathamam.org)

Michael Witzel

I don't know why this page along with others have not discussed more about the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth conference 9 months ago where Michael Witzel of Harvard University admitted that he no longer believe the AIT.

"Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory"

Here's the press release from University of Massachusetts Dartmouth: http://www.umassd.edu/indic/press/origin_pr.cfm

I'm going to add this in because it further supports the notion of "Indian civilization and its human population is indigenous"

Cosmos416 00:44, March 25 2007

Witzel has been misquoted. Predictably so, of course. ("Center of Indic Studies"? With a "faculty" like this for a curriculum like this? Wow.) rudra 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Any reason you're spamming us with irrelevant forum links, or is Steve Farmer an eminent respected

kluge-chair scholar?Bakaman 19:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant to what? Paul B 19:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain, Paul: Bakasuprman, that tireless researcher, never actually reads more than the first three words of anything, so he naturally thought that the Witzel post was by Steve Farmer. Hence he thought it was irrelevant to a discussion of Witzel's presence at the Hindutva lovefest at Mass-D. Hornplease 19:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

O, Patronizer of banned trolls BhaiSaab and TerryJHo, and harrasser of contributors, I wonder where the

“ Steve Farmer <saf@...>

yukifarmer

”

came from [1]. Apart from your little failed experiment at arbcom, it seems you have miscalculated once again.Bakaman 19:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Rather it was out little White Man's Burden email play group saving the world from evil "Hindutva pseudohistorians" like ASI researcher B.B. Lal, and Director of Asian Studies Shiva BajpaiBakaman 19:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The first post was by Witzel, and was thus relevant. The second post, by Farmer, established the context of the first post, and so was helpfully linked. You are incapable of reading this? Really, Baka, do you have any idea what you are talking about half the time? As I have said before, stick to something - anything! - you know about, and keep on sucking up to all the people whom you can then pester to come and say that "he has written twelve DYKs" when your inflammatory, disruptive and ignorant editing catches up with you again. Keep off articles where other people are actually trying to do something. Hornplease 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

""Hornplease 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is little more than a cesspool of ad hominem nonsense indicating your bitterness that no actual neutral user in good standing agreed (or for that matter agrees) with your "findings". I fail to see you "doing something" here, unless "attacking our resident Hindutva troll Bakaman" is somehow productive now.Bakaman 16:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't ad hominem to note that your tendentiousness is a plague on most India-related articles, one that Wikipedia should excise. Frankly, the most productive thing, and the best thing for the encyclopaedia as a whole, is if editors as disruptive as you were either confined to articles where they can do littel damage or banned outright. Given that, keeping track of 'our resident Hindutva troll', as you, with the first sign of insight I have observed, describe yourself, is one of the most productive things anyone can do. Hornplease 19:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is quite ad hominem, as your view is a fringe minority view (kind of like Out of India theory) which is thoroughly rejected by each and every mainstream WP:INDIA, WP:SIKH, WP:HINDU, and WP:BANGLADESH user. Rather it seems your sole purpose on wikipedia is to attack me, with various version of the "lets exorcise the tendentious Hindu devil" plea. Many users have noted OTOH, that you have a poor understanding of policy and are therefore unqualified to comment on it (like P.N. Oak and comparative religion).Bakaman 00:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do stop whining. Everyone who edits for longer than a few hours in an India-related article knows exactly how tendentious you are. Whether or not they think your 'positive' contributions outweigh your disruption and incivility.

Could you, once again, put me in touch with these 'many' users? I'd like to discuss it with them. I might learn something. (Or they might.) Hornplease 21:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not find the "Everyone", the fabled everyone of the BhaiSaab continuum that agrees with your fringe POV.Bakaman 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Dartmouth

": Witzel has been misquoted. Predictably so, of course. ("Center of Indic Studies"? With a "faculty" like this for a curriculum like this? Wow.) rudra 07:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"

What are you talking about? Your criticizing the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth website page based on the layout? Can you specifically point out where he says he was misquoted, and what he said 'supposedly' said, and cite it?

BTW: In the press release Power point document, it also claims that Witzel deliberately misquoted a important passage from the Rig Veda and was pointed out to him. It says:

"In order to give a prop to the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory, Witzel (1995: 320-21) deliberately mis-translates a part of Baudhayana Srautasutra (18.44) as follows: “ Ayu went eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu group.”

"The correct translation would, therefore, be: ‘Ayu migrated eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas. Amavasu migrated westwards (and not stayed back, as Witzel says) . His people are Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta.’"

"In other words, the parting took place from an intermediary region, between Gandhara on the west and Kurukshetra on the east. There is no question of any kind of migration eastwards into India from the west."

I think that deserve a mention somewhere to because of other scholars criticizing him and his work because of lack of evidence to support any of his claims. Cosmos416 16:44, March 26 2007

It doesn't deserve a mention in the manner you suggest.

Rudra was pointing out that the 'Indic Studies' syllabus, which is heavy on 'arts, philosophy, culture, etc.', but has a faculty which is a bunch of computer scientists and engineers. Very academic.

