Talk:Origin of the Jat people

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:  • Jats Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Jats

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Jats#Origins and genetic studies]] The anchor (#Origins and genetic studies) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article is full of historically questionable "facts" including statements such as: "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC" - which, according to discussions of this claim (which can be accessed in the Jat discussion page archives), is a date based on the astrological computations for the death of the god Krishna - not historical evidence. It also contains a reference to a Dr. Natthan Singh who, apparently, talks about "pure Aryans", whatever that is supposed to mean (see article on Aryan for discussion of racial theories involving "Aryans"). John Hill 07:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question the sources used in this article plus the argument put forth in this article is circular as the introduction to the article says "the Jats come from Aryan homeland as the Jats are an Aryan race." That's like saying apples grow on orange trees as apples are oranges. Readers should look into the Sythian origins of Jats and Rajputs as the Scythian orgins would explain why some Europeans and Jats have last names in common. This article seams to be Arya-Brahman propogation as theB rahmans are always ready to claim that any great empire of South Asia is Brahman in orgin.

Amrita

I have replaced the disputed tag and would ask people not to remove it until the disputes mentioned above are resolved. Just saying here is no dispute will not make it go away. John Hill 22:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Burdak has taken it upon himself to remove the disputed tag again. This is not justified as there are many claims made in this article which have been previously questioned as to accuracy on other pages - and never been satisfactorily answered. For example: the claim that "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC." Another example involves the use of the term "pure Aryan" - a term with no real meaning and with offensive overtones to many people. John Hill 13:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting dispute tag every where shows that you are biased and all the time bring 3102 BC which has no correlation with this article. Your contribution regarding content is nil but showing as if an expert. Pure Aryan has been written by the author quoted there. How can you challenge an author without any content with you. I have started doubting your intentions. Every where you try to bring Shudra which shows your biased against Jats. If you want to moderate you have to bring some source but not by your thinking it should be changed. If not Aryan then you have to bring what you think otherwise. So I remove dispute tag burdak 17:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have still to answer the many criticisms I have raised up to now so I am reinserting the "dispute tag." There is no use trying to hide the fact that you have promoted the date 3102 BCE as a "fact" earlier - both on this page and others - and what about all the other issues I have brought up? You have not attempted to address most of them - you just ignore them. The only reason I have ever mentioned Shudras on this page is that they were mentioned by people who have been misquoted or had THEIR quote(s) distorted on this page and THEIR references to Shudras ignored.

How can you possibly maintain that 3102 BC "has no correlation to this article" when in the article it clearly states: "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC."? Oh, and while you are at it, please explain to us all what exactly you mean by "pure Aryan." I have certainly started doubting your intentions. John Hill 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3102 BC is being used by the Indian Historians. Wherever I have used it I have put references of it. So it is not my original research. If you want to go deep there is literature available and you can go through it. As regards -"On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC" has been sufficiently explained. These were the words of Jat historian Dr Natthan Singh. I had put reference of him and that makes any doubts clear. The author is responsible how he arrived at it. You are not ready to accept it. Then you must have other counter evidences with you, then produce it. I am not denying it. I will accept. Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions. Again this word has been used by the authors I quoted. I do not put any content on Wikipedia without references. You are not clear about the points of dispute. I doubt if any body can clear these doubts by only putting dispute tag. A section or a para may be under dispute but not the entire page. When you do not have the counter evidence or reference where is dispute? Dispute means there are contradictory facts. Now Jat page mentions that Jats are from Indo-Aryan as well as part of them are from Scythian as the authors are divided on this subject. It does not mean that entire Jat people are disputed. If there are more than one theory we have to bring both. In social group there can not be only one absolute truth. You have to accept or prove otherwise. Your heading "promoting falsehoods and speculations" used for me, I consider it in a bad test and loss of balance. I expect you to observe Wiki norms !!! burdak 16:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you always avoid answering the questions Burdak? What Im confused about, is that despite knowing there is no such thing as a defined "Aryan physical type" (thanks to Max Mueller who fully researched them) then how have you come to define us arew pure Aryans? What if we are Pure Indians? Whats wrong with that? Why are you hell bent on proving us to be non Indian, Norwegian, Germanic and kings? Why cant we be straight forward peaceful agriculturists or straight forward Indians? On other pages you are alleging we are Scythians, Kushans, etc then you say we came into India 3102 BC? You are very confused young man--Mein hoon don 11:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you have either not read my replies - or just choose to ignore them. I have discussed the reasons why 3102 BCE for the date of Krishna cannot be accepted as an "historical fact" in detail several times already.

The date of 3102 BCE as the date for Krishna's death is, as you have said yourself, based on "scriptural sources," "Hindu cosmology," and "astrological evidence." These will hardly be accepted as sufficient evidence of an "historical fact" by most people. Most people, other than believing fundamentalist Hindus, would see this date as legendary only.

Why should "the words of Jat historian Dr Natthan Singh", who you refer to, make "any doubts clear"? What new evidence does he bring to this discussion? Are we to be expected to just accept his words as the Truth?

It is clear that you seem to have a very different idea than myself as as to what "evidence" means. When I pointed out that the statement in the article supposedly from Xuanzang (Hieun Tsang) was false - there were only two references given - to the translations by Beal and Watters, and neither them, nor the most recent translation by Li makes any reference to Jats.

