Talk:Indo-Aryan migrations

"Small groups"

@Willielee12: let's see:

• diff, edit-summary Added extra context about the various perspectives among scientists and historians about the scale of the indo-aryan migrations into the indian subcontinent. changed (ignoring note)

According to Witzel, the spread of Indo-European languages and culture into Northern India could have been driven by small groups.{{sfn|Witzel|2005|pp=342–343}} [omit note] Their culture and language spread by the same mechanisms of acculturalisation, and the absorption of other groups into their patron-client system.{{sfn|Anthony|2007}}

into (bold was added/edited)

According to Witzel, the spread of Indo-European languages and culture into Northern India could have been driven by small groups.{{sfn|Witzel|2005|pp=342–343}} [omit note] This based on his belief that the spread Indo-European culture and language was due to a mechanisms of acculturalisation, and the absorption of other groups into their patron-client system. However, scientists and scholars differ on the size or scale of these migrations; According to Moorjani et al. "ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI".<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Moorjani |first=Priya [et al.] |date=2013-09 |title=Genetic Evidence for Recent Population Mixture in India |url=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0002929713003248 |journal=The American Journal of Human Genetics [...]}}</ref>

• "This based" - should be "This is based";
• "his belief" - this sentence refers to Anthony (2007) p.118, who in turn refers to Renfrew and Mallory, not Witzel;
• "the spread Indo-European culture" - should be "the spread of Indo-European culture";
• "a mechanisms" - "a mechanism," or "mechanisms," but not "a mechanisms";
• "However, scientists and scholars differ on the size or scale of these migrations" - where does Moorjani et al. (2013) state this?;
• "number" - should be "the number";
• "ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI". The full quote is as follows:

The third possibility is that West Eurasian genetic affinities in India owe their origins to migrations from Western or Central Asia from 3,000 to 4,000 years BP, a time during which it is likely that Indo-European languages began to be spoken in the subcontinent. A difficulty with this theory, however, is that by this time India was a densely populated region with widespread agriculture, so the number of migrants of West Eurasian ancestry must have been extraordinarily large to explain the fact that today about half the ancestry in India derives from the ANI.

So, the quote is incomplete, and taken out of context; it does nit support the statement "However, scientists and scholars differ on the size or scale of these migrations."

• diff, edit-summary I added the term relative when mentioning the term "small group". The reason for that is the original sources themselves, like Basu et al. 2003, use the term "relatively" when mentioning these "small groups" in the context of elite dominance. As it could be misleading to use a subjective adjective like "small" without noting the fact that it is subjective. This edit does not in any way change the substance of the article, nor does it greatly alter the interpretation of the sentences., changed "small male groups" into "relatively small male groups" three times.

• This change is not that problematic, but not necessary either; Basu speaks of "relatively small groups," Anthony uses "small groups";
• "it could be misleading to use a subjective adjective like "small" without noting the fact that it is subjective" - who says it's "subjective"? "Relatively" is "objective"?

• diff, revert, edit-summary Undid revision 1318474486 by Joshua Jonathan (talk) My edit, which was unfairly and recklessly reverted, simply added context and information about how the the scientific community differ on the size and scale of these Indo-Aryan migrations. I provided expansive citations, legitimate academic sources, supporting my edits. None of the sources were "old" as they were literally recent publications.

• "unfairly and recklessly reverted" - ?;
• "simply added context and information about how the the scientific community differ on the size and scale of these Indo-Aryan migrations" - one source, with a quote which was taken out of context;
• "I provided expansive citations" - see above;
• "None of the sources were "old" as they were literally recent publications" - 2003 is the stone-age in this field; 2013 predates Nasarimhan et al. (2019).

• diff, edit-summary The sentence you've quoted is grammatically correct. Reverting legitimate edits based on blatantly false grounds is vandalism.

• "The sentence you've quoted is grammatically correct." - nope; threefour grammatical errors;
• "Reverting legitimate edits based on blatantly false grounds" - see above;
• "is vandalism" - see WP:VANDALISM, to understand what "constitutes "vandalism" in the context of Wikipedia. Which, by the way, begs the question: how do you know this term in the context of Wikipedia? Which account did you previously use?

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 18:57, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

References

Adding a page for Iranian migrations

Why is there not a page for Iranian migrations yet? They’re also important and there’s evidence of significant interaction between proto-Iranians and native Iranians such as Elamites. Firekong1 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion for "future development" section

I found this paper

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2023/07/230727143913.htm

If someone wants to add to the section using this paper, please do so. Logimite (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Discussed before; rejected. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2026

change "Indo-Aryan migrations" to "Indo-Aryan migration theory" ~2026-95878-2 (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

Question: do you want to change the title of the article? If so, Please review WP:TITLE and use the {{Requested move}} template to open a discussion about the move. ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 12:51, 11 March 2026 (UTC)