You might want to read Witzel's post again: "The Aryan invasion of India is a 19th c. theory that no serious scholar today takes seriously." And then consider whether your Mass-D press release is worth the bytes that you are expending on it. Hornplease 21:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your priorities are a bit misguided. Unless you can Cite a Quotation specifically by Witzel stating that the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth misquoted him on that specific statement, and what he actually said, your out of steam on that.

If he was misquoted, and that’s a big “if”(seeing as there were experts from around the world in science and linguistics, and many in the audience that heard him confirm this), I think he should sue the university for slander.

The truth is however is that took place at a University conference and was also supported by Stanford Genetics expert Peter Underhill, and also the same is claimed by another renowned genetics expert from Oxford name Stephen Oppenheimer, who claims with extensive DNA analysis says that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (all left at one time and not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. From there they spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement. Here’s a quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] 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.”

The statements above shows strong support supplied with thorough research and citations provided, where as you claim (which I’m still not sure of) everything/nothing, and supported by nothing.

All of these arguments are supported and shown by the magnitude of scholarly research, where as Witzel was caught misleading and misquoting a imortant passage in the RigVeda, which serious undermines his creditability and noted by other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims. You still have not defended that point either. Show some citations with credible sources (that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated), or you simply do not have a case.

Cosmos416 00:30, March 28 2007

You didnt even read Rudra's links, did you? Hornplease 21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam links to yahoo groups are just that. Spam.Bakaman 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Spam links" is a nonsensical concept in this context. They are reports from an academic list. Paul B 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease , again, your making no sense and have no position. Most significantly, you have not clearly shown what I asked for.....

"a Quotation specifically by Witzel stating that the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth misquoted him on that specific statement, and what he actually said.

I'm adding in the appropriate links and the citation about Witzel was caught misleading and misquoting a imortant passage in the RigVeda, which serious undermines his creditability and noted by other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims.

You post one line after almost a week with the same excuse but not showing anything while I have provided citations also from Stephan Oppenheimer Oxford University Geneticist who says:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] 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.”

Again, show some citations with credible sources (that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated), or you simply do not have a case. Cosmos416 00:44, April 3 2007

Compare:

• "Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory" (from the press release)
• "In the summary session, I stressed again that the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' is dead and gone, it is a 19th c. theory." (from Witzel's post)

Now, observe the use of the phrase no longer in the press release. If Witzel no longer subscribes to the AIT, it follows that he must have subscribed to it some time in the past. Now, was Witzel born in the 19th century, which is the past when he could have subscribed to the theory at all (and subsequently no longer do so)? No? Then the two statements above disagree. We don't know what Witzel actually said in the summary session, but if his paraphrase of his own words is correct, then the press release's paraphrase is wrong. Take it from there. rudra 05:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to keep out of these discussions recently because I find it incredibly tedious to go over and over and over the same points repeatedly. Witzel's alleged "mistranslation" is a matter of almost no significance at all in terms of the history of the theory. It is utterly trivial. And by the way it is not "an important passage in the Rig Veda". I've no idea what you mean by "other scholars who say he will not show anyone his “evidence” for most of his claims." Witzel has written numerous books containing detailed technical data. The DNA issue is hugely difficult to be clear about. The data is very complex. The point about believing or not believing in "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a red herring. What Witzel means by that phrase in the quoted passage is something completely different from what - say - Elst means by it. The fact that Witzel is not primarily an historian but a linguist also does not help, since he wrongly states that the "invasion theory" belongs to the nineteenth century. In fact many nineteenth century writers stressed migration. Even in 1918 Havell's book The History of Aryan Rule in India states that "it is probable that the Aryans were always a very minute fraction of the people of India". While he does describe warfare (as, of course, does the RV), he stresses that "it was by spiritual rather than physical ties that Aryans and non-Aryans were gradually bound together into a political unity with an abiding sense of nationality." Paul B 12:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

All true. Consider further: suppose instead the press release had said, "Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that the 'Aryan Invasion Theory' is a 19th century theory, dead and gone." Would Cosmos416 (talk · contribs) be as keen as he is now to "include" this, and argue at length for it? No? Gee, I wonder why. rudra 12:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know why these people keep trying. They look sillier with every iteration. They would invest their time fruitfully not trying to sell us homegrown nonsense but debunk the nonsense propounded by their "anti-Brahmin" communalist foes. Which would save us the work of cleaning up that as well. Consider this recent gem. Here is an author that spends a lifetime spouting utterly confused nonsense. In the "West", nobody remotely official or academic would have as much as raised an eyebrow. But in Tamil Nadu, he is showered with governmental accolades... (they put the man on a stamp! in 2006! I ask you, this is as if Switzerland issued stamps with Uriella on them) It really seems that in India, academia is broken at a fundamental level. If crackpots pushing 10,000 BC Tamil literature get goveernment recognition, I begin to see, why shouldn't crackpots pushing 6,000 BC Vedic literature not get just as much. And of course, if in India you are only ever attacked on communalist grounds, it is little surprising that the "indigenous Aryans" authors fail to understand that outside India, they are actually criticized on factual grounds. It appears that in India, the notion of "criticism" is completely "communalized", and nobody would dream of debunking something simply because it is factual nonsense. Thus, Witzel et al. turn out "anti-Hindu" simply because they are Sanskritists. Had they been Dravidologists, they would have debunked "Lemurian Tamil", they would now be dragged across Dravidian fora as "Brahmin cronies" (yes Baka, I realize there are Tamil Brahmins; but I expect few of these are into "Lemurian Tamil") dab (𒁳) 13:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