The statement in the article clearly says: "In the seventh century the Chinese traveler Hieun Tsang witnessed their [that is, Jats] settlement along the flat marshy lowlands which streches to some thousand li." There is no absolutely evidence I have seen either in Xuanzang or elsewhere that shows that the families he saw along the Sindh were, in fact, Jats. They could have been any tribe herding cattle in that region - they might have been Jats - they might not - some of them might have been Jats, while the others belonged to different groups - I don't believe there is any way of telling. Now, after I raised this problem, you inserted a note saying that Dr S.Jabir Raza says they were Jats and, because of this you seem to think we should just accept as unquestionable fact that they were Jats. What, Mr. Burdak, is his evidence?

Finally, you claim that "Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions." Are you now claiming that "Aryan" does not refer necessarily to a racial or linguistic division, but purely a religious one? Does this mean that if someone else, let us say an ethnic Japanese person (for the sake of argument) becomes a Hindu and "strictly obeys the vedic traditions" that they are to be considered as "pure Aryan"? Please inform us - as, if this is so, I am sure there are many like myself who will need to reexamine what they conceive of as "Aryan," and the page on Aryan in the Wikipedia will need to be rewritten.

So far I have seen nothing to sway me from my view that you have been promoting unproved (and, often, I believe, unprovable) speculations on these pages. I will, however, withdraw the word "falsehoods" with apologies, as you obviously believe some of the (to me) fantastic claims you have been making - I keep forgetting that some people may actually believe things like "thirty million monstrous fiends" attacked Mathura, or that a combination of information from scriptural sources and astrology will provide one with reliable dates. Sincerely, John Hill 23:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a "bias" tag to this article as I believe it contains a number of biased and unsupportable claims - many of an elitist, divisive and racist nature; some of them may be hurtful to other communal or ethnic groups. Some seem to be mere speculations, others are derived from religious or traditional points of view, and are unsupportable with historical evidence, but are presented as factual in the article. Many of the references are clearly biased and questionable and are often from difficult-to-obtain sources or Jat authors promoting a one-sided view of Jat history. Here are some examples from the article of claims which I think are unwarranted in a Wikipedia article and should be checked by a neutral person or persons before they are left in the encyclopedia:

1."Dr Natthan Singh writes that Jats were the pure Aryans and their original homeland was Sapta Sindhu."

2. "On the basis of historical facts the Jats are reported to be present in India from 3102 BC."

3. "They had to migrate from India on economic, social and political reasons for some period but they returned back to India. In the migration also they did not leave their language and cultural traditions. Due to this reason only Jats do not have linguistic or physical similarities with Huns and Scythians."

4. "They had to migrate from India on economic, social and political reasons for some period but they returned back to India. In the migration also they did not leave their language and cultural traditions. Due to this reason only Jats do not have linguistic or physical similarities with Huns and Scythians."

5. "The Jats has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of the physical type and language of true Aryan."

6. "Dr. Trump and Beams very strongly claimed a pure Indo-Aryan descent for Jats both in consideration of their physical type and language, which has been authoritatively pronounced as a pure dialect of Hindi, without slightest trace of Scythian."

7. "Lastly we have to speak about the Jats. Their ethnological characteristics also we have already seen, are clearly Aryans. They are fair tall high nosed and long headed. Does their history contradict of their being Aryans ? ….. They are the purest Aryans in India and belong to the first race of Aryans invaders according to our view the solar race of Aryans. …There is not a scrap of historical evidence even to suggest much less to prove such immigration there is neither foreign mention of their coming into India nor have they any tradition of their own sometime coming into India nor is there any historical India record stone inscription or other of their so coming, and we can only ascribe such theories to that unaccountable bias of the winds of many European and native scholars to assign a foreign and Scythic origin to every fine and energetic caste in India."

8. "E.B.Havell writes based on physical features and the language that Ethnographic investigations show that the Indo Aryan type described in Hindu epic a tall fair complexioned long headed race with narrow prominent noses broad shoulders long arms thin waists like a lion and legs like a deer is how (as it was in the earliest) most confined to Kashmir the Punjab and Rajputana and represented by the Khattris, Jats and Rajputs."

That should provide enough examples to show why I am so concerned about this article, There should be no need to explain why I find them questionable at best. John Hill 08:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A long period has been passed after putting the dispute and bias tags. There has been no attempt by any body to add or improve or comment which shows that there is a bias in putting these tags. It is now suggested to remove these tags. Thanks, --burdak 04:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove bias and dispute tags until at least the instances of bias and dispute I have raised in my last note have been answered. Until these are resolved the tags should remain. Mere passage of time does not remove bias. John Hill 05:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I was pleased to see that Mr. Burdak has finally made some effort to qualify the claimed date of 3102 BCE for the presence of Jats in India, I still believe it needs further qualifications. It needs to be made quite clear that this claim, as he has stated earlier, is based on some calculations (made with the help of astrology applied to the account of the Mahabharata) on the date of the death of the god Krishna who, in turn, is supposed to be an ancestor of the Jats - which, I suggest, is a very suspect and uncertain way of trying to establish historical dates.

Now, to discuss some of the many other reasons why I think this article needs to be totally rewritten:

I think it is clear that we need a workable definition of what an "Indo-Aryan" person is. Mr. Burdak replied to a question of mine some time ago about who he thought the so-called "pure Aryans" were. He replied: "Pure Aryan are those who strictly obey the vedic traditions."

As it is impossible for us to know who in the past strictly obeyed Vedic traditions, this definition is useless for historical research purposes. However, as we all know, many Jats converted to Buddhism, Jainism, Islam and the Sikh religion. So, by Mr. Burdak's definition, many if not most Jats could not be described as "pure Aryans."

