Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Avoiding edit war on origins

Edit-war

@CambridgeBayWeather: Given your experience with edit wars in South Asia topics, I would like you to monitor this page and ensure it remains on the last stable[1] version so that newcomers to this article do not cite WP:BRD to restore[2] the controversial new version[3] which I reverted.[4] That will be the best way to avoid edit war. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me)

Take a look at the consensus on Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 1#Kautilya3's new edits and bring some points that haven't been refuted. --RaviC (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

@Owais Khursheed: sorry but can you inform me if you are you going to self-revert yourself? You have violated 2RR. My Lord (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Which part of that discussion favours your preferred version? In particular the Gulshan Majeed content you keep on removing. Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

My Lord, this page is not under 2RR. Bring an administrator who knows these sanctions, like Regents Park, to be the judge of that if you are unsure.Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:23, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Everything falling under India-Pakistan conflict is under 2RR. Read this thing carefully. My Lord (talk) 16:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Regents Park can decide whether this page is under 2RR. This page and especially the "Origins" section has no relation to any Indo-Pak conflict. Nevertheless, if the administrator decides otherwise, I will self-revert when I am next online. And 2RR only applies if it is done without discussion, which is not the case here.Owais Khursheed (Talk to me) 16:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think that Kashmiri people are not involved in the Indo-Pak conflict and why do you think that you reverted 2 times by complying with the rules when you initiated discussion after you reverted 2 times? My Lord (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It must be possible to merge both versions. I don't see why the specific mention of Indo-Europeans should be removed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #1

According to Barbara A. West, "the origins of the Kashmiri people remain a mystery," while M. Ashraf Bhat notes that "scholars are divided on the issue of the ancestord of the Kashmiris." According to Bhat, scholars have proposed various theories concerning the origins of Kashmiris. Bhat refers to Dar, who argues that Kashmir was settled by subsequent waves of migrants, including Central Asians who came to study Buddhism, and Brahmins from India who came to study Sanskrit and Kashmiri Shaivism. Dar further notes that sufis from Iran and Iraq came in the 14th century "to spread Islam and expand their trade.

Bhat states that "many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race," coming from Central Asia. According to Bhat, some scholars reject the notion of Indo-Aryan origins of Kashmiris, and believe they were migrants from "India proper"; West mentions "the more southern regions of India." Bhat further notes that "some scholars believe that Kashmiris belong to a 1200-year old race of the Pishachas and Nagas."

Bhat also mentions that some scholars and Kashmiri historians, such as R.K. Parmu, believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews, and were "forcibly converted to Islam prior to the 12th century." According to Downie et al. (2016), "The claim of Israelite ancestry is widespread among Kashmiris, who cite historical records and the similarity of geographical names and cultural and social traditions." Yet, according to Downie et al. (2016), "there are no significant or substantial signs of [...] Jewish admixture in modern-day Kashmiris. According to Bhat, this theory has been refuted by most scholars.

[According to Downie et al. (2016), "Indo-European ethno-linguistic groups of northern India, including the Kashmiris, share a complex ancestral history with both west Eurasian and Indian populations." According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, north-west India was populated by socalled "Indus Periphery" people, who were related to the IVC-people. The mixture of Indo-Europeans with Indus Periphery people in northern India resulted in Ancestral North Indians (ANI); at the same time, southern Indus periphery people mixed southwards with Archaic Ancestral South Indians (AASI, ancient hunter-gatherers), forming Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Most present-day Indians are a mix of ANI (IVC + IE) and ASI (IVC + AASI), though with varying degrees of the constituent ancestry.]

Notes

References

Sources

• Bhat, M. Ashraf (2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
• Downie (2016), "A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population", PLoS One. 2016; 11(8): e0160614
• Majeed, Gulshan (2011), "No Naga Presence in Ancient Kashmir The Past Never Is", in Khawaja, G.M.; Majeed, Gulshan (eds.), Approaches to Kashmir Studies, Gulshan Books
• Narasimhan, Vagheesh M. (2018), "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia", BioRxiv
• West, Barbara A. (2010), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Infobase Publishing

• PS1: it seems to me that Kashmir, prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, must have been populated by people related to the IVC-people, that is, a mixture of Iranians and AASI. Present-day Kashmiri are a mix of ANI ((AASI + Iranian) + IE) and ASI ((AASI + Iranian) + AASI). This info could be added, with WP:RS (before I noted that genetic research is not being used in caste-discussions, but this topic is not about caste. If there are no objections, I'm willing to collect, and double-check, the relevant sorces. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my time on the Indo-Pakistan Wikipedia War).
• PS2: there is a difference between the Naga Kingdom from mythology, and the present-day Tibeto-Burman Naga people. According to Bhat, the Naga people come from Thailand; it seems to me that he is mixing up both mythology and contemporary ethnology. Frankly, Bhat is hardly WP:RS (I have another qualification in mind...).

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposal #1

• Today's version is decent. But on the whole, we are just taking one source (Ashraf Bhat), who is not even a historian, and beating his wording to death. I don't see why we have to use his precise words in quote marks.

For Nagas, please see:

• Hāṇḍā, Omacanda (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya, Indus Publishing, pp. 97–, ISBN 978-81-7387-161-0
• Bamzai, P. N. K. (1994), Culture and Political History of Kashmir: Ancient Kashmir, M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd., pp. 16–17, 59–60, ISBN 978-81-85880-31-0

There are loads of references to Nagas in Ancient India, but we don't know very much about them except that they probably worshipped or revered snakes. Reverence for snakes is widespread pretty much all over India. (Even Gurjara-Pratiharas in the 7th seventh century were using "kettle drum and snake", pratipad-haryam, as their flag. For all we know, "Pratihara" could have been a derivative of that phrase.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:45, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I also think we should not use any terms like "mythology" anywhere. We are citing historians or cultural scholars, and they are trained to extract reliable information from "mythologies". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I also don't think we should cite Gulshan Majeed, who doesn't seem to have published any peer-reviewed work in his life. The article cited here is a conference talk, and edited by himself. His claim that there is no archaelogical evidence of Naga presence is squarely contradicted by Handa. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I am replying both to Kautilya3 and the above proposal from Joshua Jonathan that was made in good-faith. I am reminding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 236#Linguist's history, the discusion where uninvolved editors agreed that the source is not reliable and furthermore the publisher (Cambridge scholars) can produce bad quality of content but we can't tell the same for many other WP:RS. Still when I was restoring the consensus version I dedicated some parts of the content to this source. Current version is just better than the previous one. My Lord (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing all of Bhat, and search for other sources on the Nagas. NB: West isn't great either. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Its a shame this already solved subject is repeated every 6 months. I have to login just to make a few things clear again.

1. Genetic studies are generally unreliable and these studies are constantly changing their findings. There are error margins and issue of how reliable the methodologies are. Acceptable statistical modelling is constantly changing. In fact in the whole field the findings are subject to constant changing. When even the findings from genetic studies about the maternal origins of chickens keep drastically changing how then can reliance be placed on genetic studies of social groups? Its absurd. Genetic studies should be discarded and not be used on this article. Its disrespectful.

2. Unfortunately, there are not a lot of studies into the origins of Kashmiris and even fewer are available online. Thats why its much more feasible to have a list of the various theories that we know have been propounded. And for that the scholar Bhat is more than fine. He has served as an officer in various cross-disciplinary fields. It was already decided at [[[WP:RSN]] that he is an acceptable source for saying that "scholar so and so said this" or "historians said this or that".[5] Of course if it was Bhat's own research then it would have been a different case. But since he is just saying that historians have said this or that, he is acceptable. The arguments for removing him are incredibly weak.

3. There is absolutely no evidence that Nagas ever inhabited Kashmir. There is no trace of them in Kashmir. No inscriptions, no archaeological evidence. Nothing. Unlike in the rest of India where Naga traces are still found. Numerous historians like Professor Gulshan Majeed, Professor Abdul Lone and Ahad have said this. All these are history professors at universities, Lone also teaches Indian archaeology.

