Talk:Indigenous Aryanism

'No Support in mainstream scholarship'

Moved from User talk:Sagar0311

 – Of common interest, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan What was not constructive? A sentence was just removed which was a very generalized statement without credible citation. A PDF file which is provided cannot define mainstream scholarship related to History. The paper clearly mentions at the beginning 'This paper presents the respondent's general comments'. The topic is about India and there are conflicting views in India about this. There are Historians in India with a lot of followers who are against Aryan migration theory who say that it fails to produce considerable historical evidence about the authenticity of these migrations and the article's topic is exactly about this contradictory view point. So the sentence which reflects the general comment which is in stark contrast to a historical view point was removed by not editing the rest of the paragraph which has proper citations. Sagar0311 (talk) 12:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

You're probably deliberately ignorant; the note cites six sources. That scholars in India - only India - deviate from mainstream scholarship on this topic tells a lot about the academic quality of those scholars. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan The first time when the sentence was removed it was only citing one James Mallory paper, these sources are tagged later to the note when the edit was reversed. Anyways, majority scholars in the sources are only presenting one side of this topic, as l mentioned earlier there are scholars from the other side with lot of followers in this country specially in recent times who produce contradictory views to Aryan migration theory which is not substantiated. This topic is related to the civilizational identity of the people of this country and is sensitive. Dismissing the other side and calling only one side of scholars as mainstream seems biased considering Wikipedia's neutral policy, that's why I edited and removed the sentence. Just for my clarity, you are an administrative editor, right Sagar0311 (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Nope. The note already had six references. But let's have a closer look: have you got some sources which argue for the indigenous theory? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan When I checked, it just had one, which I mentioned, that was the main reason to edit. Anyways following are the sources

• 1. Dr. Vasant Shinde

• 1A. Vasant Shinde (2019), press note
• 1B. Deccan Herald, New DNA study challenges Aryan Invasion Theory
• 1C. scroll.in, Do Rakhigarhi DNA findings debunk the Aryan invasion theory or give it more credence?

• 2. Michel Danino, member of the Indian Council of Historical Research, Government of India

• 2A. This research papers of Michel Danino presents nine major studies and reports and also provides references & notes: Michel Danino, Genetics and the Aryan Debate, Archeology online
• 2B. Michel Danino, The Aryan Invasion. Myth or Fact, Archaeological Science Centre

• 3. The following article has plenty of evidence including links to various research papers, studies, articles, ancient texts, images and at the end list of references. It also includes the study of Jadunath Sarkar: A.L. Chavda (2017), Aryan Invasion Myth: How 21st century Science debunks 19th century indology, indiafacts.org
• 4. Jadunath Sarkar
• 5. B. B. Lal. His following Interview

• 5A. Part 1. newsgram, No evidence for warfare or invasion; Aryan migration too is a myth
• 5B. Part 2. newsgarm, Vedic and Harappan are respectively literary and material facets of the same civilization

• 6. Nicholas Kazanas

• 6A. Padma Shree award winner, Government of India
• 6B. Link 1 newsgram, Vedic Sanskrit older than Avesta, Baudhayana mentions westward migrations from India: Dr N Kazanas
• 6C. Link 2 Jayasree Saranathan, blogspot.com: The collapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory: Nicholas Kazanas (Feb. 2011)

• 7. Shrikant G. Talageri

• 7A. goodreads.com, Bio + publications
• 7B. Interview: newsgram, Purus are original inhabitants of core Rigvedic area, Bharata sub-tribe the original Vedic Aryans: Talageri

• 8. Swaraj Prakash Gupta, Archeologist. The Indian archaeologist S.P. Gupta proposed this cultural sequencing, accordingly there is no break in the cultural development from 8000 BCE onwards, no indication of a major change, as an invasion from outside would certainly be.
• 9. Klaus Klostermaier (1998), Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory and Revising Ancient Indian History, iskcon
• 10. Sita Ram Goel

• 10A. Refusal of Aryan Migration Theory: Nightmare of Nehruism – Sita Ram Goel, Voice of India