I would suggest that in future we use the definition given the Wikipedia article on Indo-Aryans: "The Indo-Aryans are a wide collection of peoples united by their common status as speakers of the Indo-Aryan (Indic) branch of the family of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages." What do other readers think of this suggestion?

However, this article contains far more serious and, indeed, sinister racist messages. It seems to be promoting a creed of Aryan superiority and tries to promote Jats as the "purest of Aryans."

It is claimed that: "The Jats has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of the physical type and language of true Aryan.” [19] Thus science may be said to have succeded fairly well in establishin the Indo-aryan origin of Jats. [33]"

They are claimed to be "the purest Aryans in India". The term "pure Aryan" is repeated in the article no less than four times; "pure Indo-Aryan" twice; "true Aryan" twice; "true representatives of the Vedic Aryans. [15]"; it is claimed twice that Jats speak a "pure dialect of Hindi" (whatever that is supposed to mean); that they belong to "the solar race of Aryans"; that they are (along with Rajputs) "true representatives of the Vedic Aryans"; "undoubtedly pure Aryans"; that "Jat is definitely a tribe of Aryan race." And so on and on, ad nauseum.

At the end of the article we are treated to some studies made more than 100 years ago of the Cephalic index on various Indian castes. The Cephalic index is no longer considered to be a very reliable way of measuring race - see, for example, the discussion and references in the Wikipedia article on Cephalic index. Furthermore, Risley didn't even compare these skulls (which he was so happy to endow racial characteristics upon) with ancient specimens. He only compared Jats with some other modern groups and found they had a lower "nasal Index". So what?

The totally unscientific approach to this "evidence" in this article may be judged by the words used by Mr. Burdak (taken second-hand, apparently, from a book by one Atal Singh Khokhar) that: "Sir Herbert Risley as Head of Department of Anthropology in 1901 proved that if we prepare the nasal Index of communities from Bengal, Bihar ,Uttar Pradesh and Punjab then that with least nasal Index would be the most honoured. Jats have the least nasal Index of 63.1, which is the Indicator of the most honoured one."

Now, who in this day and age could take seriously a claim that the communities with the "least nasal Index would be the most honoured"? Honoured by whom, and for what reason?

Enough of this ancient pseudo-science!

Unless someone can come up with a good reason for retaining this quote within the next few days - I will delete it. John Hill 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you treat a well published study by an English authority of British India as Pseudo Science, who on earth can convince you. If you have better study with you provide here. Or simply you are here to find fault or personal attacks.

Your comment about a Hindi author of repute "taken second-hand from a book by one Atal Singh Khokhar" shows your approach towards Hindi authors. This is a racial discrimination. When something has to be quoted it has to be quoted as author writes and not as you or I wish. I would have appreciated you if before commenting you would have collected some material or read that book. You can comment it second hand without going through it!!

You said on Jat people page "What total rubbish! What a total waste of all our time!" Is it in the right tone ? Who tells you to waste time. You have come to Wikipedia and this page on your own. Either add fruitful content to the article if you have with you or you can leave it. Every body can write here. How can you abuse them.

Wikipedia is not supposed to provide original research. I provide the reference of author and that is enough. I am not accountable to you. You are behaving as an administrator which you are not. Before arguing gain some knowledge. Otherwise all your arguments are hollow.

Jats are ancient people and science has to be ancient to prove it. If not Aryan prove another theory. Who stops you.

The tone of your note is that of threatening. You have nothing to add. You are all the time bent upon deleting. It amounts to vandalism. burdak 05:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is Banaras Hindu University? Is it on par with Oxford School for Oriental Studies? Please do not make us Jatts look like the laughing stock of wikipedia. Please do use credible sources. Mr Burdak and co., it is all very fine being proud of our Jatt history, but please tell it as it is. We have nothing to hide. Jai Balwan, Jai Kisan should be our motto.--Sikh-history 09:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maheswari Prasad of Banaras Hindu University is clearly a historian from Banaras Hindu University. He has written good articles on Jats. It is your POV if you do not relish Indian historians. But if some author publishes good and positive matter it should be given here. It is not against any policy of Wikipedia. Is there any binding to provide content from Oxford School for Oriental Studies only? I do not run any company as you have put Burdak and Co. Please behave properly. --burdak 09:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to be based on unproven racial assertions stating and/or implying racial superiority (see caption on photo: "A typical Jat chaupal undoubtedly pure Aryans"). See also the pseudo-scientific 19th century study by Risley which finds that those : ". . . with least nasal Index would be the most honoured. Jats have the least nasal Index . . .". Finally, the article contains overblown, generalised and probably false statements such as: "Thus, the Jat has been declared by all eminent authorities, to pass successfully the combined test of physical type, ethnology and language of a true Aryan." 03:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sir Herbert Risley's classification Risle's classification of Indian people on the basis of various indices seems to be biased to divide the people into diffrent races. Herbert had limited access to all aspects of Indian population and he seems to have ignored similarities among diffrent castes for obvious reasons. He seems to have terribly failed in recognising demon without horns and rather distributed the maligned features according to whims and wishes. There is no dearth of such personalities who's words carry more weight than even those of God. The indices given by Risley needs to be revised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiranve (talk • contribs) 10:34, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

• This article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. It should be deleted or renamed Origin of Jats. Isaac Pankonin 08:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and renamed it. I will leave it up to the people involved to include other views in the article. Isaac Pankonin 09:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming as Issac has done, makes sense.

Deleting it does not.

The main article- Jats is already too lengthy.

It has been suggested there, that the article be split up, into different articles on different aspects.

The ORIGIN of the JATS is , one may suggest, an important part of jat Hitsory.

