Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples

Related ethnic groups

Please also include Tajiks (Persians from Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) and Pathans (ethnic Afghans) in the related ethnic groups section. They are also Indo-Europeans. Thank you in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.67.79.186 (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/indians-are-not-descendants-of-aryans-study/1/163645.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.216.39 (talk) 17:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Pictures:

In this section no one looks indo-aryan except Benazir Bhutto, all other pictures do not deserve to be shown on this page. Please add only pictures of people from Kashmir, Kalash, Gilgit, Chitral etc, not your gandhi or tagore who surely look indans but not aryan.

what? what the hell are you on about? how do they 'look aryan'? what does that mean? do you have a picture? did you go back in time to 3000bc to find what "aryan" looks like? Look mr.racist,there are no people called aryan. If you bothered to read the article:

"Several recent studies of the distribution of alleles on the Y chromosome,[6] microsatellite DNA,[7] and mitochondrial DNA [8] in India have cast strong doubt for a biological Dravidian "race" distinct from non-Dravidians in the Indian subcontinent."

There were indo-europeans who intermingled w/ Indians and created what we know as Indians. Later on there were greeks and other European tribes that conquered north India and the mix resutled in the variety of white/foreign looking people we see today (to my knowledge).

To the moderators, I thought it was agreed that there was no such thing as "aryan" peoples? I thought there was an Indo European peoples that came to India (just like Indo-Iranians) and created a sub-culture. Using Aryan to describe this subculture seems to cater to (and give power to) to the racial connotations. Can we change that somehow?

Section Origins

No sources are given for this section. Who said this and when? The information is also not given in a neutral way. (There are differing views and theories regarding dates, places and other things.) --Machaon 21:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

there is no section "Origins"; you mean the "pre-Vedic" section? details of this discussion go to the main article, Indo-Aryan migration. What do you mean "no sources are given"? I count about a dozen references in this short paragraph. You'll have to be specific about what you don't like. Obviously everything is disputed in this area. What this section is supposed to do is summarize the mainstream scholarly view. 23:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The comment was accurate when it was made. Check the date. Paul B 23:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm very concerned about this article as it represents an underresearched view of who the Indo Aryans were and their religion and language. Urdu to my knowledge is 'arabised/pathanised/mughalised hindi. This article does not mention the conquest of the Dravidian lands and diputes the fact that the original indo aryans were indeed very fair, possibly blonde and blue eyed. Recent DNA research amongst the northern indians who tend to be fair show strong links to Eastern european DNA.

I know of no good evidence that the "original Indo-Aryans" were "very fair". Please provide references. I'm not sure what you are getting at with your comment about Urdu or how it is relevant. Paul B 12:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What's with the picture of the Roma?

Granted they speak an Indo-Aryan language, but many of them don't and genetically they've mingled substantially with other peoples. Not the best representation of Indo-Aryans. As this article is about the Indo-Aryans as a people rather than as a linguistic group, I think the picture of the Roma needs to come down and be replaced with one of say the Punjabis or Bengalis instead. Tombseye 10:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

-Well,race has kind of lost it's factor for determining the Indo-Aryans, as they have mixed with other groups so much as to be deemed racially heterogenous. But, I do guess using the Roma for a picture of the Indo-Aryans is a bit ridiculous as they are only a smaller group of a larger branch of Indo-Iranian people who mostly different from the Roma. I do think we should use a picture of a more common Indo-Aryan cultural group, such as the Rajputs, Punjabis or some other North Indian people. -User: Afghan Historian

Vedic Aryans vs Kurus

Aren't Kurus also Vedic Aryans, which is an umbrella term? deeptrivia (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article disputes that. It says I-A culture expanded "with the Kurus..." I don't think that would normally be read to mean that I-A people expanded in "alliance with the Kurus". It means that the culture expanded in part because the specific Kuru realm, which was part of it, expanded - a comparable sentence would be "Greek culture expanded with the conquests of Alexander the Great". Paul B 09:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at it again, I agree that the first half of the sentence ("Together with indigenous cultures...") could lead to the reading that "Kurus" were "indigenous" allies of Indo-Aryans, though I'm fairly confident that no-one actually intended to imply that. The previous sentences also contained some confusing bracketed material, with brackets in brackets in brackets. Paul B 11:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was referring to the list (Sec. 5.1) It has Vedic Aryans, Kurus, Shakyas, etc as separate elements. 14:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh right, well that's just a list of related articles. They aren't inteded to exclude eachother. Some are inclusive, some more specific. Paul B 18:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

The words 'gypsy' and 'negro'

I know we're instructed to be bold, but since those two words have been in the article for so long (I tried to go back and figure out when they'd been added, but gave up after looking back to about September 2005), I hesitate to take them out since so many people who've been working on the article seem to think they're OK.--Anchoress 11:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with negro, which even has inverted commas around it. Do you have a better word? I've changed gypsies, but the problem with "Roma" is that it excludes "Sinti" and the problem with "Roma and Sinti" is that it leaves the reader wondering why these two names are conjoined. "Gypsy" has the advantage thsat it's an inclusive term. Paul B 11:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. As for your concerns, 1. what about negroid for 'negro', and (just to be consistent) caucasian for 'white race'? 2. And just as a guideline (especially for 'gypsy'), I think Wikipedia:Naming conventions (identity) and Wikipedia:Style_guide#Identity should be considered.--Anchoress 14:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with "caucasian" is that it is an anthropological category that has also included quite dark-skinned people, especially in the variant "caucasoid". Maybe it would be best just to say they range from light to dark skin. Paul B 15:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

just use black and white, anything else is geographically tinted PC. "caucasian" for "white" in particular is US parlance, anywhere else Caucasian means "from the Caucasus". I don't see a way to avoid gypsy, since the Roma, Sinti, Gitanos are separate articles. dab (ᛏ) 17:17, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

template

I have doubts about the appropriateness of the Ethnic group template. Indo-Aryans are a linguistically defined super-group, not a single ethnic group. In any case, the image should show people, not a city. dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