• 11. R.C. Majumdar (1959), ṚGVEDIC CIVILIZATION IN ṬHE LIGHT OF ARCHÆOLOGY, Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Vol. 40, No. 1/4 (1959)
• 12. N. S. Rajaram, critical of Aryan Migration Theory
• 13. Stephem Knapp (2012), The Aryan Invasion Theory: The Final Nail in its Coffin, The Vedic Friends Association
• 14. Archeologist Disha Ahluwalia refutes Aryan Migration Theory: The Ranveer Show, Indian Archaeologist Shares Vedic Truths & Breaks Aryan Theory, Disha Ahluwalia, The Ranveer Show 275
• 15. Indian Council of Historical Research, Government of India.

• 15A. ICHR has organised a conference questioning Aryan Migration Theory (2018): National Conference on Indian History Emerging Perspectives
• 15B. Indian Express (2018), ICHR hosts conference aimed at correcting distortions in history

• 16. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar who headed the committee drafting the Constitution in his campaign in support of the nation's dalit community noticed the racial overtones underlying the theory and described the British espousal of the Aryan Invasion theory in the following words:

"The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representation of the original Aryan race. The theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point."

• 17. Archaeology online, The Aryan Invasion: theories, counter-theories and historical significance
• 18. A lot of old scholars including Swami Vivekanand dismissed Aryan Migration: newsgram (2024), Beyond the Textbooks: The Truth of India’s Ancient Roots
• 19. Dr. MADAN LAL GOEL, MYTH OF ARYAN INVASIONS OF INDIA—IN BRIEF, University of West Florida

There are plenty of more sources, but the point is that historians are from both the sides. Aryan Migration or Invasion is a theory and it's not accepted completely and also rejected by many. In that article only calling one side as mainstream is not neutral. If you still want to keep the sentence and not remove it completely it can go like following

" It has no relevance and is not supported by some scholars and historians"

Similarly the title "Rejection by mainstream scholarship" in the article can be changed to

"Rejection by scholars and historians"

I just wanted to know as I asked you last time you are from the Wikipedia admin team or editors, right Sagar0311 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