Any authors (all Hindu) who have written about Nagas in Kashmir are merely regurgitating Hindu mythology, which historians like Lone note is their only source for the idea that Nagas ever were in Kashmir. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 14:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

If "there are not a lot of studies into the origins of Kashmiris", it would still not permit us to use a source that is either way not credible. Sorry, but we don't evaluate author's credibility by his religion, you have to evaluate it with the publisher, credentials. Though some argue if information is commonly accepted or not and in this case, it is not. My Lord (talk) 14:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FreeKashmiri, please note that your personal views constitute WP:OR and have no bearing on what goes into Wikipedia. There were two noticeboard discussions regarding this section: RSN and NPOVN. You need to consider the whole feedback and not pick and choose what suits your POV. If there is a division between "Hindu scholars" and "Muslim scholars" that is fine to note, except that we haven't been provided with any decent reading material from the Muslim scholars. In any case, I suppose F. M. Hassnain counts as a Muslim scholar:

The Nagas were not serpents but were a predominant element in the population of Kashmir when Buddhism entered the valley. There is an old legend to the effect that it were the Nagas, who first accepted Buddhism. There is no doubt about the significance of the legend, despite the miraculous element in it for in early Buddhist literature there are other references to the Nagas as paying homage to the Buddha.[37] Naga-arjuna is always referred to as a Siddha and so as Naga-Bodhi. Indeed, the Nagas and the Siddhas are often associated together in the ancient Indian tradition. This undoubtedly means that besides Naga-arjuna and Naga-bodhi, there were many other Siddhas among the Naga people. One of them was Kapila, the reputed founder of the Sankhya system and he was in all likely hood, a Naga by race.

References

So this division you imagine seems to be in your own imagination. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding Genetic studies are generally unreliable and these studies are constantly changing their findings: bullshit. I don't know what you are basing your opinions on, but you surely are out of touch with the recent genetic research. There's a pretty strong consensus on the migrations of Iranian farmers and Indo-Europeans into India, and the complex interactions of their descendents. That means: multiple studies basically confirm that Indians are related to Eurasians, due to Iranian and Indo-European migrations into India. If you think that those findings are incorrect, I'm looking forward to some very good sources for this WP:Red flag of yours. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Below is a survey of what can be found in journals like Science and Nature regarding the 'general unreliability' of genetic research. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Advances in genetic research

Johannsen, Niels N.; Larson, Greger; Meltzer, David J.; Vander Linden, Marc (2017), "A composite window into human history", Science 16 Jun 2017: Vol. 356, Issue 6343, pp. 1118-1120, doi:10.1126/science.aan0737, Over the past decade, the ability to recover whole genomes from ancient remains has emerged as a powerful tool for understanding the human past. From a strictly biological perspective, the sequencing of ancient genomes has resolved the dispute over our evolutionary relationship with Neandertals, revealed the extent of gene flow within and between modern and archaic humans, shed light on genetic and health consequences of this admixture, and uncovered genomic changes in recent human evolution (1). More generally, the results have made clear that over the course of human history, moving and mating have been more the rule than the exception. The possible benefits of ancient DNA (aDNA) research for archaeology are enormous. Kivisild, Toomas (2017), "The study of human Y chromosome variation through ancient DNA", Human Genetics, May 2017, Volume 136, Issue 5, pp 529–546, High throughput sequencing methods have completely transformed the study of human Y chromosome variation by offering a genome-scale view on genetic variation retrieved from ancient human remains in context of a growing number of high coverage whole Y chromosome sequence data from living populations from across the world. The ancient Y chromosome sequences are providing us the first exciting glimpses into the past variation of male-specific compartment of the genome and the opportunity to evaluate models based on previously made inferences from patterns of genetic variation in living populations. Lebrasseur, Ophélie; Ryan, Hannah; Abbona, Cinthia (2018), "Bridging Archaeology and Genetics", Environmental Archaeology, 2018, pp 111-132, With the development of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) in the 1980s, the application of molecular methods to archaeological questions has seen a rapid expansion in the last three decades, addressing major research topics including human origins and migrations, domestication and chronology. The recent introduction of next-generation sequencing (NGS) has revolutionised the field, allowing for a larger amount of data to be generated quickly and at ever-decreasing costs. Linderholm, Anna (2016), "Ancient DNA: the next generation – chapter and verse", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 117, Issue 1, 1 January 2016, Pages 150–160, As the field of ancient DNA (aDNA) enters its third decade, it is perhaps time to reflect on the amazing transformation that it has undergone. Early analyses of aDNA focused on mitochondrial and/or chloroplast DNA, which were abundantly available in the cell, making retrieval and reproducibility much easier. Study of mitochondrial DNA through time allows evolutionary relationships between species to be resolved, molecular clocks to be calibrated, the geographical origins of samples to be revealed, and demographic histories to be investigated. However, not until the advent of massive parallel sequencing [also know as second-generation sequencing and next-generation sequencing (NGS)] was it possible to retrieve and study nuclear DNA on a more routine basis. Ancient nuclear DNA can additionally be used to identify extinct phenotypes, assess the degree of admixture, and examine selection pressures. Marciniak, Stephanie; Perry, George H. (2017), "Harnessing ancient genomes to study the history of human adaptation", Nature Reviews Genetics volume 18, pages 659–674 (2017), The past several years have witnessed an explosion of successful ancient human genome-sequencing projects, with genomic-scale ancient DNA data sets now available for more than 1,100 ancient human and archaic hominin (for example, Neandertal) individuals. Recent 'evolution in action' analyses have started using these data sets to identify and track the spatiotemporal trajectories of genetic variants associated with human adaptations to novel and changing environments, agricultural lifestyles, and introduced or co-evolving pathogens. Together with evidence of adaptive introgression of genetic variants from archaic hominins to humans and emerging ancient genome data sets for domesticated animals and plants, these studies provide novel insights into human evolution and the evolutionary consequences of human behaviour that go well beyond those that can be obtained from modern genomic data or the fossil and archaeological records alone. Novembre, John; Peter, Benjamin M. (2016), "Recent advances in the study of fine-scale population structure in humans", Current Opinion in Genetics & Development. Volume 41, December 2016, Pages 98-105, Empowered by modern genotyping and large samples, population structure can be accurately described and quantified even when it only explains a fraction of a percent of total genetic variance. This is especially relevant and interesting for humans, where fine-scale population structure can both confound disease-mapping studies and reveal the history of migration and divergence that shaped our species' diversity. Here we review notable recent advances in the detection, use, and understanding of population structure. Our work addresses multiple areas where substantial progress is being made: improved statistics and models for better capturing differentiation, admixture, and the spatial distribution of variation; computational speed-ups that allow methods to scale to modern data; and advances in haplotypic modeling that have wide ranging consequences for the analysis of population structure. Orlando, Ludovic; Gilbert, M. Thomas P.; Willerslev, Eske (2015), "Reconstructing ancient genomes and epigenomes", Nature Reviews Genetics volume 16, pages 395–408 (2015), Research involving ancient DNA (aDNA) has experienced a true technological revolution in recent years through advances in the recovery of aDNA and, particularly, through applications of high-throughput sequencing. Formerly restricted to the analysis of only limited amounts of genetic information, aDNA studies have now progressed to whole-genome sequencing for an increasing number of ancient individuals and extinct species, as well as to epigenomic characterization. Such advances have enabled the sequencing of specimens of up to 1 million years old, which, owing to their extensive DNA damage and contamination, were previously not amenable to genetic analyses. Pickrell, Joseph K.; Reich, David (2014), "Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA", Trends in Genetics, Volume 30, Issue 9, September 2014, Pages 377-389, Genetic information contains a record of the history of our species, and technological advances have transformed our ability to access this record. Many studies have used genome-wide data from populations today to learn about the peopling of the globe and subsequent adaptation to local conditions [...] By accessing the genetic make-up of populations living at archaeologically known times and places, ancient DNA makes it possible to directly track migrations and responses to natural selection. Pugach, Irina; Mark (2015), "Genome-wide insights into the genetic history of human populations", Investigative Genetics20156:6, Although mtDNA and the non-recombining Y chromosome (NRY) studies continue to provide valuable insights into the genetic history of human populations, recent technical, methodological and computational advances and the increasing availability of large-scale, genome-wide data from contemporary human populations around the world promise to reveal new aspects, resolve finer points, and provide a more detailed look at our past demographic history. Genome-wide data are particularly useful for inferring migrations, admixture, and fine structure, as well as for estimating population divergence and admixture times and fluctuations in effective population sizes. Schraiber, Joshua G.; Akey, Joshua M. (2015), "Methods and models for unravelling human evolutionary history", Nature Reviews Genetics volume 16, pages 727–740 (2015), The genomes of contemporary humans contain considerable information about the history of our species. Although the general contours of human evolutionary history have been defined with increasing resolution throughout the past several decades, the continuing deluge of massively large sequencing data sets presents new opportunities and challenges for understanding human evolutionary history. Slatkin, Montgomery; Racimo, Fernando (2016), "Ancient DNA and human history", PNAS June 7, 2016. 113 (23) 6380-6387, In many cases, particularly in the Arctic, the Americas, and Europe, aDNA has revealed historical demographic patterns in a way that could not be resolved by analyzing present-day genomes alone. Ancient DNA from archaic hominins has revealed a rich history of admixture between early modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans, and has allowed us to disentangle complex selective processes. Information from aDNA studies is nowhere near saturation, and we believe that future aDNA sequences will continue to change our understanding of hominin history.