So that opens a pandora's box, now that we have one "lens of historiography" what are we going to have next? Indian Muslim pseudohistory (debunked by Alain Danielou, with help from Wolpert as well and Basham), Indian Marxist pseudohistory (again debunked by many figures), Dravidionationalist pseudohistory. Lemuria is merely the tip of the iceberg, from Indus Valley "Tamil" literature, to of course the classic Dravidian Herrenvolk. In "dravidian" country, the stakes are even better. Hindutva is not reliant on any theory, as VHP etc portray Hinduism as a world religion (Viswa = world). DMK is based on a racial theory, a dravidian Volksgemeinschaft if you will..Bakaman 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra, dab, calm down, don't lie and make false allegations/ personal attacks trying to sabotage my credibility unjustly. I didn't hide anything since I cited the U of M Darmouth press release and power point documents, supplied a source for the supported of the claim of Genetic evidence by renowned geneticists Peter Underhill (Stanford University), and.....

Stephen Oppenheimer (Oxford University), a acknowledged world expert in the synthesis of DNA studies who claims with extensive DNA analysis says that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (left at one time, not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. They spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement. Again, here’s the quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …South Asia is logically the ultimate origin of M17 and his [Sic] 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.”

This is not some little sample study, this was extensive, and I will add in for transparency. One more time, please show citations with credible sources that are in sync with the direct relationship of the nature stated (refuting Oppenheimer's work directly) or don't have a case for this.

Secondly, in the press release Power point doc., it exposed that Witzel deliberately misquoted a Important passage from the Rig Veda and was pointed out to him. It says:

"In order to give a prop to the ‘Aryan Invasion’ theory, Witzel (1995: 320-21) deliberately mis-translates a part of Baudhayana Srautasutra (18.44) as follows: “ Ayu went eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchala and Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His other people) stayed at home in the west. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasu group."

"The correct translation would, therefore, be: ‘Ayu migrated eastwards. His people are the Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas. Amavasu migrated westwards (and not stayed back, as Witzel says) . His people are Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta.’"

"In other words, the parting took place from an intermediary region, between Gandhara on the west and Kurukshetra on the east. There is no question of any kind of migration eastwards into India from the west."

It's very significant it you ACTUALLY READ IT! I will be adding this also unless you can provide a Quote from Witzel refuting that statement.

Again, the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth conference "was able to bring together in one room for the first time experts from genetics, archeology, physics, linguistics, anthropology, history, and philosophy", so please don't make false and misleading accusations. Cosmos416 13:21, April 3 2007

Yes, Cosmos, we already know all about this. As far as I know Witzel is the only person who ever thought that the passage in the Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra (not "an important passage in the Rigveda") was at all relevant. Even he admits in the essay in which he proposes its possible value that it is a late text and thus weak evidence. It's never had any significance to "Aryan invasion theory". It had no role in the origin or development of the theory. As for Oppenheimer's evidence, this concerns paleolithic migrations ten of thousands of years before the postulated migration of I-A speakers. Paul B 22:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

please...your trying to minimize the facts and studies, twisting the citations, and adding in original input from your conclusions about validity. It says "deliberately misquoted", read carefully...and the quote by Oppenheimer's, his evidence is actually in Sync regards to the topic, if you can read, it deals with Genetic evidence, and people of all castes and secs, and also he is recognized as a world expert in genetic mixtures.

Definitely says more than a Witzel, who is a linguist and who is a controversial character at best. I still don't see any direct evidence refuting either claims, so I will write a part for both and add it in later today. There is enough space to be transparent, but no room for closed minded, soft talk without hard evidence refuting claims. Cosmos416 01:37, April 4 2007

It is difficult to respond to someone who shows this level of incomprehension. However, here goes again:

1. "hypothesis". This article is about the multiple uses of the polemical term "Aryan Invasion Theory". The opening sentence expains that. It is not a hypothesis. The hypothesis you are probably referring to is the hypothesis that bronze age migrants/invaders entered India, bringing the Vedc language with them. However, you may be referring to other hypotheses, such as the hypothesis that the Aryans were a warrior Nordic master race, or even the hypothesis that IE languages came into existence outside India. Several different hypotheses are merged or their differences blurred in polemic writing on this topic. That's why the term is in appropriate at this point - not necessarily inappropriate elsewhere in the article.