End of copied part

• ad 1. Vasant Shinde made a fool of himself. He was the main author of the 2019 Cell-publication on the Rakhigarhi-DNA, which explicitly confirmed the the Indo-Aryan migrations; the day after the publication, at a press-conference, he publicly rejected their findings, and spoke out in defense of the Out of India 'theory'. The Deccan Herald mindlessly copied his statements. Scrol.in paid more attention: "On Wednesday, an Economic Times report put out a preview of those results based on comments by one of the authors, but drew conclusions that left experts scratching their heads, because they seemed to contradict the findings mentioned in the report."
• ad 2. Michel Danino has less tha zero credibility with regard to Indian history; his writings are rambling, without relevance in academic discussions.
• ad 3. Chavda is the perennial non-expert; often referred to by editors in support of Indigenous Aryanism, but zero academic credibility.
• ad 4. Jadunath Sarkar died in 1958; in which publication, still relevant today, did het voice support for Indigenous Aryanism?
• ad 5. B. B. Lal: his archaeological work from the 1950s was outstanding, but his views on Indigenous Aryanism are completely irrelevant for contemporary academic scholarship.
• ad 6. Nicholas Kazanas (Deutsche Wikipedia - was his English page deleted? "Seit den 1990ern vertritt Kazanas die Indian Urheimat theory,[1] eine Minderheits-These, die heute neben Wissenschaftlern wie Kazanas und Michel Danino stark von hindunationalistischen Kreisen wie beispielsweise der BJP vertreten wird.[7]" But yes, he had a publication in the Journal of Indo-European Studies (founded by James Mallory, the one with the PDF you thought to be irrelevant): "Seine Position wurde mehrheitlich kritisiert, u. a. von Michael Witzel, Richard Meadow, Martin Huld, Edwin Bryant, D. P. Agrawal, Asko Parpola, Stefan Zimmer, J. P. Mallory und Elena Kuzmina.[9]"
• ad 7. Shrikant G. Talageri, redirects to Indigenous Aryanism. "Analysing the works of Sethna, Bhagwan Singh, Navaratna and Talageri, he notes that they mostly quote English literature, which is not fully explored, and omitting German and French Indology. It makes their works in various degrees underinformed, resulting in a critique that is "largely neglected by Western scholars because it is regarded as incompetent".[165]"
• ad 8. Swaraj Prakash Gupta. The Indus-Sarasvati Civilization: Beginnings and Development (1999) was a smash-hit: seven cites.
• ad 9. Klaus Klostermaier, an afrticle from 1998, published at the iskcon-site. Says it all, doesn't it? Klostermaier is noted for his support for Indigenous Aryanism; it makes his works less reliable.
• ad. 10. Sita Ram Goel, died 2003. "His work has been both celebrated and criticised for its bias towards Hindu nationalism and its controversial portrayal of other religions, particularly Islam and Christianity.[1][2] In his later career, Goel transitioned into a role as a commentator on Indian politics, aligning himself openly with Hindu nationalism." Voice of India cites from a 1982-publication.
• ad 11. R.C. Majumdar, article from 1959.
• ad 12. N. S. Rajaram. ".He is notable for propounding the "Indigenous Aryans" hypothesis, asserting that the Vedic period was extremely advanced from a scientific view-point, and claiming of having deciphered the Indus script.[1] Academics find his scholarship to be composed of dishonest polemics in service of a communal agenda.[2][3][4][5]"
• ad 13. Stephen Knapp (2012), The Vedic Friends Association.
• ad 14. Disha Ahluwalia - who? The Ranveer Show?
• ad 15. "Research papers ranging from those claiming that information on Netaji’s disappearance was suppressed by the British and Indian governments to ones questioning the Aryan invasion theory will be presented at the conference, that began on Monday."
• ad 16. B. R. Ambedkar, died in 1956, not an historian, archaeologist or linguist.
• ad 17. Archaeology online...
• ad 18. " I wish to reiterate that the successive findings from genetic researchers in the late 20th century dealt a significant blow to the 'Aryan Invasion Theory'" - the author missed-out on Narsimhan et al. (2019)?
• ad 19. Madan Lal Goel - who?

I appreciate the time and effort you put in compiling this list, but they neatly underscore the corretcness of the statement " It has no relevance, let alone support, in mainstream scholarship." There are only three authors with publications in relevant journals or with relevant books: Shinde, Lal, Kazanas, and Klostermaier. Shinde rejected his own research; Lal's views on Indigenous Aryanism are academically irrelevant; Kazanas' publication was a one-time slip of academical standards; and Klostermaier's views on Indigenous Aryanism, despite his Survey of Hnduism, are academically rejected as well. The rest is academically irrelevant. It only supports the preceding line, "Support for the IAT mostly exists among a subset of Indian scholars of Hindu religion and the history and archaeology of India,[10][11][12][13][5] and plays a significant role in Hindutva politics.[14][15][3][web 1][web 2]." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan The reply was much anticipated. There is no point in going ahead; the narrative is already set. Whatever may come along the way, somehow to prove it wrong, reality doesn't matter, and neutrality doesn't matter. It has already been decided by a group that considers itself the final authority on who should be called scholars and historians and who should not, irrespective of neutrality. Many of the scholars and historians I mentioned in my previous reply are regarded as highly esteemed individuals. I could do the same with the entire list of so-called scholars and historians mentioned in that note. There is a large segment that questions the credibility of these so-called scholars and historians, but that doesn't matter. What matters is the narrative that must be served, let alone the truth and reality. Sagar0311 (talk) 06:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia summarizes scholarly research; if you don't like scientific methodology, well, not fine, but Indigenous Aryanism stands where it stands: a religious-political ideology (narrative), thinly disguised as science. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Well, in this case, it doesn't seem like it. The definition of scholars is questionable, and I don't see any scientific methodology. There is no such thing as 'Indigenous Aryanism'; there's only the Aryan Migration Theory, which is a narrative constructed by a few far-left, politically motivated scholars labeled as mainstream. However, regardless of ideology, Wikipedia recognizes them as scholars, historians, archaeologists, or writers. This applies to both sides, which is why I suggested removing the word 'mainstream.' If someone claims that migration occurred thousands of years ago, it’s their responsibility to prove it. The Aryan Migration Theory lacks substantial evidence to be accepted as reality. Sagar0311 (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sagar0311, one of the sources in your list actually largely supports the migration theory . Also, I don't think we should give much weight to the sources that were published before the DNA studies were conducted. Alaexis_¿question? 09:06, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alaexis Which one?