Renaming the Article( as has been done), adding other perspectives on their origins of Jats is relevant.

KEEP

Ravi Chaudhary 20:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article should be renamed as:" Origin of Jats"

It cannot be restricted simply to an ‘Indo Aryan’ nomenclature. Nomenclature that is outdated, as the use of the very term ‘Aryan’ is questioned, including whether there was an Aryan race or not, and whether there was an Aryan Invasion into the Indian subcontinent or not.

The topic is important, as the jats are a very large community spread over Central and Northern India, present day Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. In Central Asia, and Europe their identity has been merge with other groups.

Their is much discussion about their origins, whether they were Indigenous to the Indian subcontinent, or whether they came from outside, or whether they originated in the Indian Subcontinent and migrated into Central Asia and into Europe.

Related to their origins and migrations, is the question of the links to the Gutians of Sumerian (Mesopotamia, 2200 BCE, The Getae or Massagetae of Central Asia, the Oxus- Jaxartes area, or the Goths of Europe, the Huns of Central asia, or the Geats, Gotars of Scandinavia.

These questions are always difficult to answer; but will always be a subject of interest and discussion to the serious researcher and the layman.

Deleting an article about their origins, would be counter productive, for research and discussion about their origin will continue regardless.

Readers interested in a more indepth views and discussion are welcome to visit and join discussion forums on

JatHistory http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JatHistory/

or Jatland.com. or the other Jat , Jatt people related sites.

There is much online material, there, which is from different perspectives, including a number of online books and theories of these people’s origins is quite actively discussed.

In conclusion:

A good start has been made with renaming the article. Now the articles needs both expanding, and cleanup.

Strong Keep.

Ravi Chaudhary 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone s putting Jat History related articles up for deletion.

Is it possible to know who has done this, and what their reasons are?

Ravi Chaudhary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravi Chaudhary (talk • contribs) 20:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've heard you can find out a lot about people by measuring their noses. Lurker (said · done) 09:47, 11 September 2007

(UTC)

Dear Lurker,

I am sure you mean well.

In the science of Anthropology, measuring various parts of the body, skulls,cephalic bones, nasal index, etc is a standard methodology.in Archeological Anthropology, these type of techniques help determine what people looked like.

Ravi Chaudhary 14:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Chaudhary

Mr. Chaudhary asks who is putting up some of the Jat related pages for deletion and why. Well, I am the one who has been doing it - and the reasons why I have done so are easy to find.

Of course, it is not me who is deleting the articles. I just put them up for consideration and, seeing that two of the articles have been recently deleted, it is clear that the editors and administrators agree with my position that they were not worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia.

This page, too, needs serious and extensive editing to make it a worthy article. Have a look at the ridiculous racist caption under the photo of Jats on this page ("A typical Jat chaupal undoubtedly pure Aryans") and the quoting of Risley's risible pseudoscience, not to mention the ridiculous claims that: "Sir Herbert Risley as Head of Department of Anthropology in 1901 proved that if we prepare the nasal Index of communities from Bengal, Bihar ,Uttar Pradesh and Punjab then that with least nasal Index would be the most honoured." (bold added by myself).

There is much, much more of similar bias and POV that has been exposed in the Discussion pages of this article, and the article on Jat people - much of it similarly racist and elitist. In addition, there have been a large number of false claims and references, personal attacks and threats made - many of which have been exposed in the Discussion pages. Need I say more? John Hill 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who put this article up for AfD. The reasons can be found on the AfD nomination. Lurker (said · done) 09:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making that clear, Lurker. I nominated the earlier two articles for deletion and you did the same for this one. John Hill 10:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now the objective of John Hill is becoming clear. It seems it is a prestige point for him to some how delete the Jat related articles. His intention seems not to improve these articles because he does not have any content with him. It is clear from above comment and discussions on Jat people and allied articles that John Hill is simply biased. He again and again writes against speculations and legends in history. History has some content of speculation and legend. What is legend today can become a scientific fact tomorrow. At least Indian history is not a science. I do not know of which history John Hill is talking which is a pure science. We would like to see some of his history contributions based on science. Kindly provide those links. The articles on Jats contains studies which are by reputed authors and well published. If the argument of John hill is to be considered we will have to delete a number of articles from Wikipedia. That will be a great loss. A similar parallel Indian article on Wikipedia is Origin_of_Rajputs. It has no in-text references and the origin is purely stated to be legendary i.e. the clan created from fire with the help of mantras, it contains a lot of POV also. Similarly Origin of the Albanians in which text itself states that it is disputed. There is also Origin of Rashtrakuta Dynasty, which has been much debated and contains POV, similarly Iranian origin of the Azerbaijanis article which is locked for editing due to disputes. Origin of the Armenians which is based on legendary story of bible. Dispute of origin does not imply that we should delete it. We have articles on origin of social groups like Origin of Pallava, Origin of ezhava caste, Origin of the Basques, Origin of the Nilotic peoples, Theories on the origin of Croats, Theories on the origin of the Serbs. Then why to delete Origin of Jats? Facts are in offing, the article is growing. All the theories of origin of Jats should be kept in this article. Large number of clans have merged into Jats fold. Some of them were of Indo Aryan origin where as some are of Scythic origin. Both these theories were there in the Jat people article. The Jat people article was long and there are suggestions to split it. With this view the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats article was created to highlight this aspect only. Its heading was changed to Origin of Jats. Now it looks imbalanced. Either we should keep its original name i.e. Indo-Aryan origin of Jats or if Origin of Jats is to be kept as such it needs more informations which are there in the Jat people and can be imported to make it a balanced and complete article. So instead of deleting we should expand it. --burdak 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE:

Jats

The article Origins of the jats, was previously titled- Indo Aryan Origin of Jats.