2. The material from Oppenheimer concerns out-of-Africa migrations during the ice age (read the discussions above). If it makes you feel proud of India that a bunch of stone age hunter-gatherers wandered there before they wandered elsewhere, then I think you'd be better advised to look at India's many real achievements. Oppenheimer's evidence has no bearing whatsover on the origins and spread of Indo-European languages. Mainstream thinking - and even most OIT proponents - places this tens of thousands of years later. Your argument is like "proving" that the Romans didn't invade Britain by demonstrating that people lived in Britain before Rome was founded. Paul B 09:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No archelogical or genetic studies provide support for some `Indo-Aryan' nomadic horse riders coming to India and developing REAL something that India has developed in ancient times, when Europeans were still living savage like.

If Witzel was not trying to prove IA migration in India by faulty traslation of that BSS verse then was he proving other way round ? Now, when Witzel's ( a western Sanskritist) mistraslation motives are exposed, then his supporters are trying throw water on the fire. Even they are not able to quote that the US university quoted wrong. If Witzel is misquoted then he should sue the university and his fellow supporters on WP should stand by him by helping generating a sign campaign ! WIN 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

M17

Cosmos, it is evident that you are too ignorant on this topic to engage in meaningful debate. Oppenheimer has done no new archaological research at all. The quotation is specifically about the use of M17 as a marker of migration into India, and that's all. You don't even footnote the quote - including the superfluous "sic", presumably added by some rather silly teacher who hasn't noticed that it is about Male ancestry. Paul B 09:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to compromise if you show some grasp of the real issues rather than parroting what some obviously ill-thought-out "power point document" says. Oppenheimer's reference to M17 concerns previous claims that it could be used as a marker to explain the origin of Caucasoid racial features in India. If you equate the advent of Caucasoids with an Aryan Invasion, then you can argue that M17 is evidence of it - equating "Aryans" with a Caucasoid phenotype. In fact the idea that Caucasoids originated in India has been well known for a while - eg in earlier claims by Russell-Gates that Caucasoids diverged from Australoids in South India. None of this, in any case, has any relevance to the linguistic issues at all. It only relates to one specific hypothesis - the always contested claim that Aryans = Caucasoids. If it is added to the section discussing the racialisation debate then it will be useful. Paul B 09:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"this is a bout a controversial TERM. The hypothesis is the migration. Oppenheimer's Stone age migrations are off topic - this is about late Bronze age)"

Yes true it is a controversial term, however, Aryan Invasion Theory is a hypothesis foremost, which is the subject of the controversial meaning ,so please don't try "spin" on me, try that on your next victim. Secondly, Stephen Oppenheimer is discrediting the Aryan Invasion theory into India with genetics and new archaeological findings, which is in sync with the article. No more spin please. Find the relevant sources to discredit my facts in the article, you you don't have any legs to stand on.

Instead of compromising, you just reverted when I asked you for sources, and your response contained various cherry picked nonsense that can be easily fixed. I'll add a footnote, take out the [Sic] part (that was placed by accident, it was in the power point document). By the way, Oppenheimer is not talking about a migration into India 90,000 years ago, he is refer more so on the migration taking place out of India (as they evolved in India over 30,000-40,000 years). Show some transparency, please.

Listen, were going around in circles, standing in the same spot. I see how since you have no real position, and keep changing the one you had. Your personal attacks were not appreciated, and you have gone from criticizing and cherry picking want you want to eventually find some "loop Hole" so that the information is striped of it's substance. I have proved to you already of the connections, and you only started with this after you could not disprove the facts. So your twisting his statements and adding in your own research. If you want to talk about "incoherent" sentences, your trying to connect 1 with 2, and if 2 fails, there is 3,4,5...and so on (talking about your spin that the AIT is only about the linguistic aspect).

Well...the language is in sync with the theory/hypothesis of migration/invasion of people/culture/infusion of languages,etc,etc., from central Asia/elsewhere. And Stephen Oppenheimer is saying is that 1 group of the 4 or 5 in Africa, left in one push, and went along the Indian Ocean coast line, and settled in India, and how overtime genetics mixture, physical features changed over

It's been debated for 2 weeks without any one showing refuting sources, and you as well the other page-protectors won't even acknowledge that a "theory" and "hypothesis" are one and the same. Look on the Google for "AIT" "hypothesis", you'll get more hits then you can read also. I wouldn't criticize my sources, when it's my Stephen Oppenheimer, and a dictionary, and yours is Original thought, without any sources refuting the claims presented. Cosmos416 06:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have maintained the same position throughout, as it happens. I answered your points but you are too blinkered to see it. Perhaps my reference to Havell in an earlier post was too obscure for you to understand it at the time , so I will spell it out. Oppenheimer is arguing that M17 cannot be a marker that equates Indo-Aryan with Caucasoid "intrusion" into India. The Havell quote demonstrates that even nearly a century ago notable commentators on IA advent were making no such equation and were arguing that IA advent made NO APPRECIABLE DIFFERENCE to the racial make-up of India. Do you understand this point? That's not to say that others didn't argue the opposite. They did. It's simply to point out that there were a variety of views, and that it is typical of populist polemics on this issue to confuse quite separate issues. One issue is the advent of IE languages. Another issue is the intermingling of this with theories of racial differences.