DNA study is a joke. Sagar0311 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

And even if it is considered, both sides are producing contradictory reports. Sagar0311 (talk) 11:37, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

I've linked it, the article says Except, as more than a few have pointed out, this conclusion actually seems to lend credence to the Aryan invasion, or migration, theory. Alaexis_¿question? 11:48, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

DNA study is a joke - sure, if you don't like the outcomes. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:12, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Needs to be better identified as fringe

As per WP:FRINGE, any fringe view must be clearly identified as such. Indigenous Aryanism is obviously a fringe theory that mainstream scholarship unanimously rejects but currently, there is only one short sentence at the very end of the introduction making this rejection clear. I propose clearly identifying in the first paragraph of the introduction both that this is a fringe theory and why it is universally rejected by experts. Jeppiz (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Structure, neutrality, and due weight

I think this article would benefit from a review of its structure and neutrality. At present, the article often presents an Indigenous Aryanism claim and immediately follows it with refutation, which can make the article read more like a rebuttal than an encyclopedic description of the subject. I am not suggesting that criticism or mainstream scholarly rejection should be removed. Rather, the article may be clearer if it first summarizes the main variants and arguments of Indigenous Aryanism, then presents linguistic, archaeological, genetic, textual, and historical criticisms in separate sections.

It may also be worth consolidating political material, such as Hindutva/BJP reception, into a dedicated section so that political context is treated with due weight without framing every substantive claim. Some potentially relevant omissions or underdeveloped areas include Ambedkar’s views, Swami Vivekananda’s views, archaeological continuity arguments, limits and interpretation of genetic evidence, Vedic dating arguments, and the distinction between older “Aryan invasion” models and the current migration model.

Tharik^Rish 16:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

"Language dispersal models and chronology"

Intro

@Tharikrish: regarding your lengthy addition diff, reinserted diff, first edit-summary diff and rationale A sub-section initiated on recent studies on language dispersion models, as it could provide a basis for discussing Indigenous Aryanism.:

• you added a large amount of text which focuses on the origins of the Indo-European languages, not Indigenous Aryanism; that alone yet makes it undue;
• the three 'models' that you mention ("farmer-dispersal, steppe-pastoralist, and hybrid models") do not represent "recent research":

• (Diamond (2003) is 23 years old; that's prehistory in this field;
• Nakagawa, Yoichiro (2022), "The Emergence of Proto-Indo-Europeans as Nomadic Pastoralists", The Journal of Economics. 63 (3–4), does not argue for a 'farmer-dispersal model': "These hunter- gatherers’ sedentary agro- pastoral culture is called Sredny Stog culture（ca. 4500-3400 BCE） , the bearers of the Sredny Stog culture were hunter- gatherers presumably speaking a different language from the farmers who came from Anatolia. Sredny Stog people are considered to be the predecessors of Proto-Indo-Europeans." While accurate, it is published in a journal which is irrelevant in this field, namely the "The Journal of Economics", and isn't referenced by any other publication;
• Heggarty et al. (2023) hasn't even been included (accepted) at the Indo-European migrations-page, so it even less deserves a place here.