-It is arguable that most if not all the Indo-Aryan speakers have some or most ancestry to the original Indo-Iranian immigrants. Gene studies demonstrate proof of West Eurasian genes in Indo-Aryan populations through the paternal line. Their ethnic heritage should and will be acknowledged. -User: Afghan Historian

Indo-Iranian vs Indo-European

Its well known that Indo-Iranian is a sub-branch of Indo-European and Indo-Aryan is a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. But to say that Indo-Aryan is the Indic branch of Indo-European makes more sense. We use Indo-Aryan to refer to people living in modern day northern Indian subcontinent or to differentiate between ancient Iranians (or Persians) and Indians (or Hindus) and Indo-Iranian to differentiate Vedic aryans and ancient Iranians from ancient Europeans. So if I say that Indo-Aryans is the Indic branch of Indo-Europeans make sense right. Its not about being ingnorant, its about common sense! --Spartian 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

To Paul: you say that I-A is a subbranch of II and IE. So by using common sense it is more accurate to say IA is the Indic branch of II and IE and since II too is a subranch of IE, IA is the Indic branch of IE. But I guess your common sense says something else or I am just too ignorant. --Spartian 22:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, fortunately, we don't have to use too much of our own common sense, but just have to use the scheme linguists have made. It shows Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian. I don't quite understand the logic behind this classification, but that doesn't matter. deeptrivia (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Spartian, your common sense makes no sense to me. I-A is a sub-branch of both I-E and I-I, but it is more useful to say that it is a branch of Indo-Iranian than to say that it is a branch of Indo-European. Both are correct, but the former is far more precise. Short of anti-Iranian sentiment of some sort I can see no reason for trying to change this. Paul B 23:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your comments but may I know exactly why it is more precise to say IA is subbranch of II than to say IA is a subbranch of IE. Besides my version said IA is the Indic branch of IE. By saying that I have an anti-Iranian sentiment, you are trying to deviate from the topic. The reason why I want to mention IE and not II is becasue IE is a much more broader and precise term and gives the reader an idea from where these people came (i.e. Central/Eastern Europe). --Spartian 02:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully this illustration would explain the point. In Case A, there's no ambiguity in hierarchy, while in case B, there is ambiguity since it can mean both (a) and (b). So it is more precise to say Indo-Aryan as a sub-branch of Indo-Iranian since that statement has more information content. Again, I am not making a statement on whether i is right to call IA a subbranch of II in terms of history and linguistics, because I think we should simply trust what linguists say. They know it better. deeptrivia (talk) 03:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks deeptrivia for the illustration. It makes more sense now. I've made some changes to Indo-Iranians.. so please go over it. Thanks --Spartian 10:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ethnic group template

the ethnic group template is a bit inappropriate. this is not an ethnic group, it is an ethno-linguistic supergroup. We don't label Germanic peoples as a single ethnic group either. IA languages are not mutually comprehensible, and it is difficult to postulate an ethnic unity if people cannot even engage in verbal communication (without the help of some lingua franca). dab (ᛏ) 19:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well dab, Hindi or Hindustani acts as a lingua franca for IA speakers. I daresay many non-Hindi IA speakers can relate to most of the words and its much easier for an IA speaker to pickup another IA language than for a non-IA speaker to pickup an IA language. File:England flag large.png अमेय आर्यन DaBroodey 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

yes? how does using a lingua franca make them a single ethnic group? As for 'picking up' related idioms, the same holds for Germanic languages, and for Slavic languages, and still the Norse and the Germans, or the Poles and the Serbs, are separate ethnic groups. Case in point, the Roma left India 1,000 years ago; they are Indo-Aryans, but they certainly do not belong to the Hindustani community. dab (ᛏ) 13:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

-The Iranian peoples have a template, why cant the Indo-Aryans. And also, the Indo-Aryans and Iranians, though both are diverse so as to be like the cateogrization of Germanic and Slavic peoples, are actually sub-groups of a larger people, the Indo-Iranian/Aryan peoples. The template stays.

The Iranian peoples article hasn't had the template for awhile. --Khoikhoi 21:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

dear anon, as you say, they are peoples, not a single ethnic group. Iranian peoples doesn't have the template, but a kindred spirit of yours appears to insist on including mugshots. Slavic peoples doesn't have the template. Germanic peoples doesn't. Celts doesn't. Go and add your template to Hindustani, which can be argued to form an ethnic group. dab (ᛏ) 13:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi and Dbachmann. This article should not have a template or that picture of 'Indo Aryans' either. This is a linguistic family group and the discussion should be about ancient tribes that morphed into various disparate peoples in many cases. Treating them as an ethnic group is completely inaccurate. Tombseye 17:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Iranian peoples has a picture template at least. That's what I want to keep on the Indo-Aryans page as well. -User: Afghan Historian

I think the only people whose photos can be used to show how the early indo-aryans looked are people in norther pakistan and the vale of kashmir. I think only the pictures of fair skinned chitralis ,gilgitis and kashmiris from the valley should be given as how the ancient indo-aryan looked like after they intermingled with the greate indian population. chitralis, gilgitis and kashmiris of the valley speak dardic languages which are classified as highly abberant indo-aryan dialects. This abberancy is because the people of dardic designation reaced in norther pakistan few centuries earlier than the main vedic group along the indus banks.