Regarding the Nagas, after "Bhat further notes that "some scholars believe that Kashmiris belong to a 1200-year old race of the Pishachas and Nagas."[3][note 1]" we could add: "According to Om Chanda Handa, those Nagas were pre-Aryan, "Austro-Dravidian" snake-worshippers; they were not related to the later Naga-clans which existed during the time of the Kushana Empire." Reference: Om Chanda Handa (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalayap.96-97. NB: note the discrepancy between Bhat's Tibeto-Burman Nagas, and Om Chanda Handa's Austro-Dravidian Nagas. Nevertheless, they seem to agree that those Nagas were not Indo-Aryans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

It is undue to give more prominence to the writer Om Handa (who himself admits the absence of evidence outside Hindu texts for Naga presence in Kashmir, p.57) over professional archaeologists and historians of Kashmir (Majeed, Lone, Ahad et al).

I do not know why a "Hindu-Muslim scholarship differences" twist is being given here. The actual issue is just one of fact and fiction.

There is simply no archaeological or other evidence for Naga habitation of ancient Kashmir and because of the total lack of evidence it's not acceptable to proceed here on the assumption that they ever lived in Kashmir. Historians have rejected the idea they ever inhabited Kashmir because as I said, the lack of archaeological and all sorts of evidence. The only source material for their presence in ancient Kashmir are Hindu mythological texts and that is the only source for those writers like Hassnain and Handa who have bothered to mention them. They have no real evidence.

Here's a comment of Professor Abdul Lone who teaches history and Indian archaeology at the University of Kashmir:

Nagas do have a historical base in the mainland of India. Certain temples shrines and sculptures there are ascribed to them. But as far as Kashmir Valley is concerned, except in the Nilmata Purana and the Rajatarangini, they do not exist. From the archaeological perspective, we do not have any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir. The sculptures ascribed to them in central India are completely missing from the archaeological record in Kashmir. Neither the Burzahom rock art nor the tiles from Harwan suggest anything to support the presence of Nagas in Kashmir. Scholars have argued that certain Naga tribes existed in Kashmir but that is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs)

FreeKashmiri, the Hindu-Muslim angle is what you started giving to this discussion. Here is what you said: "Any authors (all Hindu) who have written about Nagas in Kashmir are merely regurgitating Hindu mythology". Sure enough, all the scholars you are quoting are also saying similar things. It is all "Hindu mythology" and has no basis in reality.

And, these scholars don't seem to have published anything of their own. You haven't provided a single peer-reviewed source from any of them. Merely teaching at University of Kashmir (rated 71st in India, not ranked internationally, and with a relatively poor research rating [6]) doesn't necessarily make one an expert on these topics. We need to see views expressed in scholarly publications.

I am not sure on what basis you say that Handa's views are "undue". He has written an entire book on Naga cults, in addition to numerous other works and has a well-established track record. And, I couldn't verify your claim that he said there is an "absence of evidence" (on p.57?). Please provide a quotation. As far as I can see the entire discussion of Nagas in Kashmir starts on page 96 and goes till at least page 99, and he gives a variety of evidence: temples, cultural practices, place names, and Buddhist records. I see nothing here that throws doubt on anything.

I won't bother debunking the unpublished commentaries from your professors. But nobody has claimed any connection between the prehistoric Nagas of Kashmir and the historical Nagas in Central India. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:24, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Replay by JJ:

• I also can't find "the absence of evidence" at p.57 of Om Chanda Handa (2004).
• Regarding the lack of evidence that Nagas ever inhabited Kashmir and The only source material for their presence in ancient Kashmir are Hindu mythological texts and that is the only source for those writers like Hassnain and Handa who have bothered to mention them; you may have a point here. Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the Narrative, referring to Majeed (2011), states that

Kashmiri folklore is a rich piece of literature made richer by the additions of Naga stories that have their origin in Jatakas,[27] Puranas and the Rajatarangini of Kalhana.[28]

Majeed could be re-inserted, but instead of

According to Majeed, the presence of Nagas in ancient Kashmir has been contested.

we should write

According to Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir folklore about the presence of Nagas is based on Buddhist Jataka stories, and on stories coming from the Puranas and the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, as argued by Majeed. Yet, according to Abdul Lone, there is "not [...] any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir," and the existence of Nagas in Kashmir "is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it."

The Om Chanda Handa info could be moved to a note, together with Kautilya3's initial addition of info on the Nagas. I'll copy-paste a third proposal. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC) / update Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, JJ. I don't agree. Extracting historical information from mythified texts is always a tricky business and reasonable historians might disagree with each other. But those debates need to happen in the scholarly literature, not here on Wikipedia. The dissenting historians haven't done their job.

Khalid Bashir Ahmad, a retired civil servant, wrote up these dissents and (surprisingly) got it published by Routledge. This is a flaky source as far as I am concerned. The only academic review of the book, by Chitralekha Zutshi, shot it down as propagating biases. So, unless some other expert source vouches for it, I am not willing to touch this book with a barge pole. The citations in this book are meaningless. Ahmad quotes Majeed's views verbatim and cites Rajatarangini for it! This is hardly a scholarly piece of writing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The writer Om Handa admits while parroting the Naga myth "There must have remained wooden temples dedicated to the Naga deities at these sites earlier, but no evidence, except the traditions associated with these lakes, having strong Brahminical undertones now survives." The onus is on those who believe that Nagas inhabited Kashmir to prove it. Till date, they have not provided a shred of evidence, except for Hindu texts. That's why the views of such writers can't be preferred over historians who point to the lack of evidence for their claim. Its also unfair to describe Majeed et al as "dissenting" historians because there is no mainstream scholarly view in favour of the Naga theory in the first place. Its just been parroted by obscure writers who have no source, except Hindu texts. So its really them who have not done their job. Majeed and Lone have done theirs, which is to point out the complete lack of evidence for such writers' claims. Again, the onus is on those writers who think otherwise to prove their claim about Nagas inhabiting Kashmir. To write about Naga habitation in Kashmir as fact on an encyclopediac article is like writing the unsubstantiated theory (except in religious texts) of Creationism as fact in place of the solid-evidenced Darwin theory. Its WP:UNDUE. Bashir does not have to be cited, Majeed can do. But to describe Bashir's work as a flaky source, using Zutshi, who is not without her own biases, as gosepl is disingenuous. For starters, Bashir's book was received at its opening by the historian Professor Abdul Qayyum Rafiqui.[7] As far as Hangloo is relevant, I read months ago on here a negative review of Hangloo's work by Heitzman that he provided no evidence such as archaeological for his chapter about ancient Kashmir (and Nagas), and his sources were once again, only the Hindu texts. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 12:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am afraid you are engaging in a WP:FORUMy debate. On Wikipedia, we describe what reliable sources say, not individual editors' opinions on what the reliable sources say. You are welcome to have your views, and believe or disbelieve what the reliable sources say. But your views and beliefs can't influence what goes into Wikipedia. Your biases are clearly evident when you talk about "writer Om Handa... parroting the Naga myth" and "historian Professor Abdul Qayyum Rafiqui". The former is an established scholar, a fellow of the ICHR, whereas about the latter, we know nothing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

FreeKashmiri, your emphasis is "there were no Nagas in Kashmir." That's only part of what those authors say. They also say that there are stories, folklore, about Nagas in kashmir; and they argue that those stories have their origin in the Puranas. That's the whole story, according to those authors, not just 'there were no nagas in Kashmir'. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, actually, both Handa and Hangloo are referring to more than stories. They are calling the inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley before the arrival of the Indo-Aryans "Nagas", and they are calling them so because there is evidence of Naga cult in their culture. Hassnain mentioned Naga-arjuna and Naga-bodhi being among the first promoters of Buddhism in Kashmir. None of this depends on Nilamata Purana. But, once they accept the presence of Naga cult, the historians can then interpret the Nilamata Purana to extract historically valid information from it. As I said, reasonable historians can disagree on what is valid historical information and what is not. But to say that any mention of Nagas is mythical is not reasonable. This is just like the Hindu fundamentalists complaining about "Aryan invasion theory" claiming "there is no archaeological evidence". Evidence can be a variety of forms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"The Nagas"

Khalid Bashir Ahmad writes:

We are familiair with the Naga presence in Gandhara, the Gangetic Valley and Central and North Eastern India were shrines and inscriptions are attributed to them, and were they suffered onslaught, extermination and excommunication by the invading Aryans. But did they exist in Kashmir?

