Talk:Indo-Aryan migration to Assam

Content removal

Hello user:Chaipau, i found that you once again removed cited content like before, such as revert 1, revert 2. If you have other theories, you are free to include, but reverting like this will lead to undesirable edit war. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The insertion of the Dravidian is highly problematic for various reasons and are removed again. The problems are given here.

• User:Bhaskarbhagawati is using “Dravidian” as a racial definition. The Dravidian racial element in Assam was first propounded when Risley asserted, based on cranial measurements of early 20th-century populations, that the Koches were “Dravidian”. Since the Koches are considered early settlers, the assertion implies that Dravidians were present in early Assam, before the advent of the “Aryan” races. This racial assertion is no longer agreed on and many authors have claimed that the Koches belonged to the “Mongoloid” race, which includes E Gait, S K Chatterjee, B M Das. The consensus is that the Koches are Mongolian, with their origins north of the Himalayas, and that they originally spoke a Tibeto-Burmese language. (D Nath (1989) p2-3, ‘History of the Koch kingdom’)
• The racial definitions of the early 20th century based on cranial measurements has been proven to be unscientific, and such categories are no longer used in scholarship. Some of these definitions are racist, and should not be used in Wikipedia.
• Wikipedia, in fact, does not use racial definition. Dravidian people in Wikipedia defines a linguistic category. To be consistent with Wikipedia, the use of ‘racial’ definition of Dravidian should be avoided.
• Even if Dravidian is understood to be a linguistic group the Koches are considered today to have spoken a Tibeto-Burmese language. Writers like D N Nath very clearly summarizes this (look at the above reference).
• There is no proof of any kind that a group speaking the Dravidians language actually lived in Assam at any time before the advent of Indo-Aryan speakers. The Dravidian phonetic elements in Bengali are glaringly absent in Assamese.
• There are some writers today that still mention Dravidian presence in Assam in passing. These writers have not examined the Dravidian element in any detail. These references should not be used to push a discredited theory.

Therefore, the edits are reverted again.

Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually, i am not using 'Dravidian' as racial definition, but it was linked to Dravidian people, an linguistic group. Risley claimed Koch as admixture people, even till date many of them show caucasoid features (see). The Austro-Asiatic groups are considered early settlers, Koch are not among them. No doubt Koch are Asian people with large admixture of Dravidian blood, as seen by their features. Nobody today associate them with Dravidian people.

Modern scholars like Bazeley (2006) has claimed that The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian, as confirmed by Assam District Gazetteers (1979).

I am also adding Dubey (1978), who also supported that there are Dravidian speakers present in pre-Aryan Northeast India, like rest of India in ancient times. So, multiple sources asserts that second group to enter Assam was 'Dravidian people', and research of our own is not needed. I am adding back the same as per citations. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

When you say "Actually, i am not using 'Dravidian' as racial definition, but it was linked to Dravidian people, an linguistic group. Risley claimed Koch as admixture people, even till date many of them show caucasoid features" (emphasis mine) you are yourself using racial theory. There are no Caucasoid/Dravidian "features" outside of racial theory. Your approach to this is therefore racial, and not linguistic, and your statement clearly demonstrates this.

• If indeed Bazeley (2006) said what you claimed was said ("The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian") then that is a plagiarism from a 2000 book "Defenders of the Dawn" Lancer Publishers, in page 42. "Defenders of the Dawn" is not book on research work, but a work on the Eastern Command of the Indian Army. This is not a reliable source.
• Assam District Gazetteer (1979) is again not a research work, but an Assam Government release. It simply reiterates (wrongly) what was claimed earlier. Not a reliable source.
• Despite your cherry-picked references that have referred to Dravidian peoples in Assam irrespective of chronology, there are standard works in this regard. One of them is Taher, Mohammad (1993) The Peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure in Ahmad, Aijazuddin (ed) Social Structure and Regional Development, Rawat Publications, New Delhi. This work clearly asserts the sequence as Austro-Asiatics, Tibeto-Burman and then Indo-Aryan.

I am reverting this again. There is no consensus that the Dravidians were present in Assam before the first Indo-Aryans arrived around 500BC(?).