Iranian peoples

There is not a single mention of Iranian peoples in this article, are they not Indo-Aryans? -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 20:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No. They aren't. See Indo-Iranians and Indo-Iranian languages (ignore my seemimgly bizarre edit-summary. It got added accidentally). Paul B 22:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah fair enough -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 23:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wehn did Dravidians become Indo-Aryans?

Dravidian cultres do not have same Indo-European roots of Indo-Aryans cultres. I wonder why they are added here in contemporary cultures. Unitedroad 06:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

which ones? the Unnithan? that may be a mistake. dab (ᛏ) 06:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dravidians should not be mentioned in this article obviously but I dispute Unitedroad claim that "Dravidian cultres do not have same Indo-European roots of Indo-Aryans cultres" and I find it incredibly misleading and assumes a lot of unproven theory. This assumption is made by many Indo-Aryan peoples and many left leaning historians but according to most facts CULTURALLY and phenotypically(for most Indo-Aryans) Indo-Aryans actually have more in common with Dravidian peoples than neighbouring Mongoloids or Iranian or in fact any European peoples apart from language of course, and both language families have influenced each other and share a few common features. Occasionally high-caste Dravidian peoples(such as Unnithan)will try and falsely put their community names on the list because of their closer ancestry to Indo-Aryans (North Indians specifically) as a result of more recent immigration of their communities to South India than other Dravidian peoples, or historical association with North Indian culture, or from simply phenotypes, though this hold some truth, they are Dravidian if they are communities known to natively speak Dravidian languages as that is the most accurate description of Dravidian peoples and likewise Indo-Aryan languages for Indo-Aryan peoples. B Nambiar 13:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The Infobox should not be used here

The infobox is for ethnic groups and a series of ethnic groups who happen to speak languages from the same linguistic family. I don't understand why people don't get that. Tombseye 05:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC) ?

I don't understand what you are saying. Why does that make the box inapproppriate here? Paul B 10:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is for a single ethnic group and not a series of ethnic groups who may or may not be 'related'. In fact, then the even more confusing issue of related groups come into play as there is a limited relationship between for example, Persians from eastern Iran and Bengalis. It's usage here is incorrect and lacks any credibility other than to promote pan-Indo-Aryanism (just as pan-Iranists may want to do likewise on the [[Iranian peoples]). Indo-Iranians aren't an ethnic group and neither are Iranians etc. These are linguistic categories and that's all they are at times as there is no evidence of any further 'close' relationship at all, cultural or otherwise. thus, it's incorrect to use it here other than to set-up a false picture of Indo-Aryans as an ethnic group, which they are not. The Punjabis are an ethnic group as are Bengalis etc. Not Indo-Aryans. At the very least, the related groups section needs to go as the only relationship there is linguistic in most cases. Tombseye 15:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no such thing as "pan-Indo-Aryanism", though who knows? Ironically, if there is such a movement then that would make I-As an ethnic group, since ethnic groups are self-defined. They do not all have to be closely related. "Ethnic group" is a loose concept which has no rigid definition. Paul B 16:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, ethnic groups are self-identified and the question is do all Indo-Aryan speakers view themselves as a single ethnic group? I'm pretty sure the Romany do not and I would not be surprised if smaller groups like Hindkowans would identify more with Pashtuns than with 'Indo-Aryans'. The usage in the infobox should at least be limited and not attempt define 'related' groups as the relationships are strictly linguistic and not 'ethnic'. Regardless, it's all problematic. Tombseye 18:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic identities do not have to exclude one another. Paul B 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, yet nothing related to ethnicity?

Ok, I'll prepare to be attacked for lack of political correctness here, but there was indeed a racial group which originally imported the indo-aryan languages to india and go by the same name. If not a disambiguation for the types of indo-aryan then perhaps a section on the indo-aryan ethnicity rather than the language body?Cold polymer 17:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

That is because the peoples that speak Indo-Aryan languages(i.e Indo-Aryans) vary in ethnicity and ancestry. A Bengali/Sinhala/Punjabi can vary significantly in ethnicity/ancestry. Personally I think Indo-Aryan associated with an ethnicity will be misleading as it suggests the Indo-Aryans as a separate "race" in India as different from Dravidian peoples etc which based on most evidence is wrong as ancestry varies from community to community and caste to caste. This page does justice to Indo-Aryans and no further articles concerning them are required.B Nambiar 13:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

RE:Indo-Aryan kingdoms

I have removed the Chalukya, Chola, and Pallava kingdoms from the list since they are Dravidian kingdoms that were not part of the Mahajanapadas. Furthermore, King Ashoka's edicts explain clearly that the Chola, Chera, and Pandyas were outside of his boundaries and ruled independently. Wiki Raja 22:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Assamese and Iyengars

Firstly, Assamese belong to the Mon-Khmer family of ethnicities. Secondly, Iyengars and Iyers are the Tamil Brahmins in which Tamils are Dravidian and not Indo-Aryan. Wiki Raja 22:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan influence in Southeast Asia?

It were actually the Dravidian kingdoms such as the Cholas and Pallavas of the Tamils who had a cultural influence on Southeast Asia and who were the ones who had navies at the time which travelled as far as China. However, the Tamils also brought the Sanskrit language along with some of the Indo-Aryan ideas along with them to these lands. Wiki Raja 16:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's true...thanks for mentioning it...I was just about to, but saw your post here. Le Anh-Huy 13:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Changes to template

I removed the rajput photo and added four pictures of notable Indo-Aryans from as diverse backgrounds as possible.
Piara Singh Gil: Physicist of Sikh descent
Benazir Bhutto: Female figure, Muslim Pakistani politician
Freddie Mercury: British musician of Farsi descent
picture- http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagen:Hannover7909.jpg Amartya Sen: Bengali Nobel laureate economist and academist
picture- http://www.icrw.org/html/specialevents/07-tinker-bouraoui.htm

Identification of the figures on the template itself is certainly a nice feature.Qazws11 (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restore template without Benazir Bhutto, of half Iranian Kurd descent, and Farrokh Bulsara, a Parsi and non Indo-Aryan. There are many examples of notable Indo-Aryans. I shall proceed to delete the misleading template.KBN (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Bhutto was also half-Sindhi. I agree with Mercury though, the Parsis are historically Persian and thus Iranian. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hindustani-speakers an ethnic group?