What exactly does he mean with the Nagas? He further refers to a Shafi Shauq, stating:

According to him, Nilamata Purana is an ancient folk tale that was given the form of a literary text in the 8th or 9th century AD: "It is a beautifull work of imagination, though there are intimations of old beliefs and rituals."

So,, the Naga-folklore is older than the Nilamata Purana, and contains "intimations of old beliefs and rituals."

By the way, Khalid Bashir Ahmad also refers to Burzahom. From the Wiki-article:

Skeletal remains of Neolithic people found at Burzahom are similar to those found in Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization.

I'll bet there is info on IVC & Naga-worship. For a starter, and for what it's worth: link.

This is an academic source which treats the nāgas: Shonaleeka Kaul (2018), The Making of Early Kashmir: Landscape and Identity in the Rajatarangini, Oxford University Press:

The centrality of the nāgas to the mythology of Kashmir is well known. What is less clear is whether the nāgas can be said to symbolize any social group such as the 'original' inhabitants...

Unfortunately, I can't access the source further, but OUP seems better than authors such as Bhat and Ahmad. The source also says:

For a speculative interpretation of nagas and pisacas as human tribes, see R. S. Bisht, 'Reflections on Burzahom and Semthan: Excavations and Later Mythological Periods in Kashmir Valley', in Central Asia and Western Himalayas: A Forgotten Link, ed. G. M. Buth (Srinagar, 1986), pp. 56-7.

PDF available via Google; summarizes the story on the Nagas.

And here's another fine quote, from a Mohini Qasba Raina, Kashur The Kashmiri Speaking People, p.31:

There is a general agreement among scholars, Indologists and historians, about Nagas being the original inhabitants of Kashmir, on the basis of the information given in Nilamat Purana.

Khalid Bashir Ahmad and professor Lone are kind of deviant? Which brings us back to the question: what are the Nagas they are referring to? According to Charles Frederick Oldham (late 19th century)(in Raina p.32),

...the aborigines inhabiting Kashmiri and other parts of North India prior to the advent of Vedic Aryans.

Sounds reasonable. Anyway, this 'mythology' or 'folklore' should be mentioned; it's relevant. There-after, various interpretations can be mentioned. @Kautilya3: any chance you can access Shonaleeka Kaul? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Khalid Bashir Ahmad's talk of "The Nagas" is the very first reason that stops me from taking it seriously. There is no such coherent class of people (or beings) established by anybody. During the historical times, various people called "Nagas" are mentioned in various parts of India. Chandragupta II is known to have taken a Naga wife. The Vakatakas, with whom the Guptas had marital alliances, are said to have had alliances with Nagas. It stands to reason that the Aryan people might have called any indigenous people that had a Naga-cult as "Nagas". But the Naga-cult has been squarely integrated into Hinduism now. The Naga Panchami is still celebrated every year. Vishnu sleeps on a giant cobra called Adi Sesha. Shiva wears garlands of cobras etc. If somebody has energy to study the phenomenon, this would make a brilliant example of the "Hindu synthesis" where various indigenous traditions were integrated into a coherent belief system that we call "Hinduism".

However, nowhere in India is the Naga-cult as prominent as it is in Kashmir and Himachal. There is no book equivalent to the Nilamata Purana elsewhere. Nowhere else in India is it believed that nagas live in springs so much so that the springs themselves get to be called "Nags" (Anantnag, Kokernag, etc. etc.) All this suggests that the people that came to be referred to as "Nagas" had an exclusive domain in the natural fortress of Kashmir Valley, and blocked the Aryan people from entering, at least for a while. But eventually they did enter, and the Naga-cult got integrated with the Aryan culture. It is squarely impossible to talk about the "Origins" of Kashmiris, without mentioning Nagas. R. L. Hangloo, an authentic JNU-trained historian, does a great job of extracting historical information from the traditions, which should be covered in detail in this article. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Mohini Qasba Raina is a homemaker, writing in a self-published book, with no credibility to determine what is the scholarly consensus. What needs to be pointed out here is that all who are writing about Nagas are relying on a mythologised text.

Reliable historian Professor Gulshan Majeed writes in his chapter in 'Approach to Kashmir Studies' that there is no evidence of Naga habitation in Kashmir. That can't be removed and because we know the pro-Naga camp is depending on mythology for their stance. This criticism from historians such as Majeed needs to be included i.e. that there is no evidence, no inscriptions or physical traces etc.

Hangloo is a poor source, to have on this article, especially for supposed "detail". This is a review of his work by Heitzmann

Chapter 1, discussing state formation before the fourteenth century, depends on Kalhana's Rajatarangini and some input from the seventh-century Nilmata Purana. There is no indication here of archaeological work that might aid the historian, although the establishment of Srinagar and neighboring Stupas is said to occur in the third century B.C.E.

Heitzmann then goes on to indicate the pro-Hindu chauvinist bias of that book. If academic reviews note Hangloo has no historical research why should his work even be taken seriously?

A lot of the rest of the comments here are original research (like "All this suggests that the people that came to be referred to as "Nagas" had an exclusive domain in the natural fortress"). I will try looking up the Kaul book.

As for the "we know nothing" comment on AQ Rafiqi, well he is a senior professsor of history at KU. It doesn't matter if you know nothing about him,others do,[8] he is a sufficient authority on kashmiri history for judging other works like Bashir's. A lot of the personal judgements of Bashir here are also original research. But Majeed will be better to cite ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeKashmiri (talk • contribs) 11:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

FreeKashmiri, can you provide a quote that verifies your claim "Heitzmann then goes on to indicate the pro-Hindu chauvinist bias of that book."? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

FreeKashmiri, I am still waiting for you to provide evidence of "Hindu chauvinism" of Ratan Lal Hangloo. Can you please get back about this?

AQ Rafiqi is of course well-known. But I don't find anything he said about either Ahmad, or Hangloo or the matter of Naga presence. This seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I said Heitzman indicates pro-Hindu chauvinism in Hangloo's work. This is implied in many words such as Hangloo's obsession with origins of Islam.

If one could ignore the periodic chauvinist statements, the simplistic conceptual framework might provide a starting point for students never exposed to historical ideas or social science. But then we encounter entire paragraphs full of untranslated terminology on administrative offices and units of measure (p. 113) or raw lists of administrators (p. 114). The extended endnote collections, at first glance an attraction for more advanced scholars, upon closer inspection yield discussions at the most basic level. (One note for chapter 2 [note 231 spends one-third of a page describing the origins and tenets of Islam.) Even the title is out of focus: one-fourth of the text discusses what the author might term "pre" or "early" medieval times, and the real title for three chapters should be "State and Religion in Kashmir." On the whole, this work has all the characteristics of a rush job.

I am glad you now accept Rafiqi as well known, because at first you said you know nothing about him. What I said about Rafiqi was just that he endorsed the Bashir book, which in my opinion is itself not necessary to cite when there are historians such as Lone and Majeed available.

I looked at the last pdf book you linked but regardless of its obscure quality, the only content in it about Nagas was again discussion about Naga mythology, not Nagas as fact.