Chaipau (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple authors points towards evidences of Dravidian people in Assam, such as Miri (1993), caucasoid features is common term used to refer to facial features, just as you did for mongoloid. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 00:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple authors have just repeated what was said earlier. Facial features of modern populations is not the right marker to determine human migrations 2500 years ago. All of these works have either been based on discredited methods or repeats of what was said earlier. There is no unambiguous evidence of Dravidian speaking people in Assam before the coming of the Indo-Aryans. Fishing for references via google search will only get you false positives that you are currently getting. Chaipau (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Various scholars upheld the theory. I am referring to facial features in other context, as your accusation of racial theories, though not apply here.

If you believe all scholars are hopeless, i recommend put them here, to avoid further issues on same. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting. There are may scholars who refute the presence of Dravidians. And those who are doing so are just repeating an already discredited theory. This does not belong here. Chaipau (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

In contrary, i can see pundits like Chatterji (1970) and others affirms the theory. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati Please do not insert Dravidian presence here before we can reach a consensus. I do not see Dravidians mentioned in standard works like Taher, who is the authority on this; nor in edited works like those from authors such as S Chattopadhyaya. All of them mention Indo-Aryans coming into a land that has Austro-asiatic and Tibeto-Burman speakers. Chaipau (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, as per reliable sources Dravidian presence is from ancient times, like rest of India, need to be fairly represented.Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

What is the basis of this claim? Just quoting an assorted authors does not establish a fact. Chaipau (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)::

Multiple sources such as Chatterji (1970),Dubey (1978), Caudhuri 1985 and others asserted about Dravidian people and kingdom in Assam. Kindly take it to RSN. Thanks. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In order to include any comment to the effect that any significant proportion of the population ever spoke Dravidian languages, we would need to reach a consensus that this represents a defensible modern academic position, one supported by relevant linguistic evidence. Vague comments from non-specialist sources about outdated concepts of "race" are particularly unsuitable. The references presently used to support the inclusion of "Dravidian" are not adequate for this purpose. For possible convenience I paste them here:

• Brinda Rymabai Bazeley (2006), Development and Problems of Higher Education in Barak Valley and Karbi Anglong, p.8 Racially, there is in the population of Assam practically all the basic elements that go to make up the Indian people, the Austro- Asiatic, the Dravidian, the Indo Aryan and the Indo-Mongoloid. The earliest inhabitants of the land has been the Austro-Asiatics who were followed by the Dravidian.
• Government of Assam, (1979), Assam District Gazetteers: Goalpera District, p.47 They (Austro-Asiatics) are now said to be represented by the Monkhmer Khasis and Syntengs of Assam, who were driven to the hills by the Dravidian invaders.
• S. M. Dubey (1978), North East India: A Sociological Study, p.27 Assam, the frontier outpost of Indian civilisation, is the meeting ground of peoples of different origin who have entered into the province at different periods of history. These people of various races, namely the Austrics, the Dravidians, the Aryans- and the Tibeto-Burmans, after being confronted with each other, have gradually transformed themselves into a plural society with a composite culture.

