Talk:Indo-Aryan migration to Assam/Archive 1

Aryan migration in Assam

This is the second request for you to not resort to blanket reverts. You have acknowledged my first request by deleting it and yet reverted the edits. You are welcome to discuss the edits in the talk page. I have provided two references which claimed the Varman dynasty was Indo-Mongoloid. Chaterji (1974) and Urban (2011). Both are scholars of very good standing, and also modern. So your claim that modern scholars consider the Varman dynasty as Aryan is not true. Some modern scholars do, but not all. So, please stop making false claims. Chaipau (talk) 14:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your request means nothing as you resorted to dozens of blank reverts and edit wars in recent times. As you accepted that old sources accepted them as Aryan, so Chattopadhya was useless here. Regarding Urban, he is an foreign author and his blunt statement is not according to local and rest of country sources except Bengal maybe. I have given most noteworthy sources like KAS and other modern Indian authors.

There are hardly any indications that they are not Aryans but many supporting their Aryan blood. Its not only about Yuan Chwang but whole events surrounding them. Official matrimonial relations with other countries of Aryavarta are one of them. You may know that its a taboo to have intercaste or interracial marriages in India officially. Treatment of Bhaskar Varman by Harshavardhana which is most unlikely for an Mlechcha in caste centric societies of country. Reference of Arya culture in inscriptions of kings. Holding an Kshatriya surname by Varmans and Palas unlike most of Mlechcha dynasty. Rulers of Mlechcha line officially refers themselves as "Mlechchas" which confirms their non aryan origin etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said earlier, please take it to WP:RSN. I don't think they will take kindly to your assertion that Urban should be discounted because he is an "foreign" author. Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Indo-Aryan migrations to Assam

I have moved the article to "Indo-Aryan migration to Assam". The reasons are as follows:

The use of Aryan as an ethnic group is dated (Aryan#Dated_usage)
The Aryan word is generally used by Hindu nationalists and White supremacists (Aryan#Contemporary_usage)
Indo-Aryan is now accepted as an ethnolinguistic category (Indo-Aryan)
Works like Taher 2001 and most works on peopling of Assam talk of the Indo-Aryan linguistic group.
- "From about the fifth century before Christ, there started a trickle of migration of the people speaking Indo-Aryan language from the Gangetic plain." (Taher 2011, p. 12)

Chaipau (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. It seems adequately demonstrated that Indo-Aryan is the more accepted term and consistent with other Wikipedia articles on related topics. -- tariqabjotu 01:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan migration to Assam → Indo-Aryan migration to Assam –

The use of Aryan as an ethnic group is dated (Aryan#Dated_usage)
The Aryan word is generally used by Hindu nationalists and White supremacists (Aryan#Contemporary_usage)
Indo-Aryan is now accepted as an ethnolinguistic category (Indo-Aryan)
Works like Taher 2001 and most works on peopling of Assam talk of the Indo-Aryan linguistic group.
- "From about the fifth century before Christ, there started a trickle of migration of the people speaking Indo-Aryan language from the Gangetic plain." (Taher 2011, p. 12) Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Chaipau (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Here we are discussing movement of people from Aryavarta to Kamarupa. Indo Aryan is name of language family while Arya or Aryan an ethnic group. Scholars refers ethnic group as Aryan while in linguistic terms as Indo Aryan speakers. Austroloid tribal groups like Bhils are also Indo Aryan speaking people which is not subject of discussion here. Supremist subject is well established myths which should not be a concern. Hinduism is integral part of Aryan culture. Its an English article, so word Aryan is used instead of Arya. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Aryan" as a group is no longer used. Even the migration into "Aryavarta" is titled Indo-Aryan migration theories. Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support While some sources may not use the "Indo-Aryan" form, we do (see Indo-Aryan peoples, where "Aryan" in the article's lede links), and that's important. It's telling that our article Aryan is about the term, not an ethnic group. WP:AT says articles should be titled consistently with similar articles. In this case, the article about the migration of Indo-Aryan peoples to Assam should indeed be titled as Chaipau requests. A discussion about what we call the ethnic group in question should take place at Talk:Indo-Aryan peoples, not here. --BDD (talk) 02:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. This is about the gradual inflow of Indo-Aryan peoples to a geographical region which lasted several centuries, not about a migration of a single tribe. "Arya" has never been an ethnonym anyway. kashmiri ^TALK 10:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Aryan is used for Arya people as an ethnic group by scholars. Aryas are not more than chariot driving nomads speaking an indo european language during their migration to Aryavarta. Its not known whether they had any name that point. So linguistic group name for migration to Aryavarta is fine. But in vedic period, they adopted the title Arya, so what is the name here in this historical article. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A part of the Encyclopedia Britannica's entry on Aryan reads: "However, since the late 20th century, a growing number of scholars have rejected both the Aryan invasion hypothesis and the use of the term Aryan as a racial designation, suggesting that the Sanskrit term arya (“noble” or “distinguished”), the linguistic root of the word, was actually a social rather than an ethnic epithet. Rather, the term is used strictly in a linguistic sense, in recognition of the influence that the language of the ancient northern migrants had on the development of the Indo-European languages of South Asia. In the 19th century the term was used as a synonym for “Indo-European” and also, more restrictively, to refer to the Indo-Iranian languages. It is now used in linguistics only in the sense of the term Indo-Aryan languages, a branch of the larger Indo-European language family." Chaipau (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan in Britannica. Chaipau (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember Brittannica is identical editable encyclopedia like Wikipedia. Though they are right in that Aryan was never a race but Caucasoid and other three. Its designation meaning noble, so used by Kamarupa scholars. It is not possible that Arya people has no self designation before application of Indo Aryan speakers few centuries ago. Hindu scriptures are flooded with word Arya. Kings are often referred as Aryaputra meaning son of Aryan. So Aryan is self designation before anything else. I will providesources for usage of word Aryan by scholars in regard to Kamarupa. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak

You should probably insert the comments you have made above in the Britannica article. In anycase, you have provided no reference in this discussion. Chaipau (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Bhaskarbhagawati: Encyclopaedia Britannica can only be edited by the public to a limited degree, and the article in question has been authored exclusively by EB staff editors according to the notice there. Discrediting all sources that don't comply with your POV does not make you look neutral and objective. kashmiri ^TALK 10:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here are few sources:

(i)The Kāmarūpa School of Dharmaśāstra,Page 3,N.R. Sharma,1994, the discovery of the copper plate-inscriptions issued by different kings of ancient Assam (Kamarupa) at different times brings to light the Aryan colour of the cultural heritage of Assam.

(ii)Ascetic Mysticism - Page 218,Sadhu Santideva,2002,To win over their allegiance and support and to facilitate the propagation of Aryan ideas and customs, royal patronage was extended to this local cult of Kamakhya. The Mother Goddess in Kamarupa could very easily be brought into alignment

(iii)History and archaeology: Prof. H.D. Sankalia felicitation volume,Page 63,Hasmukhlal Dhirajlal Sankalia, Bhaskar Chatterjee, Rabin Dev Choudhury - 1989, The ancient culture of Kamarupa was mostly influenced by the Aryan culture of Vedeha.

(iv)The History of Civilisation of the People of Assam to the Twelfth ... - Page 185,Pratap Chandra Choudhury,1966, Kamarupa during the 7th century A.D. became a centre of Aryan culture