• your text has an undue emphasis on the Anatolian hypothesis, which can hardly be called recent, nor relevant anymore; most recent research points to some sort of adapted, two-tier Armenian-Steppe model. It's essence maybe is summarized by this line of you: "Diamond and Bellwood describe the Anatolian farming hypothesis as proposing that Proto-Indo-European, or Proto-Indo-Hittite, was spoken by Neolithic Anatolian farmers who carried Fertile Crescent domesticates west into Europe, east to the Indus Valley, and across the Central Asian steppes beginning around 7000-6000 BCE." Yet, that's an idea that's not taken serious anymore in mainstream scholarship, nor does it reflect the ideas floated in Indigenous Aryanism; so, no, it does not "provide a basis for discussing Indigenous Aryanism";
• You make reference to the Harappan chronology, but do not provide the "discussion" with regard to the relation between the Anatolian hypothesis, the IVC, and Indigenous Aryanism - which is not surprising, because the Anatolian doesn't provide such a basis.

All in all, your text is WP:UNDUE and unclear, and shouldn't be added again. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:12, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan The subsection is relevant to “Indo-Aryan migration theory” because Indigenous Aryanism is discussed in relation to competing models of Indo-Aryan origins. The existing section already treats migration, cultural continuity, and adaptation, so language-dispersal models help clarify the framework in which the article evaluates Indigenous Aryanism.

- The material is not automatically undue merely because it discusses Indo-European origins. Indo-Aryan migration theory necessarily depends on broader Indo-European dispersal models. The subsection was placed within the existing migration-theory section, not as a standalone PIE homeland discussion.

- The word “recent” is not essential. The point is to summarize relevant published models, not to argue novelty. The cited literature spans older foundational work and newer studies, so the wording can be adjusted without removing the substance.

- Nakagawa was cited for the steppe-pastoralist model, not for a farmer-dispersal model. The draft explicitly says Nakagawa “presents the steppe hypothesis as the predominant pastoralist model.” If you question that source, the issue should be source quality, not where it was published.

- Heggarty et al. should not be excluded merely because another article has not included it. It is a major peer-reviewed study using a large Indo-European dataset and Bayesian phylogenetic methods to test competing hypotheses. It can be described as a major but debated study, not as settled consensus or fringe material.

- The subsection does not give sole emphasis to the Anatolian hypothesis. It presents farmer-dispersal, steppe-pastoralist, and hybrid models together. A balanced summary can note mainstream preference while still representing significant competing models.

- Harappan chronology is a relevant reference frame because Indigenous Aryanism turns partly on how linguistic, archaeological, and migration chronologies are related. The article already discusses cultural continuity and migration in relation to the Indus/Harappan context.

I am open to improving wording and proportionality, but I do not think the topic should be excluded altogether; a carefully sourced subsection on language-dispersal models is relevant to the article’s existing Indo-Aryan migration theory section. Tharik^Rish 20:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposal #1

Language dispersal models and Harappan chronology

In Indo-European studies, different homeland and dispersal models affect how the Indo-Aryan migration debate is framed. Steppe-pastoralist models generally place the spread of Indo-Aryan languages into South Asia in the late third or second millennium BCE, around the Late Harappan horizon. Other published models propose different chronologies and mechanisms. Farmer-dispersal models, including Yang et al. (2024), infer a Fertile Crescent or Anatolian-related dispersal centre and describe eastward expansion toward the Indian peninsula, though without giving a specific date for Indo-Aryan entry into India. Heggarty et al. (2023), using Bayesian phylogenetic analysis, propose a hybrid model in which Indo-European originated south of the Caucasus, with a later branch moving northward onto the steppe; within that model, the Indic branch is estimated at c. 2420 BCE. Mallory’s recent review discusses Anatolian, Caucasus/hybrid, and steppe models as part of the current debate, while ultimately favouring the Pontic-Caspian steppe as the strongest overall explanation. In the context of Indigenous Aryanism, these competing chronologies and subsistence models are relevant because they are often compared with Early, Mature, and Late Harappan phases when assessing claims about linguistic transmission, migration, and cultural continuity.

References

Tharik^Rish 00:12, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

WP:OR:

• In Indo-European studies, different homeland and dispersal models affect how the Indo-Aryan migration debate is framed. - there is no "Indo-Aryan migration debate" in Indo-European studies; it's a fringe-theory only 'supported' in India; and there's no reference for this statement;
• In the context of Indigenous Aryanism, these competing chronologies and subsistence models are relevant because they are often compared with Early, Mature, and Late Harappan phases - Indigenists only care about the 'classic' theory, not the Anatolian hypothesis and it's off-shoots; and this statement is unreferenced too.