I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your valuable inputs. Chatterji (1970) wrote about 'Austrics' and 'Dravidians' preceding mongoloid bodos, his views were supported by many modern scholars in their works. I also provided other local reliable sources such as Caudhuri (1985), which is also supported by others. Miri (1993) supported Dravidian presence in ancient Assam. If all lot of this scholars are saying so, i believe same to be deserve to be included to present a fair representation. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 01:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is that all of the sources that assert a major "Dravidian" presence in Assam appear to be based ultimately on invalid concepts of "race", or on vague speculation. If you can provide sources based on serious linguistic analysis it would be reasonable to include a "Dravidian" comment. If there is modern and good-quality DNA research showing an ancient South Indian genetic element in Assam, it would be reasonable to say so. Until then, the comment should go. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the scholarly usage of 'race' in India is not exactly as the west, it is metaphor for 'linguistic ethnic groups'. I cannot recall any local works which termed Dravidian as distinct race, say 'Australoid' instead of 'Caucasoid'.I cannot give source based on linguistic analysis, because there are no Dravidian speaking people in modern Assam, though scholars says 'Kaibarta' group is remnant.(vide Goswami 1998) If scholars mentions (say speculate ) 'Dravidian people', there must some evidences, they considered, even if it is not to be directly included in article, but at least indicated separately, say "The Indo-Aryan speaking people came into a region that was already inhabited by Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman-speaking, though others opined that Dravidian speakers preceded Tibeto-Burman speakers". भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Thank you for your comments and 3O. Chaipau (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there is no reference that supports a Dravidian linguistic presence before the Indo-Aryan ingress because there is none, as Bhaskarbhagawati admits. If there is no linguistic evidence, how can one claim the Dravidians are used here in the sense of an ethnolinguistic group? In the additional references Bhaskarbhagawati has provided, Chatterjee 1970 inserts "Dravidian" cursorily, without any discussion; and Goswami 1998 harks back to previous authors and calls the Kaibartas "survivors of the great race of people" (emphasis mine). Clearly, Goswami is using the Dravidians as a racial group. Chaipau (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. In answer to User:Bhaskarbhagawati, no, just because someone makes a passing comment does not imply that they had any evidence. I suspect that they were simply using a widespread assumption that "Dravidians" in some sense were the aboriginal inhabitants of all of India. This reflects the muddled concepts of "race", in Europe at least, in much of the twentieth century. I have read a reported conversation between a German and a British person, picking through the wreckage after a British bombing raid on a German city, in which they cheerfully used the phrases "British race" and German race", very much in the sense that you describe. They probably were referring to some confused concept that united genes, language, national self-identification, and other aspects of culture, but it doesn't correspond to any clear and valid idea.

I have considered various forms of words that might be used to summarize the comments that you mention. I suppose that we might write something like "Some authors have suggested that Dravidians were also a significant part of the earlier population, but no evidence has been produced for this idea." But, on balance, I suggest that we don't here need to report brief, un-evidenced comments based on muddled thinking. I propose simply to take the Dravidian comment out. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: Thank you for your recommendation. I accept. @Bhaskarbhagawati: Please accept the recommendation as well, I shall go ahead and make the edits. Chaipau (talk) 23:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: In keeping with the WP:3O above by Richard Keatinge and after waiting for your response, I am removing the references to Dravidian. If you prefer to escalate this further, please take the necessary steps, but please do not reinsert the references since it is now the opinion of a neutral third party. Chaipau (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Here, we have some issues; i looked for others works (academic books) written by Md. Taher, i am unable to find any, kindly refer me some.

In his current sentence "The first group of migrants to settle in this part of the country is perhaps the Austro-Asiatic language speaking people who came here from South-East Asia a few millennia before Christ.", he himself speculated the chronology, though his comments are included, but not of S.K Chatterjee's, who is otherwise needs no introduction in academic circles.

WP:3O although given a direction, but need to keep talking at your pace, there is no hurry. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

In that light, i ask you to restore 'Dravidian' references. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Bhusan (2005) given the correct chronology with physical evidences, just like Goswami (1998), unlike Md. Taher. Bhuna (1995) gave linguistic evidences through Dravidian words in Assamese such as anal (fire), alas (idleness), katu (severe), kanan (bower), kutir (house) etc. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot see the relevant pages of Bhusan 2005. But in general he does not seem to give a modern academic analysis of his subject, and his publisher, Kalpaz, does not seem to concern itself with checking the academic validity of its authors. I wil be grateful for sight of Bhuna's linguistic analysis; if it convincingly identifies Dravidian words in Assamese, and also identifies the period in which they were borrowed (as a good historical linguistic analysis would do), this would be useful evidence. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

We can also look at some other works; in Assam, Land and People (1989), it gives the migration chronology with physical evidences which says "The principal migrants have beeen the Austro-Asiatics, the Dravidians, the Tibeto-Burmans, the Mongoloids, and the Aryans. The Austro-Asiatics who constituted the earliest wave initially dwelt in the Brahmaputra valley but were later made by subsequent waves to find alternative homes in the hills. The Khasis and Jaintias of present Meghalaya are said to be their modern descendants. The Dravidians came next and ethnologists conjecture that the Bania and the Kaibarta communities of modern Assam are their modern descendants."