Your published sources don't need to be refuted, because there is nothing wrong with them as such. What is wrong is your interpretation of them - or perhaps the interpretation of the author of your mysterious "PowerPoint document", which you seem to repeat as gospel. Thoughout your lengthy post you never even address the issue about the several thousands of years difference between what Oppenheimer is referring to and what I-A migration refers to. See the Roman analogy above? The quotation from Oppenheimer might be used in the section which discusses the theorisation of racial differences in India. Paul B 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Clam down, take a deep breath. Stop lying and twisting my words, last time I'm warning you because I 'm tired of you changing you position(s), personal attacking me, and refusing to shows sources to back up your claims. The text is clear, and quoted, so don't try and add a "spin" to it. Sorry, but the Quote fits in directly, if you read it. Show sources, and quit dragging you feet. I proved my side, you haven't.

Stop criticizing University sourced Information, and quotes by a World Expert in Genetics, when you can't even provide a single sources directly refuting the statement. You presenting Original thought and bias, and you don't even know what a theory or hypothesis is, which questions your abililty to reason and understand at an adult level. Shows some Sources, Shows some Sources, Shows some Sources! Cosmos416 12:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't criticised "quotes by a World Expert in genetics", as I have clearly said. What is wrong with you? Ironically, the only World Expert I criticised was Witzel, for misrepresenting 19th century views! What I have criticised your interpretation of Oppenheimer's words, as I said very very clearly in the above post. I've no idea what "university sourced information" you refer to because only you seem to have access to it. Perhaps you have misunderstood that too, but I suspect the information itself is flawed. Not all university tutors are right all of the time. I would not trust what an Arizona Bible university tutor says about Darwin. I have quoted several sources. You are not making any sense at all. I said that the stuff about paleolithic migrations is irrelevant to a late bronze age event tens of thousands of years later. I repeat - do you understand this point? Do you? Paul B 19:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppenheimer is a "world-renowned expert" in genetics? Sez who? His career was as a pediatrician. His stuff qualifies as "popular science", not as the best thing since Cavalli-Sforza. Puhleeeze. rudra 07:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

no Dravidians?

The real issue here seems to be adoption of "Aryan Invasion" as part of anti-Brahmin propaganda in Dravidian ethnic nationalism. The bashing of Western scholars appears to be a mere xenophobic reflex of filing the problem as an external threat, while the actual controversy is the abuse of such scholarship for political ends within Indian society. Nazis and Churchill may serve to illustrate the historical backdrop, but they cannot explain the present-day zeal invested in the topic. We might need a dedicated Dravidian ethnic nationalist propaganda paralleling Hindutva propaganda, rather than keeping the topic scattered across biographical articles (E. V. Ramasami Naicker) dab (𒁳) 08:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. Thats trivialising it way too much. Opposition to AIT/AMT etc., has little or nothing to do with DravidianTamil ethnic nationalism. While the high priests of Tamil nationalism like EVRN and his political quislings certainly form one of the dimensions(bogus) in this confused debate and rhetoric, their rhetoric was limited to Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu alone. EVRN enjoyed a near-zero clout in the rest of India. While few people even in neighbouring states of southern India may just about know his name(for crying out loud), the rest of India remains largely oblivious to him and his nonsense. Afterall, only a EVRN could club a bogus race theory(Nazism's Aryan) and a genuine linguistic theory(Caldwell's 'Dravidian') and synthesise his own BS. The only space that the rest of India affords these people(EVRN's intellectual progeny) in these matters is that of the flag bearers of the anti-Hindi movement[2][3]. This dimension of their rhetoric has far more takers all over the rest of India as, in 1965, the anti-Hindi agitation that started in TN soon spread across several non-Hindi states all over India(not just the south). That however, has nothing to do with any of the AIT-anti-AIT debates. Sarvagnya 10:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not entirely convinced, "Dravidian propaganda" produces 12 google hits including various Wikipedia articles, while "Dravidian ethnic nationalist propaganda" produces none. Addhoc 18:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

was that for me or dab? Sarvagnya 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Look up Dravidianism or websites like this [4]. It's a factor, but I agree it's not the major one. Paul B 19:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Sarvagnya (talk · contribs) has it mostly right. It's all very confused. Periyar et al have little visibility, and even less mindshare, outside the Tamil sphere. They do have plenty of propaganda, but it doesn't rate to be the case that primitive AIT rhetoric emanating from such sources instigated an "anti-anti" response. As it is, the Indigenists basically ignore the Dravidianists. Their ire is directed towards the Grand Unified Indologist Conspiracy. rudra 02:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

stop calling it 'Dravidian'. Its NOT 'Dravidian'. Emphatically not. If anything, its just 'Tamil' nationalism. The only valid and academically attested meaning for the word 'Dravidian' is as defined by Caldwell.