Are the Hindustani-speakers an ethnic group? How come there are no articles on the Hindi people, Hindis, Hindustani people or Hindustanis? The closest is Muhajir (Pakistan). If the Hindustani speakers are an ethnic group, why don't they have an article? Because if they where an ethnic group, they would surely be the largest in India. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 07:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Indian Diaspora to be included in the list?

Fijian Indians, Indo-Mauritians, Indo-Trinidadian, Indo-Guyanese, Afro-Indians etc, who are mostly composed of descendants of Biharis and Uttar Pradeshis and form a significant percentage in their countries. Opinions? Trips (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The "anti-genius" that used the term "coolie" to describe the Indian diaspora living in the above-mentioned countries has little on no idea as to the real regional origins (within India, such as Punjab, Gujrat, Bihar, Tamil Nad, or Madyapradesh) of the Indian diaspora and further underscores his lack of knowledge by using the pejorative racial slur "coolie" to describe the diaspora; Consequently I have corrected the above section heading in this discussion page by deleting the racial slur and inserting the technically correct and Neutral term "Indian".66.130.154.212 (talk) 05:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic and regional groups instead of ethnic groups

Assamese, Lhotshampas (can be any Nepali ethnic group), Lahnda, Hindustanis, Divehi, etc. are not ethnic groups. There should be no links to ethnic groups unless they have actual articles. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed. Is Nepali even an ethnic group? I doubt it --Maurice45 (talk) 13:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

• • To clarify: an article that says that they're Indo-Aryan. Lhotshampas can be of any ethnic group originating in Nepal, although they're mostly Indo-Aryans, Lahnda-speakers are ethnic Punjabis, Divehis have no article, and the Assamese article says that they're a regional identity, not an ethnic group. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 09:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan Origins

There is a debate on Indo-Aryan origins and there is no evidence that justifies a specific origin, I agree that there is academic consensus on the aryan origin that alleges that they originate from outside of India, however it is still heavily debated and deserves greater weight other than a simple non-specific links. Disagreements? --Rtlevel (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Since this shows all indications of being a sock account, it is difficult to take your question seriously. Looie496 (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Since when was there any sort of consensus that they originated outside of India. Read up on a few of the Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.159.128 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

why do not modern historians look at some telugu people and their language as Indo-Aryan

Many Andhra Pradesh People ie telugu people blood is European and North Indian blood. And their language, telugu, resembles more Hindi and sanskrit languages. You are looking them with different perspective because they are not on Indo-Aryan land. Some modern historians take this issue and do some research on telugu land, telugu people and telugu culture and add them to Indo-aryan group. Telugu people are loosing their identity, by being identified with Dravidian people who are basically tamil land people. I really thank if some modern historians do take research on this issue and check thoroughly on telugus. I hope to see Telugu people in this group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 20:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

as the lead states very clearly, this article lists Indo-Aryan speaking peoples. There is no such thing as a non-Indo-Aryan-speaking Indo-Aryan people. If you want to make the point that the Telugu people has Indo-Aryan roots in some meaningful sense, at least kindly present a reference to the effect. --dab (𒁳) 14:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think SineBot is true. We will look for reliable sources and let you know Jaggi81 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam make heavier use of Indo-Aryan loanwords while Tamil is puristic and rejects them more. This is analogous to the heavy use of French and Latin vocabulary in English vs. German which preferred to construct words from native elements. --JWB (talk) 19:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont know about Mallu and Kannada but PURE is TELUGU is nothing but sanskrit. I am not talking about the loan words. Any telugu person would agree with me.Jaggi81 (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbachmann, can you tell me what is indo-aryan language? is it devanagari script or a sanskritized lanuage? Telugu vocabulary has very few Dravidian words(you can count on your fingers) and more of sanskrit. So, I would put it this way "Telugu is a sanskritized language with few dravidian loan words". Seriously this makes more sense than saying that Telugu has sanskrit loan words. Dbachmann,Ureddy please share your viewsJaggi81 (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

Suggest we look at the Swadesh list. One for Dravidian is at wikt:Appendix:Dravidian_Swadesh_lists and at first glance it seems like many or most are similar to Tamil and the other Dravidian languages. --JWB (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

207 similarities right. In them some are sanskrit(Puvvu/pushpam etc..) well, lets look at Proper nouns. 100% of telugu nouns are derived from sanskrit Ex: Akasham-sky, Neeru-water, Agni=fire, Gruham- Home, endless.Jaggi81 (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh got you, in those 207 also, many are different. My bad .Jaggi81 (talk) 23:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you telugu? Jaggi81 (talk) 00:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Southern Indo-Aryan Languages

Marathi and Vidarbhi are the languages directly derived from the Deccani Vibhasa with minimal external influences. Old Gujarati was known as Sauraseni, and was later displaced by Gujjari ( Khazari or Middle Gujarati ). Later this language was Sanskritized to become Gujarati ( Modern Gujarati ). Andhri is included in this family, and not the Dravidian family for the following reasons :

  1. Andhri contains a much higher percentage of Sanskrit loans than the other Dravidian languages.
  2. Andhras follow the Aryan Vaishnavite religion ( cf. the Tirupati temple ), in contrast to the Dravidians, who are Shaivite.
  3. Anthropological surveys indicate that the Andhras are preponderantly mulatto ( mixed white Aryan and black Dravidian ). It thus would be natural to consider Andhri to be a creole which was gradually Sanskritized. 