(v)Indian Civilization And Culture - Page 429,Suhas Chatterjee, 1998, That Assam came under the influence of Aryans during the epic period of Indian history is a proved one. There are frequent references of Kamrupa and Pragjyotisa (Assam) in both the epics and also in the Puranas. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Though some authors still stick to an early 20th century usage, that does not mean this article should not follow the rest of Wikipedia and follow the current convention (e.g Indo-Aryan migration theories). Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we not believe that Wikipedia need to keep improving. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Importantly links provided by you are migration before movement from Aryavarta hypothetically based on linguistic grounds. We are discussing about ethnic group from Aryavarta here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look for Vedic Sanskrit language article which shows ethnicity as Arya. This language developed in Aryavarta. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both your claims are controversial. The root of "Arya" means "noble"---so it indicates a social class rather than an ethnic group. Second, Vedic Sanskrit developed in close proximity to the Avestan people, who were nowhere near the gangetic plain from where most of the Indo-Aryans came to Assam. Chaipau (talk) 04:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Arya means noble that does mean that it is not a self designation. Caste groups are social classes in India. Vedic i.e next phase of Adi Sanskrit developed during Vedic Civilisation of Aryavarta or North India. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created an article on ancient Arya tribe, which is subject matter here, and linked the lede with same. I am proposing Arya or Indo Aryans peoples titles, later one due to ambiguity of term Indo Aryan. But what is important is that this article deals with movement of ancient people, not modern Indian people. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 13:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your creation of the article (Arya_(ancient_Indian_people)) might fall under WP:CFORK of Indo-Aryan peoples or WP:POVFORK of Aryan. These articles have converged to a point where the use of Aryan as an ethnic group becomes impossible on Wikipedia, which you are trying to insert in this article. Chaipau (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bottomline is that, this article going towards an name, which is based on some Wiki articles, not sources, though there is not much difference between Aryan people and with Indo prefix, still scholars generally prefer Aryan word in historical context. Its not a big issue if Indo prefix is used here, i personally have no problem in it, but its inappropiate for an historical article. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your move towards the consensus on Wikipedia is commendable. But your assertion that "Aryan" is an ethnic group is not supported by evidence. Here is a quote from S Chattopadhayaya (1990) "A Comprehensive History of Assam" Vol I (ed H K Barpujari) p197: "whatever the situation might have been, the Aryan culture was carried there (Assam) either by the Alpines or later by the Brahmans who had already been mixed up with other racial elements when they migrated to Assam". Here Chattopadhayaya uses the term Aryan, but at the same time he claims that the people who carried the culture were not Aryan, but were mixed. So you should not confuse the ingress of "Aryan" (he means Vedic) culture with the ingress of Aryan ethic groups. This belief, that the races were mixed, is borne out by recent genetic studies, which holds that the Ancestral North Indians have mixed with with the Ancestral South Indians (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/abs/nature08365.html). So the case is strong that the people who came into Assam were not Aryans but that they were a mixed race. Chaipau (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assam government and local usage - http://www.assamgovt.nic.in/culture.asp , http://janasanyogassam.nic.in/people.html , http://www.assam.org/pages/assamese-people-and-their-culture , http://www.assamportal.com/p/assamese-people-and-their-culture.html भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to pass off tourist pamphlets and brochures as critical scholarship? Chaipau (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have given sources from Kamarupa scholars and links for Assam official government websites. Any migration not based on linguistic grounds, should not use ethno linguistic terms like Indo Aryans, which exactly the case here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Incoming peoples nearly certainly spoke a different language than the indigenous population, do you need evidence to this? 2. Government websites are a reliable source on government policy but not on history or science; to give an example, articles on the history of Jammu and Kashmir hopefully are not sourced to Indian or Pakistani government websites if you know what I mean. kashmiri ^TALK 19:57, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above, for scholars voices as well. Government websites are also considered as reliable sources along with newspapers. For incoming people, WP:VOTE भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 20:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WP:VOTE. I have provided evidence to show that the people who entered Assam were already mixed. That the original Indo-Aryan speakers mixed with Dravidian speakers (at least) in the Gangetic plane is widely accepted, on linguistic as well as genetic grounds. But BB is not discussing that. All he is doing is reproducing all his google search results here. That he is trying to go against the Wikipedia convention is yet another issue. Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about origin's of caste sytem. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 21:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bhaskarbhagawati, please take time to read WP:RS and espeically WP:SECONDARY again. As to the origins of the caste system, I don't have sources in front of me but I recall castes (jati) were formalised and "frozen" around 12-13th century when Muslim invasion triggered the preservation and formalisation of the traditional Hindu social structures. As to the four classes (varna), they referred more to social classes, with the ethnicity element less prominent (even though varna originally means "colour"). But without sources I am unable to say what the official theory is these days. kashmiri ^TALK 21:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have already given given a link to the Nature article which gives evidence of an admixture of Ancestral North India ("Aryan")and the Ancestral South Indian (Dravidian).
Erdosy writes that the emergence of the retroflex etc. in later Sanskrit was due to native Dradividian speakers taking to Indo-Aryan languages; and that the debate today was not whether it happened, but when (Erdosy 1995, p18) Look at the foot note too --- whereas the Satapatha Brahmana claims that they entered a region un-inhabited, recent archaeological evidence suggests the Gangetic plain was inhabited before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans.
As far as the caste system is concerned---it, in fact, facilitated absorption of outsiders. Erdosy again (p19): "Hierarchically organised ethnic groups, on the other hand, are capable of absorbing a large number of aliens through a system of clientage which implies no dishonor to those entering the fold." We have a direct evidence of this happening in Assam itself---in the 16th century when Biswa Singha, the son of a Mech and Koch, became a king, he sought out Brahmins (Kalitas were their previous priests) who announced that Biswa Singha had a divine origin (he was the son of Shiva) and his clansmen were kshatriyas. The Koch jati continues to be the entry point of neo-converts in Assam.

The conclusion is clear. And Chattopadhyaya, quoted above ([1]), is right when he claims that the Indo-Aryans, who came to Assam were already a mixed kind, and not "Aryans".

Chaipau (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As i said it is caste system, which purposely created to stop admixture. I do not know any Dravidian group speaking Aryan languages. Hinduised Indo Mongoloid Koches are bad example. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 05:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it is now your word against Erdosy 1995.
You surely must have heard of Adi Shankara, a Brahmin from the 8th century. He called himself a Dravida shishu ([2])
Why are Koches bad examples? They show movement all over in the class hierarchy.

Chaipau (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.