All other connotations of the word are bogus and politically motivated. And all other connotations stem merely and only from Tamil nationalists trying to pull a fast one on others by unilaterally branding it 'Dravidian' and hoping that it would somehow earn some support/sympathy and legitimacy over time. Fact of the matter is that their hoary theories have 'zero-takers' from the other 'Dravidians', be they Telugus or Kannadigas or Brahui. Neither Brahuis nor Telugus nor Kannadigas, for example, consider Tamil to be a Divine language.

If the Nazis had unilaterally called their theories 'Germanic' or 'Indo-European' or something like that, it doesnt become 'Germanic' or 'Indo-European' or anything like that. Sarvagnya 03:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Who said I disagree? I used the term Dravidianists, as in "Dravidianism" which is indeed a hijacking of a legitimate term ("Dravidian") for political ends. And yes, it's Tamil only too. rudra 03:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

They typically use the term Dravidian rather than Tamil, and the "Dravidianist" ideology also overlaps with the fringe Dalit movements, which do not see themselves as Tamil nationalists, but as political leftists allied to Afrocentrist ideology. Paul B 09:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Ganging Up and Page Protectionism

Can you please accurately show how my additions "hypothesis" and the Stephan Oppenheimer addition is irrelevant Paul B and with sources? Because I'm making the claim that your reverts, along with others are based on Censorship. I'm asking you to....

1.Clearly state your position on the irrelevance of my claim, as you have stated

2.Show sources/citations directly supporting your claim

PS: It's not up to you or others to debate the claims of Oppenheimer, or his research, it's up to you guys to show the irrelevance directly related to my claims, with sources/citations. Cosmos416 06:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, the burden of proof is on editors who want to include material. That is citations have to be provided in order to include content, not for its removal. Addhoc 13:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did...I already posted them above in a few sections. Here it is again.....

1. Inclusion of "Hypothesis": in describing the "Aryan Invasion Theory" because first off, the words "Theory" and "Hypothesis" are one is the same, sharing a direct relationship. The "Aryan Invasion Theory" is a "controversial term", however, it is also a multi-faceted concept, and the basis on which is made on various hypothesis. And that's what the "Aryan Invasion Theory" is, a "Hypothesis".

2. I added in info and a citation from Stephen Oppenheimer of Oxford University, who is a expert in genetic synthesis, claims with extensive DNA analysis and Archaeological evidence that the origin of all people who migrated out of Africa (all left at one time and not over periods as previously thought) settled in India more than 50,000 years ago. From there they spread to the West Asia and Central/North Asia, and eventually to South/East Europe as the effects from the last Ice Age became favorable enough for Human settlement.

He is also claiming that his research of DNA analysis points to that India is the Origin of the M17 or Haplogroup R1a1 (M17)in the Y-chromosome haplogroup, originated in India, and states that this "undermines any theory of M17 as a marker of a "male Aryan invasion" into India." To paraphrase, he is claiming that if there are actually any so-called "Aryans", they are Indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, and that there was no Aryan Invasion into India. Here’s the quote from his book Out of Eden:

“ …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.”

Here is the New York Times publishing an article about the book in 2005:

New York Times: "DNA Study Yields Clues on First Migration of Early Humans" by Nicolas Wade http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/13/science/13migrate.html?ex=1273636800&en=4a3b9de4a84891b7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

I'm asking for transparency to improve the article, by showing various views in researched publications.

The only reason why I'm asking Paul B and people Revert (many without even giving a reason) and changing their position(s), and had not provided sources to support their counter arguments. So I'm asking him/them to state clearly in a couple of sentences, why exactly my edits are not appropriate, and show supporting citations/sources to prove his argument. If someone has a problem with my additions, and takes a position of why it's not relevant, that person also has to show some type of reputable sources/citations to counter. You can't expect EVERYTHING to be one-sided, and when someone is taking a position, we have to make sure their is no "Original Research" involved to make false allegations, because they are heavily bias. Cosmos416 01:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

your discussion of paleolithic migrations is completely offtopic. This material belongs on Stone Age India and historical migration: valid topic, wrong article. The only pertinent edit of your edit is the question, did M17 originate in India. This is discussed here, where we already state that scholarly opinion is divided on this, citing original publications, no need to add newspaper articles to that. Again, you got the wrong article for this. This is the article on the notion of "Aryan Invasion" in Indian "communalism". If you want to discuss Indo-Aryan migration, go to Indo-Aryan migration. If you want to discuss Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia, go to Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not off topic considering that he says "thus undermining any theory of M17 as a marker of a ‘male Aryan invasion’ of India”. Can you read? To paraphrase, he is saying that their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind that EVER took place, and any "Theory" dealing with an "Aryan Invasion" is hardly plausible, according to him, and his team's research. Like I said, you/guys are pretending as if this theory isn't multi-faceted, and has various meanings then and know. Read the article itself, it is multi-faceted. They Aryan Invasion Theories are also changing in both directions, and supporters of the Invasion Theory has been pushing back the dates they "claim" happened into India, So I just disproved your argument.