As said before: an WP:UNDUE exposé on the outdated Anatolian hypothesis; and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:08, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Proposal #2

The text has been revised to address concerns regarding WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and attribution. This updated paragraph does not present alternative dispersal frameworks as proving Indigenous Aryanism. Instead, it introduces contemporary peer-reviewed timelines (Yang et al., 2024; Heggarty et al., 2023) purely as the chronological comparators used to analyze the linguistic-chronology constraints that Bryant (2001) identifies as central to the topic. Anchored to J.P. Mallory's 2025 field review, it presents the modern mainstream parameters neutrally and concisely:

Bryant notes that the indigenist position faces a major chronological constraint, as it requires placing multiple Indo-European and Indo-Iranian linguistic stages within or prior to the Harappan cultural sequence. The prevailing Steppe pastoralist consensus places the entry of Indo-Aryan languages into the Indian subcontinent relatively late, during the Late Harappan horizon (c. 2000–1500 BCE). However, contemporary quantitative linguistic research also evaluates alternative, non-steppe timelines. Modern language velocity field estimations, such as Yang et al. (2024), model an eastward linguistic expansion originating from a Fertile Crescent center, though without establishing a specific arrival date for the Indian subcontinent. Similarly, the Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of Heggarty et al. (2023) posits a hybrid framework originating south of the Caucasus, which calculates the subsequent divergence of the Indic branch to c. 2420 BCE. In modern field reviews, such as Mallory (2025), these varying computational and multi-tier timelines define the contemporary linguistic parameters regarding when the Indic branch emerged relative to Bronze Age horizons.

References

Tharik^Rish 18:11, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan (talk · contribs), your comments are welcome.

Tharik^Rish 17:58, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• Pagenumbers?
• Bryant - why Bryant?
• Steppe-theory timeline: already mentioned in the article;
• "However [...] c. 2420 BCE" - still undue. Yang et al.: "Indo-European [has] been suggested to be associated with the developments and spreads of ancient agricultural or Neolithic cultures" - the mainstream definitely is not that Indo-European spread with farming.

Summarized: Indo-European did not originate within India, but came there after the IVC - which the article already clearly explains. Still undue; consider the possibility that Yang is irrelevant. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:16, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan

- Page numbers can be added from the print editions. Bryant is relevant because he directly discusses the Indigenous Aryan position and its chronological problem. In Chapter 11 he describes a “massive chronological obstacle” for Indigenous Aryanism; in Chapter 12 he makes the dating of the Veda central to the argument. Mallory is relevant because his Chapter 16 reviews Indo-Iranian chronology and notes that “the division between Indo-Aryan and Iranian tends to fall c. 2500 BCE.”

- Bryant directly interfaces with the article topic: he addresses how Indigenous Aryan arguments attempt to correlate linguistic stages with the archaeological sequence.

- The steppe timeline is retained only as the mainstream baseline. It helps readers understand why other timelines are being mentioned as comparators, not as alternative conclusions endorsed by the article.

- Heggarty et al. (2023) is relevant because it is not simply a revival of the old Anatolian farming model; it represents a recent quantitative hybrid model involving a south-of-Caucasus origin followed by movement onto the steppe. Yang et al. (2024) is a recent quantitative dispersal study the put significant constraints on the arrival of the Indic branch.

Tharik^Rish 23:07, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

Your point is that the Indo-European languages may have been present in India during Harappan times, according to these models. Yet, Yang nor Haggerty discuss Indigenism, do they? Nor do Indigenists show any interest in the Anatolian hypothesis, do they? Which author or publications has elaborated on the historical consequences of such a possibility? Bryant mentions the Anatolian hypothesis, and notes that it has been thoroughly crticized, and rejected. Indigenists see the Vedic culture as an entirely indigenous development, and won't accept this possibility either. It's a purely hypothetical proposal, not supported by historical and linguistic facts, hence WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:35, 9 July 2026 (UTC)