It repeats the theory that 'Austro-Asiatics', the early dwellers of valley were pushed to hills by 'Dravidian' invaders.

Baruah & ‎Choudhury (1999) wrote about chronology as "Thus the antiquity of human civilization in Assam has been established beyond doubt by the discovery of stone celts used by the neolithic people in various parts of it. These neoliths as well as linguistic and morphological evidences prove that the ancient inhabitants of the Assam were of the Austric stock not of the Dravidian as it was once supposed to be. The next wave of migration to this country brought the Dravidians, whose history is at least as old as the Austro- Asiatics. They were cultured people belonging to the Chalcolithic age, who, in the remote past, inhabited Northern India supplanting the Austric races." भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sort of vague speculation really isn't good enough for Wikipedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, references first, second and third of the article are itself looks like speculation, when it says "The first group of migrants to settle in this part of the country is perhaps the Austro-Asiatic language speaking people who came here from South-East Asia a few millennia before Christ. The second group of migrants came to Assam from the north, north-east and east. They are mostly the Tibeto-Burman language speaking people. From about the fifth century before Christ, there started a trickle of migration of the people speaking Indo-Aryan language from the Gangetic plain". I wonder what evidences convinced him. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 03:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to write a good encyclopedic article when much of the literature consists of layers upon layers of supposition and desire. The solution is to use, for any contentious point, only good-quality modern literature that reviews the primary evidence in an academically-sound way. I look forward to any such literature that you may be able to provide. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I must say there is dearth in quantity of academic material in this part of India, at least as compared to rest of the country. Still, i am eager to further discuss the issue with newer reliable sources. I have no hesitation in admitting that i am not accustomed to look for evidences myself to create an wiki article, sources supported by multiple authors used to do fine for me. I do think Md. Taher is not a reliable source, his contribution to 'ancient history' is quite limited (no academic books at all), and his quote itself accompanied 'perhaps'. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 10:35, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You confirm my guess that good academic material on this subject is scarce. It's a real problem, because repeating amateur supposition is not really helpful, and on Wikipedia we are forbidden to interpret primary evidence ourselves. I don't have any easy solutions, but I do hope that you can find better resources for this interesting area of history. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Its is hard for me say that those including 'Dravidian' people, represented by modern 'Kaibarta' and 'Bania', considered available facts or not. Isn't it a good idea to keep out the chronology from lede for sometime, till we find some authoritative sources. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:54, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I would like to point out that we are using Dravidian as a linguistic group here. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The issue as per our current discussion is he provided any evidences for his comments. If not, i don't see any reason it should included here. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

The work you included 'Social structure and regional development: a social geography perspective : essays in honour of Professor Moonis Raza', is not a research work in ancient history, the page 202 of the book cited by you for Mohammad Taher. The same book in page number 222 comments "Almost at the same time, as the Tibeto-Burmans, came the Caucasoids (Indo-Aryan language speaking people) from the plains of northern India perhaps during the first millenium B.C. They settled mostly in the plain areas of the Brahmaputra". It puts 'Tibeto-Burmans' and 'Caucasoids' in exactly same period in context of migration, also i looked for full quote of Taher, which you not included in the article, it put forwards no evidences. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not the work in the citation (Taher, M (2001), "Assam: An Introduction", in Bhagawati, A K, Geography of Assam, New Delhi: Rajesh Publications, pp. 1–17). "Geography of Assam" is a collection of essays, edited by A K Bhagabati, B K Kar and A K Bora. In the preface, the editors acknowledge "The editors are greatly indebted to Professor M Taher of the Department of Geography, Gauhati University, who took the pain of writing the introductory chapter of the book in spite of his old age." This demonstrates M Taher's eminence in his academic field, and his introductory chapter should be viewed as having academic consensus. I do not see any merit in your objections. Chaipau (talk) 08:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, for his credentials, please read his obituary in a national paper: https://www.telegraphindia.com/1150225/jsp/northeast/story_5400.jsp Chaipau (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please see above for your earlier comments, you gave references from that book for Md. Taher. He just speculated the migration order without any evidences. You pointed out he belongs to 'Department of Geography'. If i go by your words that A K Bhagabati, B K Kar and A K Bora edited his essay, trio them-self are related to geography, are not historians, and the work you now mentioned is also not a work on history but geography.