Secondly, I'm NEVER said I was adding the New York Times article inside the text of the wikipedia page. I said I'm adding the citation by Oppenheimer (Direct Quote from his Book) that presents a Neutral view, and also has a aspect that deals of any "Theory" of "Aryan Invasion" into India, shown clearly in the citations, and it's neutral.

If can you show a citation or source, because your supporting your certain claims about the irrelevance, so I want to know if that's original thought/Research of some of you, or something in researched publication(s), because I have shown mine, and stated my views. So I'm asking you to support your "counter argument" with a source saying the Oppenheimer work is irrelevant to any theory of Aryan Invasion, because it sounds like Original Thought/Research by many of you.

"Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories." Cosmos416 13:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

again, this article is "Aryan Invasion Theory, history and controversies", not "bleeding edge research into a possible Indian origin of R1a". Please discuss origin of M17 at the proper place, Haplogroup R1a1 (Y-DNA), and possibly Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia. Oppenheimer is perfectly relevant there, but he isn't relevant here: this isn't the place to state why you think no "Invasion" has taken place, but the place to explain why people in India care about this "Invasion" meme ever so very much. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I might add that I would be very interested in new data on M17 origin, but this really, really isn't the page for it. Not to even mention your discussion of paleolithic migrations, I have no idea what you are even trying to say there, or why you insist on reporting on Y-chromosome research in a section titled '"Indogenous Aryans" and Indo-European linguistics' in an article about an ideological controversy. dab (𒁳) 18:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm saying your adding your Orginal Thought/ Research into your argument, so I'm asking you for the last time, show me exactly where it says, what you saying, supporting you argument. To paraphrase, he is saying that their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind that EVER took place, and any "Theory" dealing with an "Aryan Invasion" is hardly plausible, according to him, and his team's research.

Like I said, you/guys are pretending as if this theory isn't multi-faceted, and has various meanings then and know. Read the article itself, it is multi-faceted. They Aryan Invasion Theories are also changing in both directions, and supporters of the Invasion Theory has been pushing back the dates they "claim" happened into India, So I just disproved your argument. Stop making baseless claims, unless you can show sources/ citations to back up your arguments. Cosmos416 14:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

you are not making sense. I gave excellent reasons why your material is offtopic here. "original research" doesn't enter into it, I am sure Oppenheimer is an excellent source, but sadly completely irrelevant to the topic. Btw, he does not argue that "their was no Aryan Invasion of any kind", he is merely saying that in his view, M17 isn't a suitable marker for Indo-Aryan migration, which is hardly the same thing. If you insisted discussing continental shift, the Apollo project or sandwich recipes in this article, what "source" do you expect me to present that would "prove" that your material is offtopic? I am sorry, but this debate is pointless. dab (𒁳) 19:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, and that's why you changed your position, again. You went from saying the whole thing is irrelevant, and then accepting it, with a heavily striped down version. Your playing the "reverse everything" on him card. which won't work here.

I keep on reposting the same facts, and you continue to change your position with original research present, and in that case where I'm challenging your argument because of that reason, you won't provide sources or citations of your claims, because you "made it up". Every argument you claim, I can't find anything, anywhere. It sounds like original research, so I want to see the source of where your getting your information from. It's easy to make a claim of irrelevance in many ways, as claims of relevance. However, if you are presenting an argument that is bold, you need citations or sources showing exactly that.

And your right, this debate is pointless, because you changed your position from not accepting it at all, to accepting it, to not accepting it again. Can you say hypocrisy? Cosmos416 16:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

what utter BS. I accepted nothing. It's called a compromise. Your thing is, indeed, completely offtopic, but I stopped removing it completely because you wouldn't give peace. Am I now "accepting" all the nonsense on WP because I am not removing it? dab (𒁳) 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop with your BS, you first said the whole thing was irrelevant, then you AGREED, but with a biased view, twisting the meaning of the citation, and then went back for the fifth, sixth, seventh...time? And you removed hypothesis too, for which I already proved right, and you haven't even mentioned as a irrelevance, and that shows retaliation, which is a serious offense.

Your bias is shown in the repeated acts similar to Vandalism, and I consider it that, because I'm claiming your arguments/claims you are contrived and of Orginial thought/ research, and asked over 10 times now (included previous, search above) for sources/citations to see where you claims are supported by.

If you can't properly show supporting sources for your claims, stop with your biased censorship, and cherry picking/ twisting facts in the article, and twisting other people comments. Cosmos416 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

it is you who are twisting the source. Oppenheimer says that he thinks M17 is not useful to track IAM, not that he doesn't believe there was any IAM altogether. Even if you got that right, it would still be offtopic here. You are misquoting people on the wrong page, but unfortunately these are two fallacies do not compensate each other. dab (𒁳) 08:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

dab, rudra, you both have lost all credibility. Another user has also reverted your claims. You won't answer my request for sources, because your arguments are contrived, rather than being researched. Your contributions to wikipedia seem to be leading many criticizing you for forcing "down people's throat" your views, instead of showing sources/being neutral. It seems you just go around vandalizing people's hard work, who want to improve wikipedia, not take from it. You lack any will to show transparency. Maybe if you guys edited in a ethical manner, you would be more successful.