The article is a is actually a sub article, part of the main article jats or Jat People.

As with any book, article, raeserrtch paper, when witing about a subject as extensive as the Jats, the subject needs to be divided into manageable chunks.

One of the sections, chapters- divisions will be: ‘The origins of the Jats’.

This subject itself then has to be divided in to the various theories that exist and are being developed.

Some of the questions that arise are: 1 Are the Jats autochons of the Indian subcontinent, as some historians suggest?

2. Are they of foreign origin? If so from where?

3. Are they ‘Aryans’ part of the supposed invasion of the Indian subcontinent’ by Aryans? Then who were the Aryans/ were they Europeans?

Were they central Asians? Is the term ‘Aryan ‘appropriate to denote a ‘race’? That in itself is a subject on which much academic and real blood has been spilt, - e.g Nazi Germany and as yet no satisfactory answers have come forward,

4. A number of historians have suggested they are of ‘Scythian’ origin?

5. Then there is mythology- is the jats descended form the ‘locks of Lord Shiva.

6. Were the Jats the same people, who are the subject of the Vedic traditions- the Rig Veda etc?

7. Are they the subject of, Are they of the clans and people referred to in the Indian epic- the Mahabharat.

8. Do they have any relationship to the Goths, the Huns, the Gaut, Geats, Gutar, and the Jutes of Scandinavia?

Each of the topics and questions can and is the subject of much research and historical writing. Every year more and more papers on the subjects are coming out.>

Out of all these and more questions: come the question, (as anyone writing a paper is familiar with) do you jumble it all together or split it, and use an index with sub indices?

The jats article has done that in terms of basic structure see below:

Contents [hide] • 1 People

• 2 Demographics

• 3 Distribution

• 4 Background

o 4.1 Theories of origin

o 4.2 Indo-Aryan origin

o 4.3 Indo-Scythian origin o 4.4 Origin of Jats from Shiva's Locks

The name of the sub Article Indo Aryan origin of Jats then should then stand as such, but in the body it should be made clear that it is a sub article.

Should the article itself be deleted?

Well if it is a sub article, on a valid line of inquiry which much literature exists, as it does, then the answer is an obvious NO.

The term Indo Aryan and Aryan exist,

A brief search in the wikipedia shows the results as below: .

Indo-Aryan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Indo aryan) Jump to: navigation, search Indo-Aryan refers to: • Indo-Aryan languages • Indo-Aryan migration •

Indo-Aryans, the various peoples speaking these languages See also: • Indo-Iranian • Aryan • Arya

The Indo Aryan article from Wikiedia:( which I reproduce in full to give us an idea of the complexities involved- in trying to delete articles, which have wide linkage )

The Indo Aryan page, list a number of people as being Indo Aryans.( and I treat this a nomenclature only- I do not agree with the concept of Aryan as a race)

Indo-Aryans

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Indo-Aryans v • d • e

Total population ~1 Billion Regions with significant populations Indian subcontinent, with minority populations on all continents. Languages Indo-Aryan languages

Religions Dharmic religions, Abrahamic religions, Zoroastrianism

The Indo-Aryans are a wide collection of peoples united by their common status as speakers of the Indo-Aryan (Indic) branch of the family of Indo-European and Indo-Iranian languages. Today, there are close to a billion native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages, mostly indigenous to the region of South Asia, though in ancient times, they could have been found on the eastern part of the Iranian plateau (Afghanistan) and in areas as far west as modern Syria and Iraq (the Mittani). Their cultural influence, from early on in the first millennium AD, reached as far east as modern Cambodia and Vietnam (Khmer and Champa kingdoms) as well as Indonesia, where it survives in Bali, and in the Philippines. The Roma people migrated westward in medieval times, and modern migration gave rise to Indo-Aryan minorities on most continents.[citation needed] Contents [hide]

• 1 Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans

• 2 Vedic Aryans

• 3 Antiquity

• 4 Middle Kingdoms

• 5 Contemporary Indo-Aryans

o 5.1 Hindustani communities

o 5.2 Roma and Sinti

• 6 Indo-Aryan peoples

o 6.1 Ancient

o 6.2 Modern

• 7 Notes

• 8 References

• 9 See also

[edit] Pre-Vedic Indo-Aryans

Main article: Indo-Aryan migration

Separation of Indo-Aryans proper from Proto-Indo-Iranians is commonly dated, on linguistic grounds, to roughly 2000 BC.[citation needed] The Nuristani languages probably split in such early times, and are classified as either remote Indo-Aryan dialects or as an independent branch of Indo-Iranian. It is believed that by 1500 BC Indo-Aryans had reached Assyria in the west (the Mitanni) and northern Afghanistan in the east (the Rigvedic tribes).