If Md. Taher wrote textbooks on geography from school to university level, also done some translation (as per newspaper), than i also included Suniti Kumar Chatterji, who was excluded here due to lack of evidence from his part. As per evidence criteria, kindly remove his comment from this article, as he is not an authority in this subject. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 19:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Should i do it myself, if consensus already reached ?

Please do not insert it yourself. I do not agree with your claims on reliability, which I have clearly stated above. If you have problems of reliability of this source, please make a case in the relevant notice board. Chaipau (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Should WP:3O's comment regarding sources backed by evidences be overlooked for your case ? भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:18, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Mani L Bose -- unreliable

The following reference is unreliable:

Mani L. Bose, Social History of Assam: Being a Study of the Origins of Ethnic Identity , 1989, p. 40 when the Aryans entered Assam from the west is uncertain. It seems probably that the Aryan penetration into Assam began from the time of the Brahmanas and the Epics and by the 3rd century A.D. Aryan culture became the predominant culture in the Brahmaputra valley due to the influence of the Hindu priests in whom the strain of the Aryan blood was very thin which was due largely to the absorbent power of Hinduism.

This is because the earliest evidence of Indo-Aryan presence comes from the 5th century Umachal rock inscription in West Assam and the 5th century Nagajari-Khanikargaon rock inscription from East Assam. Thus, on what basis is the author claiming that the Indo-Aryan culture became pre-dominant by the 3rd century? The author gives no justification. Such wildly speculative one-liners without any form of justification should not be used in Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Look for Chanakya's works for evidences. To Varman dynasty (4th century) to rule,the Aryan dominance is prerequisite.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Chankaya's isolated mention of Lauhitya, if it does indicate Assam, shows it has heard of the place. It is not certain that Pushyavarman was an Indo-Aryan and there is no direct evidence of Pushyavarman. Chaipau (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Its shows it became a part of Aryavarta. He mentioned about economic products from Kamarupa (Assam), Aryanised names of places within Kamarupa etc. Ancient inscriptions from North and East India, Bangladesh and others do mentions Pushya Varman. Read Kanal Lal Barua's works, he points towards evidences of Aryan origins of the dynasty. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:12, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't. The first century Greek text Periplus of the Erythraean Sea also describes the Kirata people. That does not make Northeast a part of the Greek empire. Kautilya's place names are no longer given credence, and history reading has advanced considerable since K L Barua, who self-published his work in 1933. Chaipau (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It does, 'Periplus of the Erythraean Sea' has not mentioned Greek culture here. How can you say Kautilya's references are not given credence now, recent works indiscriminately mentions it. It is not wrong to call Kanak Lal Barua leading historian of region of all time, his works are extensively referred by later authors, also check his later works. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 17:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Kautilya did not visit Northeast India, but the author of "Periplus..." did. Moreover, Kautilya just mentions articles that were traded from Lauhitya, and one does not need Indo-Aryans in Lauhitya to trade. Just some adventurers, as the "Periplus..." shows. Much of the identifications of the places are just purely speculative. Many of K L Barua's assertions are speculative too. Chaipau (talk) 03:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

What you just said fails WP:OR, respect reliable sources, we wiki editors are not even equal to dust of their feet. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 08:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree. Please take it to 3O or some other forum, if you wish. Chaipau (talk) 10:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution processes are good, but there are hardly any people out there, who have prior knowledge about this part of India; hence i asked to not remove reliable sources (i provide quotes alongwith most of times). I like to clear my point by giving example of another discussion above, where word 'race' is referred as taboo, but Indian authors uses it extensively. It is like painting 'Swastika' is say forbidden and may be not allowed in US, but in India every houses has 'Swastikas'. If we ask them about this, they bluntly answer that it should be outrightly prohibited. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 06:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

The Kautilya's mention of Kamarupa is not disputed, kindly don't remove it. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 09:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The Kautilya reference is indeed disputed, as in here. Chaipau (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Look for reliable sources, Nisar Ahmad (1994) is isolated and unreliable. The academic consensus of commentators and eminent historians Kanaklal Barua and others is that 'Suvarnakundya' is located in Kamrup. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 11:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you again, and in particular to भास्कर् Bhagawati. For someone such as myself, ignorant of more or less everything relating to Assam, your habit of quoting your references and giving online links is very useful. It enables me to makes comments that might, possibly, be useful.