Source : http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/1335/Lang/prakrit.html#decc .Jaggi81 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

True

Sanskrit writings from the 7th century BC describe the Andhra people as Aryans from the north who migrated south of the Vindhya Range and mixed with non-Aryans.

Ref:http://www.e-greenstar.com/India/Andhra-Pradesh-info.htm

Ref:http://www.archaeolink.com/gadabas_asian_minority_studies.htm

Ref:http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580539/andhra_pradesh.html

Ref:http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Andhra_Pradesh_-_History/id/4792596

Ref:http://books.google.com/books?id=i4pvVOd2L0cC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=Andhra+people+as+Aryans+from+the+north&source=bl&ots=uPNGeGU6At&sig=rxeRTkEMNrk4yARrE69tu2NSqrw&hl=en&ei=3JbKSr4EjOeUB4bZqJID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=Andhra%20people%20as%20Aryans%20from%20the%20north&f=false

and many more 

Jaggi81 (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) There's nothing wrong with being Telugu. You should be proud of it. There is no doubt that Telugu is an Indian language and not an Indo-European langauge. There is also plenty of evidence to suggest that there is no distinct "north" and "south" indian races. They are all the same people. That should make you feel better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.147.224.225 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

please stop tring to conflate this with race. Also, mind WP:NOR. We will not compare swadesh lists here. If you find a linguist who classifies Telugu as Indo-Aryan, by all means cite them. Otherwise please stop spamming this page. --dab (𒁳) 07:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Relation of this article to "Indo-Aryan Migration" article

I was reading the article on the Indo-Aryan migration theories, and according to that article, there is no conclusive evidence for an invasion or migration of Indo-Aryans into the South Asian subcontinent. The article goes through very methodically and discounts previous linguistic, genetic, archaeological, and documentary (Rig Vedas) evidence.

But, how does that make sense with this article here? My understanding of this article is Indo-Aryans have existed in South Asia for thousands of years, and their descendants live on to this day.

Is there something that I am missing here? Where did the Indo-Aryans come from? How can they be so central to Indian history if they also never migrated into India in the first place (according to the other article)? Or, is the implication that the Indo-Aryans actually originated in South Asia itself and then migrated westwards into Iran and Europe?

Someone who is knowledgeable about this, please help! How can these two articles be reconciled? Or, am I totally missing something?IonNerd (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the article speaks to much of Indians, and there is very little evidence supporting their claims. The Indian sanskirt language has many burrowed words from the ancestor PIE language, making it not the home of the "Aryans" or PIE's. This is associated with the steppe theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.105.24 (talk) 06:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Telugu

Telugu cannot be Indo-aryan language at all...

1.All Indian languages no matter how developed they are do use Sanskrit words,even for that matter Tamil!

2.Most of the so called Modern Indo-aryan languages like Hindi,Marathi,Punjabi,Bengali,Gujarati,Oriya,Konkani,Urdu,Sinhali,Asamiya and the other sub-dialects have evolved from Sanskrit,to be precise the Prakrits and the Apabhramshas.

For instance:

• Shaurseni:gave birth to modern Hindi,Punjabi,Urdu
• Maharashtri:Marathi.Sinhali,Modern Konkani(again which is highly influenced by Magadhi)
• Magadhi family:Bengali
• Nagari:Gujarati

and so on,most of the modern languages also have many words which are Apabhramsha (corrupted Sanskrit words) or sometimes original Sanskrit words without any change or sometimes even from tribal languages like Gondi,Kunkna,Santhali etc.All these modern languages were again highly influenced by foreign languages like English,Arabic,Portuguese,Farsi,Greek,and Dravidian languages.

3.Sanskrit has got myriad words which are not of Indo-aryan origin and such words find it roots in Dravidian or Austric languages Let me give some examples of some Sanskrit words that do not have Indo-Aryan origin

• Tandulah:Rice,comes from the word tandul used by the Konk people
• Pujan or Puja:Comes form the tamil word Pujai or Pushai ( as so called Ayrans adopted the flower offering and for that matter idol worship from the Dravidians),Pu--flower,Shai--Offer

and lots more

• Vanika or the trader coming form the native Indus valley word Panika or Pani
• Panya meaning cash or commodities again having Dravidian origin
• Sanskrit word Dravida itself has been derived from the word Thervidam!
• And names of various modern Hindu gods and goddesses do not have Sanskrit origin!

4.Coming to Telugu

State any single verb from Telugu many be new or old that has got its roots in Sanskrit,Prakrit,or Apabrahmsha!Excluding those which have been adopted later for literary purpose.

eg:

• To do: In all the so called Indian aryan languages ,the word for the verb to do is kar ,which again means hand in ancient and modern Sanskrit and related languages.On the other hand its Cheyyi in Telugu,which can again means hand in Dravidan languages
• To eat:Indo-aryan--Khad or Kha or similar word starting with Kha

whereas in Telugu and Dravidian languages -- Tinu ,Tinnu and so on

• To see:Indo-aryan--Pashya,Dekh,eg in modern languages:Dekh,Paha,Palay, and so on

whereas in Telugu its Chudumu or Chudu

Few more examples:

Telugu	Sanskrit	Modern Indo-aryan languages
Ra,Rammu,Randi(come)	Aagaccha	Aa,Ye,Yo,Asa
Po,Vellu(Go)	Aj,Ach,	Ja,Jeebo,Vach
Tragu(drink)	Peeb	Pee in almost all aryan conterparts
Kurcho(sit)	Upavish,vish	Baith,Beso,Bas
Gelavu(win)	jit,jay	Jeet,Jit,jey
Enti(what)	Kim	Kya,Kay,Kite,Ke,Kee
Peru(name)	Naam	Nam,Nav,Namo,Naa

and thousands of other words...