I have also just read Kaul and she describes the Nagas as a mere literary motif and calls the actual presence of a social group called Nagas in Kashmir unclear. Joshua I am happy to compromise with including the Kaul source. I don't approve the Bamzai source (what are his credentials?) because he wrote politically motivated works (forewords by Nehru) upon instructions from Sheikh Abdullah.FreeKashmiri (talk) 14:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Prithivi Nath Kaul Bamzai. Sheik Abdullah was prime-minster of Kashmir when he asked Banzai to write a history of Kashmir. The Nehru-foreword was in A History of Kashmir; Nehru was the first prime-minister of India. I don't see the political motivation here, and can't accept that as an argument simply bceause you state so. At least you'll have to provide some solid sources which explain that Bamzai's work was "politically motivated," and how it was politically motivated. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Bamzai (1994a), Culture and political history of Kashmir: 46 citations. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:21, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, just because Heintzman uses the term "chauvinistic", you have supplied "pro-Hindu" for your own good measure? This is completely uncalled for. It merely indicates your own biases and introduction of bad faith in discussions. I hope that you will stop doing this.

The footnote 23 (not 231) was not mentioned as example of any chauvinism by Heintzman. The footnote is indeed discussing the origins of Islam, but it is summarising the relevant discussion from two solid sources:

• Crone, Patricia; Cook, Michael (1977), Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World, CUP Archive, ISBN 978-0-521-21133-8
• Petrushevskiĭ, Ilʹi͡a Pavlovich; Petrushevskiĭ, Ilʹi︠a︡ Pavlovich (1985), Islam in Iran, SUNY Press, ISBN 978-0-88706-070-0

The footnote is added to what I regard as one of the most profound statements in the book:

Popular reaction, indeed popular protest, against the unjust acts of those in power, took the non-violent form of mass conversion to this new world view, i.e., Islam.[23]

In order to explain how he arrived at this conclusion, Hangloo gave an analysis of what Islam meant in the particular historical context, via the footnote 23. It is perfectly evidenced, entirely appropriate, and quite the right thing to do. The fact that Heintzman didn't understand why the footnote appears in the book, just as he didn't understand pretty much everything else in the book, by his own admission, merely points to his own shortcomings. I think this book review is content-free, and I suggest we stop discussing it. It adds nothing. You claim to be a student. Please go to a library, find the book and read it for yourself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that a reputable historian[9] has dismissed Hangloo's book in an academic review for his lack of research to back up the Nagas chapter and the book's chauvinism. It now would be original research to start making personal evaluations of James Heitzman's scholarly review of Hangloo's book. I trust that Hangloo's low-quality book will not be brought up here again. I am going to search up if there are academic reviews of Bamzai's book. Meanwhile, FreeKashmiri can you clarify what you mean by your comments on Bamzai. Do you mean he is not an WP:INDEPENDENT source because his "scholarly" work was part of his employment for the Indian and NC governments? Joshua Jonathan The Mohini source is useless but your Koul source is good. Lets work on that. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Did Heitzman dismiss Hangloo? Or is that FreeKashmiri's reading of that review? Regarding Bamzai, it seems solid to me. Ahmad, on the other hand, has been completely dismissed by Kautilya3. I think we either include several sources which are questioned, or we exclude all questioned sources. Some compromise will be necessary. 10:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk!

Well Kautilya3 is an editor and not a RS. Hangloo's book has got criticism from Heitzman. It has too many problems such as chauvinism, rush job (see quotes shown by FreeKashmiri) and to top it all off Heitzman says the Hangloo's first chapter, which held content on Nagas, has no serious historical research at all. Its sources are entirely Hindu mythology. I still can't find any reviews of Bamzai and I am guessing he is not WP:INDEPENDENT either. However, if you insist, then as far as the Nagas are concerned the sources to go with are the historians Koul and Majeed. I see no one's had an issue with Koul. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If you don't care what other editors have got to say, it's no use to come here. Majeed has been questioned here too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

If one wants to question a source it has to be based on academics' criticism or other policy reasons such as failing WP:INDEPENDENT. I saw no policy or review based questioning of Majeed, unlike for the others. I am now going to wait here for a revert to the pre-dispute version: 20 May, per policy. Then we can move on 🙂 Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #2

According to Barbara A. West, "the origins of the Kashmiri people remain a mystery," while M. Ashraf Bhat notes that "scholars are divided on the issue of the ancestord of the Kashmiris." Bhat states that "many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race," coming from Central Asia. According to Bhat, some scholars reject the notion of Indo-Aryan origins of Kashmiris, and believe they were migrants from "India proper"; West mentions "the more southern regions of India."

There exist various local traditions regarding the origins of the Kashmiri people. According to Bhat, "some scholars believe that Kashmiris belong to a 1200-year old race of the Pishachas and Nagas." According to Om Chanda Handa, those Nagas were pre-Aryan, "Austro-Dravidian" snake-worshippers; they were not related to the later Naga-clans which existed during the time of the Kushana Empire.

Bhat also mentions that some scholars and Kashmiri historians, such as R.K. Parmu, believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews, and were "forcibly converted to Islam prior to the 12th century." According to Downie et al. (2016), "The claim of Israelite ancestry is widespread among Kashmiris, who cite historical records and the similarity of geographical names and cultural and social traditions." Yet, according to Downie et al. (2016), "there are no significant or substantial signs of [...] Jewish admixture in modern-day Kashmiris. According to Bhat, this theory has been refuted by most scholars.

According to Downie et al. (2016), , Kashmiri Pandits and "[a] number of populations residing in nearby Pakistan [...] show genetic similarity to the Kashmiris, including the Burusho, Balochi, Brahui, Sindhi, and Kalash." They further note that "the Kashmiri population, and nearby surrounding populations, share genetic ancestry broadly with west Eurasian and South Asian populations," sharing "a complex ancestral history."

According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, north-west India was populated by socalled "Indus Periphery" people, who were related to the IVC-people. The mixture of Indo-Europeans with Indus Periphery people in northern India resulted in Ancestral North Indians (ANI); at the same time, southern Indus periphery people mixed southwards with Archaic Ancestral South Indians (AASI, ancient hunter-gatherers), forming Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Most present-day Indians are a mix of ANI (IVC + IE) and ASI (IVC + AASI), though with varying degrees of the constituent ancestry.]

Notes

References

Sources

• Bhat, M. Ashraf (2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
• Downie (2016), "A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population", PLoS One. 2016; 11(8): e0160614
• Majeed, Gulshan (2011), "No Naga Presence in Ancient Kashmir The Past Never Is", in Khawaja, G.M.; Majeed, Gulshan (eds.), Approaches to Kashmir Studies, Gulshan Books
• Narasimhan, Vagheesh M. (2018), "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia", BioRxiv
• Om Chanda Handa (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya
• West, Barbara A. (2010), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Infobase Publishing

I have removed some of Bhat's comments, and the comment from Majeed; and I added a comment from Om Chanda Handa. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposal #2

Remember that we avoid quoting sentences from sources. West does say that Kashmiris are migrants from India so that had to be quoted as well. Current version of the section is really good, all it needs is the last paragraph ("According to Downie et al. (2016)"...) from your proposal. My Lord (talk) 15:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

West is quoted too. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #3

According to Barbara A. West, "the origins of the Kashmiri people remain a mystery," while M. Ashraf Bhat notes that "scholars are divided on the issue of the ancestord of the Kashmiris." Bhat states that "many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race," coming from Central Asia. According to Bhat, some scholars reject the notion of Indo-Aryan origins of Kashmiris, and believe they were migrants from "India proper"; West mentions "the more southern regions of India."

There exist various local traditions regarding the origins of the Kashmiri people. According to Bhat, "some scholars believe that Kashmiris belong to a 1200-year old race of the Pishachas and Nagas." According to Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir folklore about the presence of Nagas is based on Buddhist Jataka stories, and on stories coming from the Puranas and the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, as argued by Majeed. Yet, according to Abdul Lone, there is "not [...] any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir," and the existence of Nagas in Kashmir "is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it.

Bhat also mentions that some scholars and Kashmiri historians, such as R.K. Parmu, believe that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews, and were "forcibly converted to Islam prior to the 12th century." According to Downie et al. (2016), "The claim of Israelite ancestry is widespread among Kashmiris, who cite historical records and the similarity of geographical names and cultural and social traditions." Yet, according to Downie et al. (2016), "there are no significant or substantial signs of [...] Jewish admixture in modern-day Kashmiris. According to Bhat, this theory has been refuted by most scholars.