The spread of Indo-Aryan languages has been connected with the spread of the chariot in the first half of the second millennium BC. Some scholars trace the Indo-Iranians (both Indo-Aryans and Iranians) back to the Andronovo culture (2nd millennium BC). Other scholars like Brentjes (1981), Klejn (1974), Francfort (1989), Lyonnet (1993), Hiebert (1998) and Sarianidi (1993) have argued that the Andronovo culture cannot be associated with the Indo-Aryans of India or with the Mitanni because the Andronovo culture took shape too late and because no actual traces of their culture (e.g. warrior burials or timber-frame materials of the Andronovo culture) have been found in India or Mesopotamia (Edwin Bryant. 2001). The archaeologist J.P. Mallory (1998) finds it "extraordinarily difficult to make a case for expansions from this northern region to northern India" and remarks that the proposed migration routes "only [get] the Indo-Iranian to Central Asia, but not as far as the seats of the Medes, Persians or Indo-Aryans" (Mallory 1998; Bryant 2001: 216). Therefore he has suggested (1998) the 'Kulturkugel' model of Indo-Aryan speakers with a BMAC culture, that spread into eastern Iran and beyond. Other scholars like Asko Parpola (1988) connect the BMAC with the Indo-Aryans. But although horses were known to the Indo-Aryans, evidence for their presence in the form of horse bones is missing in the BMAC (e.g. Bernard Sergent. Genèse de l'Inde. 1997:161 ff.). However, recently a foal burial has been found, indicating import from the northern steppes. Asko Parpola (1988) has argued that the Dasas were the "carriers of the Bronze Age culture of Greater Iran" living in the BMAC and that the forts with circular walls destroyed by the Indo-Aryans were actually located in the BMAC. Parpola's hypothesis has been criticized by K.D. Sethna (1992) and other writers.

[edit] Vedic Aryans

See also: Vedic period and Rigvedic tribes

The first undisputed horse remains in India are found in the Bronze Age Gandhara Grave culture context from ca. 1600 BC (although there are claims[citation needed] of horse bones found in Harappan and even pre-Harappan layers). This likely corresponds to an influx of early Indo-Aryan speakers over the Hindukush (comparable to the Kushan expansion of the first centuries AD). Together with indigenous cultures, this gave rise to the Vedic civilization of the early Iron Age. This civilization is marked by a continual shift to the east, first to the Gangetic plain with the Kurus and Panchalas, and further east with the Kosala and Videha. This Iron Age expansion corresponds to the black and red ware and painted grey ware cultures. [edit] Antiquity

See also: Mahajanapadas and Maurya Empire

The Vedic Kuru and Panchala kingdoms in the first millennium became the core of the Mahajanapadas, archaeologically corresponding to the Northern Black Polished Ware, and the rise of the Mauryan Empire, and later the medieval Middle kingdoms of India.

For Hellenistic times, Oleg N. Trubachev (1999; elaborating on a hypothesis by Kretschmer 1944) suggests that there were Indo-Aryan speakers in the Pontic steppe. The Maeotes and the Sindes, the latter also known as "Indoi" and described by Hesychius as an "an Indian people".[1]

[edit] Middle Kingdoms

Statue of Shivaji Bhonslé, founder of the Maratha empire.

Main articles: Middle kingdoms of India and Middle Indo-Aryan languages

The various Prakrit vernaculars developed into independent languages in the course of the Middle Ages (see Apabhramsha), forming the Abahatta group in the east and the Hindustani group in the west, see also History of the Hindi language. The Roma people (also known as Gypsies) are believed to have left India around AD 1000.21

[edit] Contemporary Indo-Aryans

Contemporary native speakers of Indo-Aryan languages are spread over most of the northern Indian Subcontinent. Native and non-native speakers of Indo-Aryans languages also reach the south of the peninsula and into Sri Lanka and the Maldives. The largest group are the speakers of the Hindi and Urdu dialects of the India and Pakistan, together with other dialects also grouped as Hindustani, numbering at roughly half a billion native speakers, constituting the largest community of speakers of any of the Indo-European languages. Other Indo-Aryan communities are in Bangladesh, Nepal and parts of Afghanistan. Of the 23 national languages of India, 16 are Indo-Aryan languages(see also languages of India). The only Indo-Aryan branch surviving outside the Indian Subcontinent and the Himalayas is the Romani language, the language of the Roma people (Gypsies).

[edit] Hindustani communities

Main article: Hindustani language

Hindustani is an umbrella term for various dialects descended from the Prakrits of medieval India. The largest of these are the Hindi and Urdu languages. Hindustani speaking people inhabit modern-day Pakistan and northern India. During the British Raj, this region was identified as "Hindustan", the Persian for "Land of the Hindus". Related languages are spoken all over Indian subcontinent, from Bengal to Sri Lanka and the Maldives.

[edit] Roma and Sinti Main articles: Roma people and Sinti

Roma family in Smyrne, Turkey, photographed in 1904.

The closely related Roma and Sinti people (the latter having the old name of the river Indus, the Sind), also known as "Gypsies", are traditionally nomadic. They are believed to have left India in about 1000 AD and to have passed through what is now Afghanistan, Persia, Armenia, and Turkey. People recognizable by other Roma as Roma still live as far east as Iran, including some who made the migration to Europe and returned. By the 14th century, the Roma had reached the Balkans; by the 15th century they appeared in Western Europe; and by the 16th century, they had reached Scotland and Sweden. Peoples with some similarity to the Roma still exist in India, particularly in the desert state of Rajasthan. Roma immigration to the United States began in colonial times, and larger scale immigration began in the 1860s with groups from Britain. The largest number of immigrants came over in the early 1900s. A large number also moved to Latin America.