I would like to suggest that despite the literary eminence of Kanaklal Barua, his opinions on history would only be useful to us if supported by evidence. I don't see him using historical or linguistic evidence in any academically-acceptable way, and I can't see him as a reliable source for this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Bhaskarbhagawati, Kautilya's reference is itself isolated and unreliable---as Guha's comment suggest: "If we go by Bhattaswamin's commentary on Arthashastra". The origin of the identification comes from a later-day commentator, not from Kautilya, whose work is itself revised. Dineshchandra Sircar too views the reference critically and places the origin of the reference in the first few centuries of the common era, and not in the lifetime of Kautilya (4th century BCE). Chaipau (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Guha's comments "If we go by Bhattaswamin's commentary on Arthashastra Magadha was already importing certain items of trade from this Valley in Kautilya's days". Choudhury (1988) and others verifies this places in Kamrup, based on evidences like 'Kamrupi silk' etc. Your references to Sircar (1990) in "The Comprehensive History of Assam", it mentioned "we may note the following account from Arthasastras of Kautilya which, as pointed out by K.L. Barua, throws light on eastern India including Assam", both actually saying opposite of what you stated. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please read my comment carefully. I am pointing out that the identification comes from Bhttaswamin's commentary, not from Kautilya directly. The identification thus happened in Bhattaswamin's lifetime, not Kautilya's. Chaipau (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I have, places are identified by commentators and modern scholars within western valley, supported by Guha and Sircar. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 04:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Therefore, the claim here is that identification is dated to Bhattaswamin's lifetime, which is in the first few centuries of the CE, not to Kautilya's. I don't think this is contradicted by either Guha and Sircar, because that is what they are saying. Sircar has stated that the Arthasastra text that is claimed to be from Kautilya is itself from the CE. These dates are important because interpolations are very common in these documents. Ramayana and Mahabharata are the most glaring examples. Chaipau (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What you claim is good research on your part, i can argue with you on that all day. But what you need to understand is that academic consensus is Kautilya referred to Assam, through economic goods from western Brahmaputra valley and Aryanised names of Assamese places, both the authors not saying otherwise. One isolated comment by someone is not good enough to change it, atleast fit to be encyclopedic. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak

Major copyedit

I have made a major copyedit. I have tried to sort out the various concepts and to put the text approximately into chronological order. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:37, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Richard Keatinge, thank you---I am trying to follow your lead and place events and evidences in chronological order as well. Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Article title

Presently, the article is called Indo-Aryan migration to Assam. "Migration" means, specifically, the movement of people. The article mentions only that some migration must have happened, and indeed some people must have migrated because languages don't move unless at least a few people move. I don't see a single reference that actually specifically describes even a single speaker of any Indo-Aryan language moving into Assam. The article in fact describes the processes by which Indo-Aryan languages and Hinduism became current in Assam, and by which Assam was included in the area of Āryāvarta. I'm sure that there must be better titles. What about "Indo-Aryanization of Assam", for example? Or "History of Indo-Aryan language and culture in Assam"?Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I added a reference in the article to settlement of Brahmans during the time of Bhutivarman. In all, a little less than 20 such settlements have been identified, which we can take as evidence of actual migration from outside Kamarupa. This article has not yet examined recent genetic studies, which too are rare. Sanskritization of Assam is a consequence of this migration, and it is subject in itself. Maybe we could create an article on "Sanskritization of Assam" and focus primarily on migration here? Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, this may be a good way forward. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Naraka settling Brahmans

I am removing the reference to Naraka's settling of Brahmans for the following reasons.