Do you see any similarity between both the languages? Can you derive the word chudu from Sanskrit Pashya or Dekh or Tinu from Khad or Bhakshya?

Not offending anyone!!

Telugu is a very sweet and beautiful language,Namaskaramu,bhojanamu sound really sweet

why are you guys trying to spoil its beauty by confining it to a space where it ll never fit?

Nijgoykar (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

please -- nobody ever tried to classify Telugu as Indo-Aryan. There is just Jaggi81 (talk · contribs) who appears to have a bee in his bonnet about "Aryan" racial mysticism. Nothing to do with linguistic classification. --dab (𒁳) 07:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand now that verbs are different than sanskrit but why are all nouns in telugu similar to sanskrit? Just curioity. Jaggi81 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand that a language can have loan words but why is telugu sanskritized to the extent where there are more sanskrit words as nouns than dravidian words as if there are no Dravidian nouns.Jaggi81 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Even the words you mentioned -

Tinu-eat-bhujinchu , peru-Name-Naamam , Gelavu-Win-Vijayam-Jayam , Chudu-To See-Veekshinchu

All these have synonyms derived from sanskrit. All that I say is that modern researchers should do more research on this.Jaggi81 (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Jaggi, if you have sources establishing the "Prakrit roots of Telugu" come to Talk:Telugu language and present them there. But please stop spamming this page with unreferenced chatter about Telugu. --dab (𒁳) 08:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Telugu language Talk doesnt seem to be active like this one. So I came here.

I believe Telugu should be classified as Indo-Aryan language. Telugu has more sanskrit words than dravidian and that is undeniable. I am presenting few facts here .

In page 14 of the book- A History of Telugu Literature By Chenchiah, Bhujanga, he states -"
Telugus (may) have been in the remote past a Dravidian people possessing a non-Aryan culture, but they seem to have lost their Dravidian identity very early in their history. In historical times they were so completely Aryanised in religion, language and literature, that for all purposes they may be treated as Aryans.

In page 16- Telugu is Vikriti , that is a language formed my modification of sanskrit and prakrit. It would appear that Andhras adopted a form of Prakrit which, in course of development, became the immediate ancestor of Telugu.

Now there are more sanskri words in telugu than Dravidian.

Sanskrit is the oldest next comes Telugu. The logical proof is.. The linguistic prakriya (Game) of Sanskrit Avadhana is existing only Telugu. From this the immediate next language of Sanskrit is Telugu. In other languages Avadhana disappeared. Obviusly son possesses more features of father than grand son , because son is more immediate.

I wish to see more telugu people here than Tamils(No Offense). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaggi81 (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(1) B.C. 200 -- A.D. 500 : During the first phase, we only come across names of places and personal names of Telugu in Prakrit and Sanskrit inscriptions found in the Telugu country. Telugu was exposed to the influence of Prakrit as early as the 3rd century B.C.' From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, although the language of the rulers was different. The first complete Telugu inscription belongs to the Renati Cholas, found in Erragudipadu, Kamalapuram taluk of Cuddapah district and assigned to about A.D. 575. Source: Revenue Department (Gazetteers) Jaggi81 (talk) 00:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As Velcheru Narayana Rao states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "every Sanskrit word is potentially a Telugu word as well, and literary texts in Telugu may be lexically Sanskrit or Sanskritized to an enormous extent, perhaps sixty percent or more." As C.P Brown states in page 266 of his book A Grammar of the Telugu language: "Every Telugu rule is laboriously deduced from a Sanskrit canon". As David Shulman states in page 3 of his book Classical Telugu Poetry: "The enlivening presence of Sanskrit is everywhere evident in Andhra civilization, as it is in the Telugu language". Based on all these facts Telugu should be classified into Indo-Aryan group. Jaggi81 (talk) 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nannaya Bhattarakudu’s Andhra Mahabharatamu produced around the 11th century is commonly referred to as the first Telugu literary composition (Aadi kaavyam). Although there is evidence of Telugu literature before Nannaya, he is still referred to as Aadi Kavi (the first poet) because he was the first poet to establish a formal grammar for written Telugu. 'Nannaya meticulously laid down the ground rules and semantics of writing in Telugu by borrowing from Sanskrit grammar and inventing original rules'. Telugu literature until then was Prakrit based and devoid of a grammar. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Inscriptions containing Telugu words dated back to 400 BC were discovered in Bhattiprolu in Guntur district. English translation of one inscription reads: “Gift of the slab by venerable Midikilayakha.

Primary sources are Prakrit/Sanskrit inscriptions found in the region, in which Telugu places and personal names are found. From this we know that the language of the people was Telugu, while the rulers, who were of the Satavahana dynasty, spoke Prakrit. Jaggi81 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Some other scholars associate Telugu as originating from a frequently used Sanskrit word Kalinga or Kling, which in Puranas and Ashok's inscriptionsdepicted people of Continental India as it is even today in the Malay language.

Onamaalu, or the Telugu alphabet consist of 60 symbols - 16 vowels, 3 vowel modifiers, and 41 consonants have almost 1-to-1 correspondence with Sanskrit alphabets, yet another proof of its influence on its evolution.