According to Downie et al. (2016), , Kashmiri Pandits and "[a] number of populations residing in nearby Pakistan [...] show genetic similarity to the Kashmiris, including the Burusho, Balochi, Brahui, Sindhi, and Kalash." They further note that "the Kashmiri population, and nearby surrounding populations, share genetic ancestry broadly with west Eurasian and South Asian populations," sharing "a complex ancestral history."

According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, north-west India was populated by socalled "Indus Periphery" people, who were related to the IVC-people. The mixture of Indo-Europeans with Indus Periphery people in northern India resulted in Ancestral North Indians (ANI); at the same time, southern Indus periphery people mixed southwards with Archaic Ancestral South Indians (AASI, ancient hunter-gatherers), forming Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Most present-day Indians are a mix of ANI (IVC + IE) and ASI (IVC + AASI), though with varying degrees of the constituent ancestry.]

Notes

References

Sources

• Ahmad, Khalid Bashir (2017), Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the Narrative, SAGE Publishing India
• Bhat, M. Ashraf (2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
• Downie (2016), "A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population", PLoS One. 2016; 11(8): e0160614
• Hangloo (2000), The State in Medieval Kashmir
• Majeed, Gulshan (2011), "No Naga Presence in Ancient Kashmir The Past Never Is", in Khawaja, G.M.; Majeed, Gulshan (eds.), Approaches to Kashmir Studies, Gulshan Books
• Narasimhan, Vagheesh M. (2018), "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia", BioRxiv
• Om Chanda Handa (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya
• West, Barbara A. (2010), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Infobase Publishing

I have incorporated comments by FreeKashmiri. I haver also added Kautilya3's initial edit(s) on the Naga's to a note. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
NB:it's an open question, of course, to what extent the Nilamata Purana incorporated older, Kashmiri matrial. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal #4

According to Barbara A. West, "the origins of the Kashmiri people remain a mystery," while M. Ashraf Bhat notes that "scholars are divided on the issue of the ancestord of the Kashmiris." Bhat states that "many scholars hold the view that Kashmiris are a true specimen of the Aryan race," coming from Central Asia. According to Bhat, some scholars reject the notion of Indo-Aryan origins of Kashmiris, and believe they were migrants from "India proper"; West mentions "the more southern regions of India." The oldest archaeological site in Kashmir is in Burzahom (3rd mill. BCE-3rd/4th cent. CE; skeletal remains of Neolithic people found at Burzahom are similar to those found in Harappa of the Indus Valley Civilization.

There exist various local traditions regarding the origins of the Kashmiri people. According to Shonaleeka Kaul, nāgas are central to the mythology of Kashmir. According to Kaul, it is unclear if those nāgas are an historical group who populated the Kashmir Valley, or if they are only mythological.

According to Shafi Shauq, the Nilamata Purana contains "intimations of old beliefs and rituals." According to R.L. Hangloo, the Nilamata Purana contains references to historical people, listing 592 clan settlements of Nagas in the Kashmir Valley, the chiefs of whom acknowledged the authority of a super-chief called Nila Naga. According to Bamzai, the Nagas probably were a pre-Aryan tribe, who were called Nagas because they worshipped snake deities. According to Bisht, "In mythology the three tribes excepting that of Manus, that is the Aryans, were reduced to satanic forces."

Yet, according to Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir folklore about the presence of Nagas is based on Buddhist Jataka stories, and on stories coming from the Puranas and the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, as argued by Majeed. According to Abdul Lone, there is "not [...] any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir," and the existence of Nagas in Kashmir "is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it."

Another well-known story is that the Kashmiri people have a Jewish origin, due to several similarities between Kashmiris and Israelites. This theory holds that Kashmiris descend from one of the Lost Tribes of Israel which settled in Kashmir after the dispersal of the Jews, and were "forcibly converted to Islam prior to the 12th century." According to Downie et al. (2016), "The claim of Israelite ancestry is widespread among Kashmiris, who cite historical records and the similarity of geographical names and cultural and social traditions." Yet, according to Downie et al. (2016), "there are no significant or substantial signs of [...] Jewish admixture in modern-day Kashmiris. According to Bhat, this theory has been refuted by most scholars. According to Downie et al. (2016), , Kashmiri Pandits and "[a] number of populations residing in nearby Pakistan [...] show genetic similarity to the Kashmiris, including the Burusho, Balochi, Brahui, Sindhi, and Kalash." They further note that "the Kashmiri population, and nearby surrounding populations, share genetic ancestry broadly with west Eurasian and South Asian populations," sharing "a complex ancestral history."

According to Narasimhan et al. (2018), prior to the coming of the Indo-Aryans, north-west India was populated by socalled "Indus Periphery" people, who were related to the IVC-people. The IVC-population likely resulted from a mixture of Iranian agriculturalists and South Asian hunter-gatherers, and came into being between ca. 4700-3000 BCE. The mixture of Indo-Europeans with Indus Periphery people in northern India resulted in Ancestral North Indians (ANI); at the same time, Indus periphery people mixed southwards with Archaic Ancestral South Indians (AASI, ancient hunter-gatherers), forming Ancestral South Indians (ASI). Most present-day Indians are a mix of ANI (IVC + IE) and ASI (IVC + AASI), though with varying degrees of the constituent ancestry.

Notes

References

Sources

• Ahmad, Khalid Bashir (2017), Kashmir: Exposing the Myth behind the Narrative, SAGE Publishing India
• Bamzai, P.N.K. (1994), Culture and Political History of Kashmir, Volume 1, M.D. Publications
• Bhat, M. Ashraf (2017), The Changing Language Roles and Linguistic Identities of the Kashmiri Speech Community, Cambridge Scholars Publishing
• Bisht, R. S. (1986), "Reflections on Burzahom and Semthan: Excavations and Later Mythological Periods in Kashmir Valley", in Buth, G. M. (ed.), Central Asia and Western Himalayas: A Forgotten Link
• Downie (2016), "A Genome-Wide Search for Greek and Jewish Admixture in the Kashmiri Population", PLoS One. 2016; 11(8): e0160614
• Hangloo (2000), The State in Medieval Kashmir
• Kaul, Shonaleeka (2018), The Making of Early Kashmir: Landscape and Identity in the Rajatarangini, Oxford University Press
• Kaw, M. K. (2004), Kashmir and It's People: Studies in the Evolution of Kashmiri Society, APH Publishing, ISBN 978-81-7648-537-1
• Majeed, Gulshan (2011), "No Naga Presence in Ancient Kashmir The Past Never Is", in Khawaja, G.M.; Majeed, Gulshan (eds.), Approaches to Kashmir Studies, Gulshan Books
• Narasimhan, Vagheesh M. (2018), "The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia", BioRxiv
• Om Chanda Handa (2004), Naga Cults and Traditions in the Western Himalaya
• West, Barbara A. (2010), Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania, Infobase Publishing

Discussion of Proposal #4

I've added info from Kaul, Bisht and Shauq. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Prolonged edit-warring

I find it quite silly that some editors only appear here again at the moment that the page can be edited again, to start edit-warring again, whilst not, or hardly, partaking in the discussions here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I am finding it annoying too. I even made a section on it.[10] and I see Owais Khursheed made one too. But the answer to that is not more edit-warring. Policy says to keep the pre-dispute version. Read WP:NOCON. So I say you should restore the version as it stood on 20 May, for policy reasons. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have already said above that if there are any new arguments, make them.[11] But so far, I haven't seen them. The current consensus was not to restore the same problematic section (that already had most of its details rejected due to inaccuracy with the source itself). I am also fine without that whole section. It was unilaterally changed by Towns Hill,[12] and once his problematic content was removed he started using socks[13] to restore it or anything similar. --RaviC (talk) 12:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no "current consensus" (if there was why have been arguments going on here?) but what there is, is a wikipedia policy of WP:NOCON which says to keep the pre-dispute version until we resolve the dispute. There is no doubt that the dispute was caused by this edit[14] on 5 June. So the version before that edit should be kept until the dispute is solved. This is a policy requirement and everyone will follow it. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 13:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