• Naraka himself is a mythical figure. Some of the early references place his kingdom outside Assam, in Northwest India.
• Kalika Purana is a 9-10th century document, which is a pretty late source. The Naraka myths that are narrated in Kalika Purana are fabricated without historical value.
• Moreover, the nature of the mythical settlement is different from the historical settlements. Whereas Naraka displaced the earlier settlers with Brahmans, in the historical terms the earlier settlers were not displaced.

Mythology should not be used here. Chaipau (talk) 14:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Kalika Purana which is composed in Kamrup is used by various authors to understand the Aryan influence, which itself composed on basis of earlier works. The references of Aryan in Kalika Purana need to included here, another source is Yogini Tantra. As per references in article itself, Naraka is himself a prototype of early Aryan settler, Kamrupi kings claims descent from him, as per Kamrup inscriptions. He is required to be represented to understand the pattern of Aryanisation, as done by various authors studying ancient Kamarupa. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 16:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Kalika Purana was involved in Sanskritization. This it did by fabricating myths, and the Naraka myth is a prime example of this. To literally quote from Kalika Purana is to participate in Sanskritization, which Wikipedia should not be doing. Chaipau (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The Kamrup inscriptions do mentions Naraka extensively. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all three Kamarupa dynasties claim lineage from Naraka and Bhagadatta. Dubi/Nidhanpur inscriptions (7th century) mention Naraka and place him 3000 years before then! And, therefore, this claim is not historical. It is well known that these lineages were manufactured. Even the Koch and the Ahom dynasties were outfitted with Hindu mythical origins (Koch with Siva and Ahom with Indra). Modern scholarship do not accept these mythical lineages, though many writers mindlessly keep repeating them. Chaipau (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these myths are significant and should be mentioned. As myths. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I do agree. These myths are a part of the sanskritization process, and belong in the section that deals with sanskritization. Chaipau (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

racial, linguistic interpretation of hindu texts

at so many places in indian history articles there is widespread racial, linguistic and cultural interpretation of the hindu texts, why its not left alone as religious interpretation, i dont agree that spreading word of jesus means changing the race and culture of lets say chinese or korean people, so why does spreading holy hindu words translates into racial aryan vs dravidian, mongoloid etc, all these racial divisions were construct of 19th century which are no longer accepted. there was a vast sanskritization of the malay peninsula in the 1st and 2nd mil but nobody was racially converted into aryan race or aryan linguistic population. indian aryan religons spread far and wide to central asia, china etc, does this already mean that racially the central asians became indian people before islamic invasion made them persian or arab?, will the korean or chinese christians be declared as semitic people or the caucasian european race people. The time frame the sanskritization takes place there is already existing middle indo aryan, so the hindu texts cannot be taken in indo-aryan contexts anymore. Something which cannot be justified using historical context is distorted using pre historic bias and assumptions, some alien process which cannot be supported from historicl contexts. The dangerous factor being, not even using archaeology for verifying these twisted racial claims of the archaic british colonial era, the big question of these assertions will remain the archaeological context of these twisted claims being made.115.135.130.182 (talk) 22:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Earliest Indo-Aryan immigration into Assam

Rosati 2017 is very explicit in his article on when the Indo-Aryans arrived in Assam. He writes:

• We are unsure about the exact time when their earliest migrations into northeastern India began (Choudhury 1959, pp. 96–111), but these migratory waves likely occurred between the second century BCE and the first century CE (Rosati 2016).

The claim Rosati makes on the 4th century is regarding the historical record. 4th century is when the historical period begin, and this is when the migration became "historical". He writes:

• according to the epigraphic records, the middle of the fourth century CE can be determined as the latest historical term for the Indo-Aryan migrations into Assam

@Homogenie: please discuss your issues here instead of inserting your selected POV and generally disrupting Wikipedia.

Chaipau (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau: * We are unsure about the exact time when their earliest migrations into northeastern India began (Choudhury 1959, pp. 96–111), but these migratory waves likely occurred between the second century BCE and the first century CE (Rosati 2016).