Though no inscriptions in Telugu language (as it is written/ spoken today) have been found prior to the period 200 BC 500 AD, inferences to the existence of Telugu during that time can be made from the frequent use of words of that period found in the Telegu region found on Parakrit (Sanskrit)inscriptions and also in anthology of poems in Parakrit language, collected by the Satavahna dynasty King all point to existence of Telugu and Telugupeople in that period between the Krishna and Godavri rivers basin. Thus, we can safely presume Telugu to have originated earlier than 200 BC. (Source:Ostom Ray - Telugu The Language, People And The Land Through Ages) Jaggi81 (talk) 03:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

“The country will not survive if the language and culture are not protected. Sanskrit, which is mother of Indian languages, Telugu and other languages are unique in the world in the sense that they are inter-twined with life. Whatever said in the literature like Satakams written in the olden ages determines our life. The Indian literature helps in personality development and determines the life”
Among the Indian languages, Telugu was the only language having closest relationship with Sanskrit and this was the reason for it continuing to be strong even now - Vedula Subrahmanya Sastry(Telugu and Sanskrit scholar) Jaggi81 (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Important Things:
1. Telugu and Tamil don't belong to the same group.
2. Telugu split from Proto-Dravidian between 1500-1000 BC. So, Telugu became a distinct language by the time any literary activity began to appear in the Tamil land.

This is a universal fact but (No offense) but some Tamils language fanatics always try to categorize Telugu with Tamil leaving no room for discussion. Jaggi81 (talk) 05:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

All your personal agenda jaggi81,your personal oinions and your own research,and it is not at all significant nor will it make any difference.Telugu and Tamil belong to the same language group no matter what you say or write!

This article is not for discussing history and evolution of any language!

Nijgoykar (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

well only this one I found in a discussion forum. All the facts stated above are true. But Telugu definitely has different language structure than Tamil whether you agree or not.

Jaggi81 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not evolution but I provided those facts to prove that telugu can be listed under Indo-Aryan.

Jaggi81 (talk) 05:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes

focus on part two 76. Mandavilli, Sujay Rao Part One http://www.scribd.com/doc/27103044/Sujay-NPAP-Part-One Part Two http://www.scribd.com/doc/27105677/Sujay-Npap-Part-Two Part One http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1324506 Part Two http://ssrn.com/abstract=1541822

Article

The article clearly says that the indo-aryans originated outside of India and then migrated into the subcontinent even though there is no evidence supporting this fact. Can someone make the required changes to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.34.176 (talk) 14:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 11 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

I'd like to request a removal of the term "European Aryan" as they are not a real ethno-linguistic group and furthermore the Andronovo culture is only related to Indo-Aryan and possibly Indo-Iranian branches not the European branch of Indo-European.

Thanks

"The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the 2nd millennium BCE. Some scholars trace the Indo-Aryans (both Indo-Aryans and European Aryans) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BCE). Other scholars[8] have argued that the Andronovo culture proper formed too late to be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India, and that no actual traces of the Andronovo culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials) have been found in India and Southern countries like Sri Lanka and the Maldives.[9]"

122.107.164.91 (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure about this edit-request, so I'm going to cancel the request for now, and request another opinion below; if consensus is shown, we could change it. Thanks for your understanding,  Chzz  ►  22:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

{{3O}}

Definition and Concept of "Indo Aryan" appears to be Wikipedia POV

I am not sure where the Categorization and Definition of Indo-Aryan came from, but the concept in its current form does not appear to exist outside of what has been created here on Wikipedia. Can we have more non-wikipedia sources on this term? My understanding is that the earliest written evidence of a anyone refering to themself as 'Aryan' in ethnicity is from the Behistun Inscription of Darius the Great who was Persian, and his successors. Whereas here, we have now changed the concept to distinctly "Indian". This entire content on Wikipedia, as well as the related articles, sounds like POV to me and needs revisiting and edited with actual non-wikipedia-derived sources. PenningtonClassical (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Persians are also from the same family, they are Indo-Iranians so I don't know what you're talking about, this does not refer simply to Indians (who are a nationality not an ethnicity) you're mistaking the two concepts. Anyway Iran should be included on the significant population section. Iran has over 50m Indo-Aryans living in Iran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.133.46 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion Theory was a myth!

The Aryan Invasion Theory was a myth spread by the britishers.New study have found it wrong.Reference: http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/ancient/aryan/aryan_frawley.html and http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. We've heard this nonsense a million times. Paul B (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not nonsense it's proved.

By who? David Frawley? A man with no qualifications who repeats the baloney of P. N. Oak. Anyway the "theory" was not created by the British at all. It was German scholars who had no ideoloiocal stake in the origins of Indo-European who proposed an ancient migration into the north of India. Please remember that such ancient migrations happened in all European countries too. Paul B (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I never said that british created the theory.Ya I know mirgation occurs but i wanted no say that Aryan Invasion Theory is wrong and no mirgation occured that time in India!60,000 years ago people from africa settled in South India and 25,000 years later people from europe came and settled in northern part of india.Initially the north and south population met creating a different set of people.In present day Indians are a mix of north and south.I think now this topic is clear.