The bottom-line is that we are here to build an encyclopedia. Please engage in the discussions on the propoosals I've made; you can beat to death any proposal to go forward with your insistance on WP:NOCONSENSUS, and that's not what those policies are meant for. See also WP:IGNORE and You can't follow all the rules, all the time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed a way forward on Nagas, see my comment on Majeed/Koul. And WP:NOCON is part of an established policy, superseding WP:FATRAT which is just an essay. And WP:IAR does not apply here because there is no improvement that has been made on the mainspace and its application here does not have a solid case. I am still waiting for the revert back to 20 May. We can't ignore policy. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you prove if there was established consensus for your "20 May" version? I have provided some links above that describe how the section was never free of disputes. Not to forget about the discussion on RSN as well as archives of this talk page. Please read WP:CONSENSUS a bit more carefully to know what constitutes as a "consensus". RaviC (talk) 14:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stick to the issue at hand. There was no dispute over this article for a long time. The current relevant dispute started since this edit.[15] And policy says we go back to what was there before that edit which created the dispute. The burden of gaining consensus is on the ones making the new contested edit. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted to the pre-dispute version. I will keep an eye on this page. No more policy violations will be allowed. Obaid Raza (talk) 15:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

RaviC, please stop the discussion about which version is "consensus." The differences are marginal. Please discuss improvements. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Summary of Hangloo's book / discussion of proposal #4

Since Hanglo's book is not available online, people are hesitant about accepting it as a source. Here is a quick summary. The book is called The State in Medieval Kashmir. As the name implies, it is not a comprehensive history of Kashmir, but rather an analysis of the state structures. Other than the introduction and conclusion, the book has four chapters:

• Historical roots of state formation in Pre-Sultanate Kashmir
• Conversion to Islam and the consolidation of a social base of power in the sultanate
• The Sayyids, Sultans and the State: A search for legitimacy 1339-1470
• The incorporation of the Sultanate into the Mughal state

It is a short book as Heitzmann notes. Hangloo is not trying to construct his own history of Kashmir, but rather to interpret what is known from traditional sources (primary sources as well as other historical works), and extract an analysis of state and social structures. It is what is known as Marxist historiography, which disagrees with the traditional of view of history as being passed down by the rulers and elites, but rather views it as a grass-roots social process.

The book is dedicated to Harbans Mukhia, whom Hangloo describes as "my teacher". I suppose he must have been Hangloo's PhD supervisor at Jawaharlal Nehru University. The author's biography states:

Professor Rattan Lal Hangloo is a Professor in the Department of History at Hyderabad Central University, Andhra Pradesh. His publications include Agrarian System of Kashmir; Situating Medieval Indian State (edited) and a number of articles on Kashmir and medieval India in various journals and proceedings.

Google scholar gives plenty of his publications. You can also find other works that cite his, which is ultimately the test of a scholar.

Heitzmann, who seems to be an archaeologist, didn't like the fact that there wasn't enough archaeological evidence used in the book. But it is not completely blank. For example, one sentence (p.20) narrates:

From the literary and archaeological evidence it appears that the worship of the mother goddess and phallic rituals were the principal form of devotion among the autochtonous tribal population of Kashmir, from very early times.[14]

and the footnote 14 says:

The various art objects obtained from the excavation at Harappa and Mohanjodaro provide us... Regarding this form of worship in Kashmir also we have a bulk of evidence. The earliest evidence is that of Sapta Matrika preserved in Devasar and Pandrenthan Panels in Sri Pratap Museum in Srinagar. Nilamata Purana also mentions various river Goddesses. Kalhana also refers to worshipping the Mother Goddess in the form of Matrika as early as in the Mauryan rule... Similarly phallic worship also dates back to the second millennium BC. The earliest evidence of phallic worship in Kashmir is provided by the Neolithic culture of Burzoham. It was later incorporated into the Shiva-Shakti cult by Brahmins, V. N. Drabu, op.cit. pp.166-70.

I see nothing to indicate that this is not an authentic historical source. Other scholars might disagree, in which case, we also describe what they say. There is no question of WP:CENSORSHIP. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that post. But most of it is not relevant because Hangloo's historianship (except for his obscure prominence as one,shown by the low cites) is not what is in dispute nor how many chapters the book has. The issue is that Heitzman, a more prominent professor of history[16] with a doctorate in history, expert on South Asia to boot, finds that Chapter 1, which is the only place where Nagas find a presence in Hangloo's work, is coming from Hindu mythology and is backed up with no evidence of research. The sources are Nilmata Purana and the Rajatarangini. This reiterates Professor Majeed's concern about the lack of evidence for Nagas outside the Hindu sources. Personal assessments of the historians' reviews cannot be admitted due to wiki's OR rules. wrt to Hangloo because its such a faulty source the WP:CENSORSHIP argument does not hold unless the objections to Professor Lone (who is a better source) are also abandoned. Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab, can you point me to where the term "Hindu mythology" occurs in the Heitzman review? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4.1

Regarding unless the objections to Professor Lone (who is a better source) are also abandoned: this boils down to either fully including, or fully excluding, per WP:NPOV, the following two alineas from proposal #4:

According to Shafi Shauq, the Nilamata Purana contains "intimations of old beliefs and rituals." According to Bamzai, the Nagas probably were a pre-Aryan tribe, who were called Nagas because they worshipped snake deities. According to Bisht, "In mythology the three tribes excepting that of Manus, that is the Aryans, were reduced to satanic forces." According to R.L. Hangloo, the Nilamata Purana contains references to historical people, listing 592 clan settlements of Nagas in the Kashmir Valley, the chiefs of whom acknowledged the authority of a super-chief called Nila Naga.

Yet, according to Khalid Bashir Ahmad, Kashmir folklore about the presence of Nagas is based on Buddhist Jataka stories, and on stories coming from the Puranas and the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, as argued by Majeed. According to Abdul Lone, there is "not [...] any concrete evidence of their presence in Kashmir," and the existence of Nagas in Kashmir "is only a projection of the Brahminical point of view propogated through the Nilamata Purana and the subsequent literature influenced by it."

References

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan, I would have been okay with this if this was an article on Nagas but its too UNDUE for an article on origins of Kashmiris because there are so many theories of origins, the Nagas being only one of them. (there are others theories too i.e. non-Aryan Central Asian immigration, historian Tudor Parfitt's linkages to Israelites backed up with his own genetic research) To preserve NPOV with the other theories, my proposal is to give the Naga business no more than 1 or two sentences. A good model would be:

Some believe that ancient Kashmir was inhabited by Nagas,(insert Hangloo and Bamzai as sources) based on sources such as Nilmata Purana and Rajatarangini,(insert Heitzman) but while they are central to the ancient mythology(insert Koul) others argue that there is no evidence, such as archaeological, for their presence,(insert Majeed and Lone as sources) and their existence as a social group in ancient Kashmir remains unclear.(insert Koul as source)

Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

That would violate WP:FRINGE if you are going doubt their existence without consensus in academic circle. There is scholarly consensus that Nagas were original inhabitants of Kashmir.[17] You need to find a strong argument against that. Razer(talk) 15:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Proposal 4.2

Not fringe; Koul is quite clear here, and I have to agree that the Nagas are mythology, though the stories on them may, or may not, be based on history. Arguing that "[t]here is scholarly consensus that Nagas were original inhabitants of Kashmir" is not helpfull here; please don't do that.

Yet, DarSahab's proposal (thank you for participating in the discussion; that's helpfull) gives an "interpretational" emphasis; some editorializing, so to speak. The alinea on the Nagas should start with Kaul, who states that nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, but that it's unclear if they were real people or not. Koul makes clear that nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, so it's not just one of "so many theories of origins"; it's a central theme, and deserves more than one or two lines. By starting with "Some believe that ancient Kashmir was inhabited by Nagas, based on sources such as Nilmata Purana and Rajatarangini," the centrality of nagas to Kashmir mythology is ignored, and the focus shifts to portraying a specific interpretation as a belief, and an argument about the nagas being a historical people or not. But that's a specific issue, which is being fought out then here at Wikipedia. And that's not what Wikipedia is meant for. A factual presentation, based on Kaul, which seems to be the most WP:RS here, starts witht he notion that the nagas are central to Kashmir mythology, and makes clear that there are differing interpretations on the meaning and the origins of these stories. And not an argument about whether those nagas really existed or not. It's about stories, and the interpretations of those stories; the "real" existence of those nagas is a secondary question, part of the interpretation-part. My minimal proposal was/is as follows:

There exist various local traditions regarding the origins of the Kashmiri people. According to Shonaleeka Kaul, nāgas are central to the mythology of Kashmir, but it is unclear if those nāgas are an historical group who populated the Kashmir Valley, or if they are only mythologocal.