---This has been taken from The Yoni Cult at Kāmākhyā:Its Cross-Cultural Roots by the same author PAOLO E. ROSATI in p=278-279

The first migration waves of Indo-Aryans in North-eastern India were probably mirrored in the Puranic biography of Naraka (‘hell’), a king who arrived from the western borders of Assam, defeated the local tribes, and won the throne of Kāmarūpa (Assam), with the help of his father, Viṣṇu (KāP 36–42). Unfortunately, this story is not corroborated by material evidence. The epigraphic records determine the middle of the fourth century as the latest possible date of Indo-Aryan migration into Assam, when political power shifted from mytho-historical Naraka-Bhauma dynasty to Puṣyavarman, the first historical king of Assam (Choudhury 1959: 119–20). According to P. C. Choudhury (p. 96), the first foundation of a kingdom in Assam is attributed to the Kirāta chief Mahiraṅga dānava, although when and how the Aryans entered Assam from the west, is uncertain the early Vedic literature speaks of Eastern India as a mleccha country and does not refer to the introduction of Aryan culture into Assam (p. 111). Thence, we can only speculate that the first migration waves from the West into Assam happened in the first century BCE.

---So, it is clear that the reference is taken from Naraka and Bhagadatta, we know now that naraka and bhagadatta were legends created in 7th and 10th century, i dont see why legend is being passed off as history. Homogenie (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you said it! Rosati attributes "these migratory waves likely occurred between the second century BCE and the first century CE (Rosati 2016)" to himself. Which means Rosati said this twice—the earliest migrations occurred between 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE—once in 2016 and again in 2017. So why are you reverting to a selective quote where he is saying something else, as you have done here?[1] This is not the first time you have tried to ram through your POV with dubious claims. Chaipau (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau:: Puranic chronology is not history, you cannot pass them off as history, read further The first migration waves of Indo-Aryans in North-eastern India were probably mirrored in the Puranic biography of Naraka (‘hell’), a king who arrived from the western borders of Assam, defeated the local tribes, and won the throne of Kāmarūpa (Assam), with the help of his father, Viṣṇu (KāP 36–42). Unfortunately, this story is not corroborated by material evidence.

---This doesnot have any evidence, Bhauma dynasty is not history, we know it today from Shin (2018) that Bhauma dynasty is a legend created in 10th century Kalika Purana

also The epigraphic records determine the middle of the fourth century as the latest possible date of Indo-Aryan migration into Assam, when political power shifted from mytho-historical Naraka-Bhauma dynasty to Puṣyavarman, the first historical king of Assam (Choudhury 1959: 119–20)

and this is from Choudhury 1959 where he puts Bhauma and Kamarupa as ruling dynasties of Assam, 58 years later we know Bhauma is legendary, first Indo-aryan appearance is the middle of the 4th century as stated by the author. Homogenie (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you want the earliest Indo-Aryan migrations to be historical (in the period for which writings are available)? The early Tibeto-Burman and the Austroasiatic migrations are not historical either, from that point of view!

Rosati states that the fourth century is the latest possible date of Indo-Aryan migration into Assam. He uses the word latest to mean that the first migration took place at or before 4th century. So we have the following dates:

• 500 BCE - the earliest possible date when Indo-Aryan migration could have taken place. Migrations earlier than this is not possible. (Guha 1984).
• second century BCE – first century CE - the most likely period when the earliest Indo-Aryan migration took place. (Rosati, 2017, 2016)
• 4th century CE - the century when we have definite evidence of Indo-Aryan migration. (Rosati, 2017)

All these dates are important in stating the situation.

Chaipau (talk) 15:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC) (edited) 15:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC) (edited2) 15:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Chaipau::: Guha (1984) is outdated in face of modern work, also deal with tibeto-burman migration in its own section. Yes history has to be scientific not a spin-off of mythology Homogenie (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean here. Guha gives the terminus post quem. Rosati 2017 gives the terminus ante quem. These are different things. One does not replace the other. Which modern work has outdated Guha 1984? Chaipau (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The current lead, based on the citation is definitely wrong. It says "first migrated to Assam in the middle of the 4th century C.E." whereas it should be "the earliest Indo-Aryan migrated to Assam not later than 4th century CE." I have updated the lead giving all the dates we have discussed here, for an NPOV statement. Chaipau (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2022 (UTC)