No it is not. You are confusing the large-scale genetic history of Indian populations with the origins of Indo-Aryan culture. That is an issue of ethno-linguistics. Paul B (talk) 16:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

OK,I and the few newspapers can be wrong.But then what's the truth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 17:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

What has been 'disproved' is the notion that there was a mass invasion in the bronze age and that the upper classes/castes in India are all or mostly descended from these invaders. That's the kind of scenario described in novels such as The Venus of Konpara, but it was never the same thing as the notion of migrations of Indo-Iranian speakers from the hypothetical Proto-Indo-European homeland (or "urheimat"). It remains the dominant view that IE languages enered India during the bronze age, bringing with them proto-"Aryan" religious idea that evolved into Vedic culture. That may have involved a small number of people and been spread by cultural dissemination. See Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

“There is no genetic evidence that Indo-Aryans invaded or migrated to India or even something such as Aryans existed” said Dr Lalji Singh, former director of CCMB and regarding the language that Hindi is a IE language.Sanskrit is the mother of all european language so it's obvious that IE language entered India — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saturn HT (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course Aryans existed, if "Aryans" is taken to mean Indo-Iranians or Proto-Indo-Europeans. And no, Sanskrit is not the mother of all European languages. That's just Hindu nationalist ideology. Read the articles. Paul B (talk) 12:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, this article is totally biased when it comes to origins of the Indo-Aryan people. Such articles on Wikipedia are totally unacceptable. I agree that there are theories that claim Indo-Aryans migrated from Central Asia, but there are also theories that claim that Indo-Aryans originated in India and could have have migrated elsewhere from there. Even looking at the latest genetic research, there is clear indication that hapologroups R1a and R2 could have originated in South Asia. You need to do more detailed research before dismissing criticism. Wikipedia is not meant to profess your opinion or what you personally believe in. It is meant to report unbiased state-of-the-art knowledge. The Aryan migration theory is by all means an old theory that most people in the West prefer to stick to (for reasons of ease or other sinister reasons, I do not know). And the current state of things is that while there is a theory of Aryan migration into India there is also a theory of Aryan origin in India. The Origins section in this article needs to be modified to reflect this fact in clear terms. Regards. Apalaria (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is just yet another example of utter confusion in which you are merrily mixing up linguistic, cultural and genetic issues. You also seem to confuse the PIE urheimat with Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. This is typically of Indian nationalist attitudes. Why on earth is it so important to believe that a language group originated in your subcontinent? No-one else seems to mind where the P.I.E. population spread from. Paul B (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Utter confusion on my part?? It is you who is confusing the matter, sir. For the purposes of this article, I do not care where the language came from (even that can be debated though because the criterion on which Central Asia is believed to be the homeland is just a hypothesis and by no means fool-proof). This article is, however, not about the language. This article is about the Indo-Aryan people. All through ancient Hindu writings and texts, "Arya" is the title by which the people of Vedic period are addressed. You cannot present the Vedic people (aka Sanskrit/ Prakrit speaking group) as migrants from elsewhere when that is clearly not the universally accepted opinion - on the contrary, based on archaeological and genetic evidence, there is increasing debate and disbelief on this older hypothesis based primarily on linguistics. Talking of why I care - because I care for correct information and knowledge. It is the same reason for which anyone cares about any historical truth. If nobody cares, why does this article even exist? As I mentioned before, please correct the information presented herein. Apalaria (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC) To clarify the matter of language versus people, let me give you an example. English is a widely-spoken language in India today (and the second official language). Based on this evidence, do you think it would be appropriate for a historian 1000 years in the future to declare that the British migrated to India and became the present-day Indians? Widespread use of a language that is not indigenous (supposing that is the case) is not a proof of migration. Apalaria (talk) 13:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Boy oh boy. English is only spoken because the was a migration of English people to India, who became the ruling elite for a (short) period. That's exactly why English is spoken. No-one says that the Indo-Europeans "migrated to India and became the present day Indians". That's such an utter failure to undertand the issue that it shows you don't even begin to grasp what the argument is about. The whole point is that language only migrates if people do. They may be a small elite, or they may be a large population displacing earlier people. It depends on the circumstances. English is the language spoken in America, but the proportion of people who genetically originate from the English-speaking setters who established the language is quite small. The Indo-Aryan migration model is all about the advent of the language and the relation of the language to culture. Vedic culture emerged in "India" (though, of course "india" is itself a loose, and fundamentally artifical, concept like all national identities. Nature does not have borders). But it evolved from earlier Indo-Iranian and P.I.E. cultures. And of course the word "Arya" is at least as old in Iran as in the Indus valley. Just as all cultures evolve from earlier ones. The French language is basically Latin. The word "France" comes from the Franks, a Germnan tribe. Most of the population derived fron Celtic Gauls, who themselves probably originated outside of France. You don't find the French getting outraged by the idea that their culture emerges from a mix of influences. Paul B (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Because you mentioned, "But it evolved from earlier Indo-Iranian and P.I.E. cultures." - there is no proof of that. Two cultures can have similarities owing to their geographical proximity but stating that one culture evolved from another because they have similarities is taking a huge leap of faith. Other than that you very loosely state your personal opinions as fact in your replies (which is also what you have done with the "Origins" section of the article), you also digress from the main point here. Which peoples argue what and what not is beside the point. There is no outrage and I have no wish to change your personal views and opinions on the matter. Let us get back to the root issue here. Main point - according to state-of-the-art knowledge, the information in this article is misrepresented and incomplete. The issue is to correct that. So let us focus on getting the article corrected. Apalaria (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, I notice you mentioned "Indo-Aryan migration model is all about the advent of the language and the relation of the language to culture." Well-said. Indo-Aryan migration model is based primarily on linguistics and that is why it fails to explain archaeological and genetic evidence. You could perhaps use it to explain the origin of the Indo-Aryan language but not the Indo-Aryan people, because the term Indo-Aryans represents the people living in India during the Vedic period - they could have all been settlers from Central Asia, or they could have had a small number of settlers from Central Asia living among them or they could possibly have had no settlers from Central Asia among them at all (it is very much possible that EVEN if Indo-Aryan languages came from outside India, the languages could simply have been adopted - just like English has been adopted in so many countries around the world today) - we do not have conclusive evidence of either. So the point here is - you may be able to use the Indo-Aryan migration theory to conjecture on the origins of the Indo-Aryan languages, but you CANNOT use the Indo-Aryan migration theory alone to comment on the origins of the Indo-Aryan people. You need to correct that in this article. Apalaria (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2013 (UTC)