[edit] Indo-Aryan peoples [edit] Ancient

• Rigvedic tribes

• Angas

• Kalingas

• Kambojas

• Kasis

• Kurus

• Licchavis

• Gandharis

• Gangaridai

• Gupta

• Magadhis

• Maurya

• Nanda

• Pala

• Satavahanas

• Shakya

• Vanga

[edit] Modern

• Bengali people

• Bihari people

• Caló

• Chamar

• Chhettris

• CKPs

• Chittagonians

• Dhangars

• Dom people

• Gitanos

• Gujaratis

• Gurkhas

Jats

• Kalderash

• Kambojs, Kambohs • Kammas • Konkani people • Deshastha • Brahmins • Lohanas • Malikun • Marathas • Marathi people • Marwaris • Muhajirs • Nambiars • Namboothiris • Oriya people • Punjabi people • Rajputs • Romnichals • Saraswats • Seraikis • Sinhalese • Sindhi people • Sinti • Tarkhans • Kayastha • Ahluwalia

[edit] Notes 1. ^ Sindoi (or Sindi etc.) were also described by e.g. Herodotus, Strabo, Dionysius, Stephen Byzantine, Polienus. [1] [edit] References • Bryant, Edwin (2001). The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-513777-9. • Mallory, JP. 1998. "A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia". In The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washington DC: Institute for the Study of Man. • Trubachov, Oleg N., 1999: Indoarica, Nauka, Moscow. [edit] See also Indo-European topics Indo-European languages

Albanian • Anatolian • Armenian Baltic • Celtic • Dacian • Germanic Greek • Indo-Iranian • Italic • Phrygian Slavic • Thracian • Tocharian

Indo-European peoples

Albanians • Anatolians • Armenians Balts • Celts • Germanic peoples Greeks • Indo-Aryans • Indo-Iranians Iranians • Italic peoples • Slavs Thracians • Tocharians

Proto-Indo-Europeans

Language • Society • Religion

Urheimat hypotheses

Kurgan hypothesis • Anatolia Armenia • India • PCT

Indo-European studies

• Aryan • Arya • Aryavarta • Aryan race • Iranian Peoples • Indo-Aryan migration • Dasa • Kshatriya • Proto-Indo-Europeans • Indo-Aryan languages

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Aryans" Categories: All articles with unsourced stat

CONCLUDING REMARKS

The article is only a sub article of the main article Jats, one of the three related to the Origins of the Jats. We should expect more sub articles not less.

The term Aryan, Indo Aryan has a vast body of literature and whether we like or not, it is a subject not likely to go away.

One does not to have agree with everything in the article. Editors may wish to provide opposing theories.

An article must contain data and evidence that support of oppose the various perspectives and theories. This will encourage education, not pushing one view down anyone’s throat.

To delete the sub article would mean that we should also then delete all articles where the term Aryan or Indo Aryan is used.

E.g a number of people along with Jats are listed as Indo Aryan. Why would we just delete the article on " Indo Aryan origins of jats', and leave the 'Aryan' related Articles be?

or would we delete , only Jats , from that list and leave the groups others be?

That would disrupt a substantial section of Wikipedia.

Recommend: STRONG KEEP., but revise and expand

Ravi Chaudhary 21:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Editing this article. ==

I have started to edit this article, to try and improve it.

Please help

Ravi Chaudhary 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"DrBrij" asked on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of Jats (which has now been archived): "What makes biometrics and genetics "obsolete" sciences for historical research? --DrBrij 07:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)"

Here is my answer: Biometrics and genetics are "obsolete" (or rather misused) sciences for historical research when the author claims that the "nasal index" can show that some people were descended from the so-called "Aryans" or "Indo-Aryans" (who have never really been identified with any degree of certitude) and that, the fact they had large noses made them the "most honourable".

This is really the most bizarre, ridiculous and unscientific claim I have ever seen on the pages of the Wikipedia. Even Mr. Chaudhary the other day admitted that Aryan was not a valid racial designation: "I treat this a nomenclature only- I do not agree with the concept of Aryan as a race."

Biometrics and genetics are not "obsolete" in themselves - but attitudes such as the risable Risley promoted are not only obsolete they are plainly a gross misuse of science - in other words - pseudoscience.

There are quite a few theories as to the origin of the Jats - none of them universally accepted. The most likely scenario would seem to me to be that Jats are descended from various groups that invaded north-western India over the past one and a half thousand years or so, mixed to a greater or lesser degree with the peoples were already living in the Punjab and Sind before that. However, I am the first to admit that their descent remains largely unknown. It is also quite possible that the various groups of Jats have quite different origins. What is worrying is why it has become such a point of such vehement arguments here and in the other articles relating to the Jats.

There seems to be some racist agenda to "prove" the unprovable - a "pure" "Aryan" or "Indo-Aryan" descent for Jats on these pages. I wonder why that is? Is it really that important to a general encyclopedia article? Wouldn't it be best to just briefly outline the main theories, and then leave it at that - at least until more detailed and well-established DNA evidence becomes available? John Hill 08:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, John Hill, I will ask you to read the Rgved and the nose references in it. What points to the Indo-Aryan origin of the Jats is the cultural narrative about the nose which is used in the Rgved to distinguish the "noseless" cultures opposed to the Indo-Aryans. The same narrative is used in Jat cultures even today - even among the illiterate farmers. That, John Hill, is a history research argument for the thesis of Aryan origins of the Jats. The nasal index studies were conducted to see if there was any truth to the Rgved bluster on the noses of the Indo-Aryans. The findings confirmed and reinforced the cultural narrative. That, John Hill, is evidence for the thesis of this article. There is no racism involved. Jats live and work with all other groups and communities without any major conflict. Racism is what you find in Europe - ghettoizing of the darker skinned people, or severe prejudices against non-white Europeans. Racism is a preponderantly European construct, with perhaps Japan adding some Asian segment to the idea. --DrBrij 01:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this article , has not been deleted, let us concentrate on improving it.