You know what's crazy? Seems like you both are the same users. You share the same ideas, talk the same way, and support each other, and that's bias at it's best. You guys seem to criticize anything and everything. Also, you don't want other people giving citations for anything Genetics related (Quote by dab on the Aryan Migration Theory Talk Page), because you guys want people to think the same way you do about the hypothesis of an Aryan invasion/migration into India, by Force. Paul Barlow also seems to be in cahoots also, seeing as you just gave him an awards (what more propaganda?). All seem to give each other support, and definitely a conflict of interest. You guys all gang up on various pages (maybe not at the exact same time, but days apart). Original Research + No Sources/Citations + 2+1guys+(more) who has shown a support each other in past and present, self-perpetrated baseless conflicts + Pages and pages of me asking you guys the same questions and for sources for over a month + (dab) not accepting it, to accepting it, then back-tracking again = Case Closed. Cosmos416 14:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one welcome additions on topics of genetics, on, like, genetics related articles. What part of "offtopic" do you not understand? Regarding general credibility, I think this compared to this speaks for itself, I wouldn't insist on pursuing that avenue if I were you. dab (𒁳) 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going go slow for you...dab, rudra, you both have lost all credibility. Another user has also reverted your claims. You won't answer my request for sources, because your arguments are contrived, rather than being researched. Your contributions to wikipedia seem to be leading many criticizing you for forcing "down people's throat" your views, instead of showing sources/being neutral. It seems you just go around vandalizing people's hard work, who want to improve wikipedia, not take from it. You lack any will to show transparency. Maybe if you guys edited in a ethical manner, you would be more successful.

Simply stating it's off topic it a original researched argument, unless you can shows exactly where your getting that claim from. You have the exact same 2-3 lines every time. And it's funny how your tryig to show me as some sort of bad guy, really? Don't play these games please. You have nothing. You on the other hard, have a closet filled with hate....

From your talk page: 1.http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=121859920 2.http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=116210142 3.http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&oldid=116210142

You archived your talk page 3 times in less than 3 months, that shows you have serious issues here. All people claiming the same bad things about you.

From out of India Theory: 1.http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Out_of_India_theory

From Indo-Aryan Migration Theory: 1.http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration

Here's the Clincher.... Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (dab): 1.http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dbachmann

Wow, you and rudra are in cahoots with each other, You guys are everywhere together. Enough said. Cosmos416 21:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

a rather pathetic attempt at ad hominem trolling. What you are doing here has really not the remotest connection to what Wikipedia is about. Read WP:5P and work your way through the guidelines from there, maybe you'll come across a clue somewhere. dab (𒁳) 06:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Your so funny dab....you start by criticizing me by putting links to my edit history (which I don't care), so I showed your closet full of hypocrisy, and page-protecting, and people disliking you because of your attitude. You even has a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dbachmann (dab). Stop your Vandalism and Trolling. Please show sources/citations to verify your claims and arguments, because it sounds very contrived (Original research). Cosmos416 00:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why this title?

Aryan Invasion Theory was moved to Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) but Out of India theory isn't reffered to as Out of India theory(history and controversies). This is a deliberate attempt to make push the POV that AIT is outdated and incorrect while OIT is correct. Nothing shows the bias more than this. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

no it isn't. this was never more than just a temporary solution. There have been cleanup tags, and suggestions to split this material into relevant articles for months. The reason for the existence of this article is that there is a lot of polemics and propaganda surrounding "Aryan Invasion" that have nothing to do with factuality or scholarship. The term "out of India" otoh was only discovered by the propagandists in 2000 or so, and it isn't surrounded by as much polemics, mostly because the factions involved to not care much about anything "outside India", the only reason they are interested in the idea is that from "out of India" follows that no Indo-Aryans even arrived "from outside India". It is only possible to have this page make sense if we agree that the propaganda can be discussed regardless of its pretext. Attempts to discuss why the "AIT is wrong" are without consequence here: the scope of this article is Indian "communalism" of ca. 1980 to present and its roots in the 19th century, and not the 2nd millennium BC. You are right that the title should make this more clear, e.g. for people like "Cosmos416" who seem to have a hard time making the distinction. dab (𒁳) 06:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I am a newcomer to this debate although I have read this article intermitently over the past year or so.There have been a hell lot of changes. From what it seems there is a lot of bad air around the AIT and OIT and Indegenious Aryans and I feel it is best I do not add to the commotion. As a person who studied AIT in school , switched to Indegenious Aryans in my teens and came back to AIT , I do fee that AIT is slightly misleading in its name. However I feel strongly that we shoudnt be tampering with the names of the theories(that is for historians to debate , not us). From what it seems there has been a lot of discussion before this move has taken place, so I'll rest my case for now. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)