1) A structure must be agreed upon. The current structure to me looks reasonable.

2) The various theories of origin , should be given their place and space. References should be cited, wherever possible.

3) I will suggest that major changes should be discused on the discussion pages, first.

It may also be noted, that Jat History studies are a comparatively new field.

To keep matters in perspective and some balance, readers and researchers, should keep in mind, that the History of the Jats, has either been suppressed, ignored or as is often the case, allocated to other groups,and what little is written, has been presented in a denigratory manner in Indian History text books.

A cursory review of Indian history Texts books will show that, and will also show the prejudice and bias against the Jat people.

In the words of RC Majumdar, a renowned Historian and one the major editors of the excellent and monumental work’ The History and Culture of the Indian People’, circa 1950, Bal Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, New York, writes in Volume III, The Classical Age :

"If there had been a history of India written without prejudices and predilections, the heroic deeds of these brave people, the Jats, who stemmed the tide of Islam for two centuries, would certainly have received the recognition they so richly deserve"

It is only comparatively recently, 1935 on that some books and article about the history of the Jats came out, and then in only in the last 30 odd years, that momentum has developed in the study of the History of these people.

As such much of the material now coming out, is contradictory to the ‘line’ that had been sold to the history students of yore.

Best regards

Ravi Chaudhary —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wild over-statements of the recent additions (eg. "Most Western scholars . . . believe that the Jats are Indo-Scythians from Central Asia" (when many of their statements are carefully qualified) is reason enough for this whole mess to be revised carefully by someone with knowledge of how to use scholarly sources responsibly. Please see the Archives for further reasons for my adding tags to the article today.John Hill (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Well we can replace "Most Western scholars" for "Some Scholars". However, it is a fact that most academics view Jats as Indo-Scythians NOT Indo-Aryans as some have been pushing.--Trv93 (talk) 08:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, thanks John for your kind note on my talk page. Best regards.--Trv93 (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Trv93: Thanks for changing the statement "Most Western scholars" to "Some Scholars" - it reads much better now. I still think this page would be improved if it just included a brief summary of the various theories and a clear statement that our knowledge is still very limited and that Jats, like other human groups, are undoubtedly of mixed ancestry, although DNA studies may well show a closer affinity with some groups than others. "Scythians," too, were made up of various ethnic groupings. I am especially uneasy about the term "Indo-Scythian" as it was never used by any group to describe themselves but was, rather, created by scholars and has led to much confusion. For example, the Kushans have often been called "Indo-Scythians" but there is no real proof as to what their ancestry was - they may not have been "Scythians" at all. This is still a subject of intense debate among modern writers. Many scholars now feel that the Yuezhi may have been, like their neighbours, the Xiongnu, a confederation of various tribes of both "Mongoloid" and "Caucasoid" heritage and possibly containing more than one language group. It is also not clear whether the Kushans were primarily descended from the Yuezhi or from peoples who were already in the region of northern Afghanistan when the Yuezhi invaded in the 2nd century BCE. So, to work out the origins of the Jats is likely to be a very difficult and complex job, and it will be particularly difficult to do it fairly and without upsetting too many people. I wish you the very best of luck with improving the article. I do look forward to a much better and more balanced presentation. Thank you for attempting this important work. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 10:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your kind words. I've improved the article, added cites and hopefully we can one day get this article to Wikipedia:Featured articles standard. Yes I agree with you Jat people are an ethnic group of mixed genetic components, the two biggest being Scythian and Aryan. However, hopefully with the invention of DNA analysis scientists can solve the question once and for all. The real question is "what mixture of genetics Jat people are?" 70% Scythian + 30% Aryan or 70% Aryan and 30% Scythian. Which component is the dominant (major/minor) ancestral genetic component? On the Scythian people I agree there were many Scythian sub-tribes just like in Germany there were many Germanic tribes in the German people. Hopefully, in the next 10 years with the DNA studies, which are planned over the next 10 years, this question will be solved once and for all and we can then move onto a new question. Stay well, Best regards.--Trv93 (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the topic is really confusing. Did not add an inch to my knowledge! The majority of historians stated here arrived in india thousands of years after jats. And there is not a single jat defining from where he descends!!! actually talking about DNA, the closest these people came was to turks. the dna of people in turkey and that of people in punjab matched a lot. there is also a tradition, i forgot where i read it, that these people were soldiers of fallen roman armies that migrated looking for lands after fall of rome. but looking at the picture, looks like majority are starving to death! wonder what their womenfolk look like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.161.10 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while going through the article, i came across a name ,Khushwant Singh. His book a history of sikhs, published in 1963. he wrote in the preface that the sikhs would be extinct by end of 20th century. he wrote another book with a similar title with changed comments but same implied meaning. its 2008 and he is alive and there are hell lot of sikhs on the planet. I mean this historian cannot gauge fifty years future and he is expected to tell us the past. People, you could have chosen a better historian!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.161.10 (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was apparently written (or disturbed) by editors with no notion of the terminology involved. The question of "Aryan" in 19th century scientific racism is conflated with the question of Indo-Scythian admixture. Of course, the Scythians are just as "Aryan" as the Rajputs, so the question is really moot. This article needs to separate the "Aryans" stuff in a section on Historical definitions of races in India, and rely on recent literature for the question of Indo-Scythian origin. dab (𒁳) 08:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I will do a cleanup and will begin to separate the "Aryans" stuff and rely on recent literature for the question of Indo-Scythian origin.--Peter johnson4 (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just been through the article removing the proliferation of academic titles as per the "Wikipedia Manual of Style" - see: [1]. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]