If we merge this with DarSahab's proposal, it would be something like this:

There exist various local traditions regarding the origins of the Kashmiri people. According to Shonaleeka Kaul, nāgas are central to the mythology of Kashmir, but it is unclear if those stories relate to an historical group who populated the Kashmir Valley, or if they are only mythological. Stories of the Nagas are found in the Nilmata Purana, Rajatarangini, and Buddhist Jataka stories. While Hangloo argues that those sources are based on historical tribes,(insert Hangloo) Majeed and Lone argue that the Kashmir mythology regarding nagas is based on those literary sources, and that there is no evidence, such as archaeological, for the historical presence of Nagas.(insert Majeed and Lone as sources) According to Bamzai, the Nagas probably were a pre-Aryan tribe, who were called Nagas because they worshipped snake deities.

References

There is still a problem, though, with the stance of Majeed and Lone, who write about "the" Nagas, while others merely mention the possibility that there were pre-Aryan inhabitants who worshipped nagas. So, for an extended alinea (or two) on the nagas, I'd prefer my extended version from proposal #4, simply because it gives more info, and contains footnotes with information on the (im)possibilities of some stances. Please read it, above. Nevertheless, thanks for joining the discussion, and for coming with proposals. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Support Joshua Jonathan's Proposal 4.1. I think it has a good balance of all the sources. The argument that "this is not an article on the Nagas" is nonsense. "Nagas" is the term being used for the original inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley, who were there before the coming of the Indo-Aryans. You can't have a section on the "origin" of the Kashmiris without talking about them. Neither can you have a section on the history of Kashmiris without talking about them. "Nagas" is the term to describe them in the Kashmiris' own traditions. Nobody here or among the scholarly community invented them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. You refer to my proposal #4, I suppose? Nevertheless, it may be better to use the "pre-Aryan inhabitants," instead of "the original inhabitants." Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

"Some believe" is too vague, and non-neutral; "some argue" is better. And "author X argues" is better than "some argue." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Nagas are a part of the realm of mythology. They have no place in real Kashmiri history. I think DarSahab has already made a major good faith concession by allowing the inclusion of a little bit of the (Naga) myth because ideally the Origins section should only include facts. No more than 2 sentences would be needed for the myth stories and their interpretations. Ideally, there should have been zero.

But hang on...I was reading S.R. Bakshi and he says

This fact has led some scholars to infer that the Burushaski people were the original inhabitants of Kashmir. The tribes or people which successively peopled Kashmir were, according to the Nilamatapurana, the Nagas, the Picasas and other men. This perhaps corresponds to the Burushaskis, the Dards and the Sanskrit-speaking people of the Indian plains.

So the Burusho people were the original Kashmiris. I read in Downie et al too that the closest ethnic group to Kashmiris genetically are the Burushos among others (Kalash, Baloch, Sindhi). This Bakshi source refers to Nagas but I notice with the same careful attribution-to-Nilamatapurana as the other sources.

But more importantly, it says "Nagas", "Picasas" were just old names for the Burushaskis, Dards and Sanskrit speakers. So that settles it then. The old Hindu tales didn't get the names right, thus creating the mess we have here. I think anyone who wants to mention the Nagas will have to insert this identification caveat. Just "original inhabitants" won't fix it. Dilpa kaur (talk) 13:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It is not going to fly only because you are saying that they should be treated as myth and hence deserves no place here. There is considerable amount of recognition of their existence in scholarly literature than what you are supporting as inclusion, we can't omit only because you think. My Lord (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Come on, My Lord, be reasonable. Dilpa kaur is ok with mentioning Nagas, as long as we identify them with the Burushos. All the objections of "mythology" vanish in thin smoke. That is progress indeed! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

"No more than 2 sentences would be needed for the myth stories and their interpretations. Ideally, there should have been zero", when you read it you know that omission is possible. Article on Burusho people article makes no mention of Nagas as of now. "Perhaps" is not definitive, hence there are chances of engaging in WP:OR unless it has been made clear that Nagas, Picasas are identified as Burusho. While I maintain that there should be separate paragraph for Nagas and other original inhabitants, this new finding about Burushos can be included in the same paragraph but without any original research. My Lord (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Folk stories about origins are also facts an such; Wikipedia is not restricted to "hard" facts, such as biological facts, but also includes "soft" facts, such as the human sciences. See Kaul:

According to Shonaleeka Kaul, nāgas are central to the mythology of Kashmir, but it is unclear if those nāgas are an historical group who populated the Kashmir Valley, or if they are only mythological.

But, apart from that: interesting addition; thanks! I would hesitate though to call them "the original inhabitants"; after all, the earliest inhabitants must have been hunter-gatherers, who (much) later mixed with Iranian agriculturalists; this mix mixed with Indo-Aryans, and this new mix then mixed with southern mix of IVC-AASI, and whatever came there-after. Quite complicated, isn't it? And to make it still more complicated: ethnicity is not so much defined by genetics, as by culturally determined identities -the "soft" facts. That is, genetically, Kashmiris have a complicated genetic history, while for most present-day Kashmiris their ethnicity, c.q. cultural identity, has its roots in Indian history, that is, the subsequent influences of pre-Aryan local cultures, Aryan cultures, Buddhism, Vedic culture and subsequent Hindu influences, and Islamic culture and the subsequent reaction against Hindu culture. Any genius around here who can summarize this background in a few more lines than this, and provide the relevant references?

NB: what, actually, do we mean with "the" Kashmiris? If they are an ethnic group, then what defines their ethnic identity, other than the fact that they speak Kashmiri? Shouldn't we just call them "Kashmiri speakers"? And where's the source for "ethnic group"? Munshi writes about Kashmiri seakers, not about an ethnic group. From Ethnic group:

An ethnic group, or an ethnicity, is a category of people who identify with each other based on similarities such as common ancestry, language, history, society, culture or nation.

These similarities seem far away for the Kashmiri-speakers, given the deep divide between Muslims and Hindus... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Dilpa kaur, your own source then goes on to tell that the Rajatarangini's coverage of the pre-Ashokan period is mainly fictional. So whats the use in clarifying that these already unreliable sources got the names of people wrong? These fiction stories and myths should have no space in an encyclopedia.

I also disagree with your excessive reliance on the Downie et al study; as FreeKashmiri said genetic studies are too inconclusive for social groups. For example on the Greek and Jewish ancestry conundrum the Downie's research says, "It is also possible that the Southern European and Mediterranean admixture seen in the Kashmiri individuals represents Greek or Sephardic Jewish ancestry" and it also says the study's conclusions may not be accurate because of the small sample size and the genetic changes over time "Another potential explanation for the lack of Greek and Jewish ancestry in the Kashmiris is that the Kashmiris sampled here are not representative of those who lived when the supposed admixture event took place more than 2,000 years ago. The same is true of the putative Greek and Jewish ancestral populations. As previously discussed, there is archeological evidence to suggest that the ancient Greeks were in the Kashmir region. Another limitation of this study is the small Kashmiri sample size". They also had methodological deficiencies "There are, however, a number of possible reasons why recent Greek or Jewish admixture might be undetected in these analyses. It is possible that more cryptic admixture, in the form of specific Greek or Jewish autosomal haplotypes, exists. Tests such as rolloff, ALDER, and GLOBETROTTER can detect admixture by utilizing linkage disequilibrium and haplotype data. However, this study did not have sufficient SNP density (93,666 autosomal SNPs) to capture linkage disequilibrium and haplotype structure. High-density genotyping array or next-generation whole genome sequencing, applied widely in diverse populations, would provide these data". So why bother with this inconclusive study? In fact we can't rely on any genetic study. As another example Tudor Parfitt's own earlier genetic testing found the Jewish Cohanim gene in Kashmiri men. Now the Downie study contradicts that but also at the same time thinks its own results are inconclusive. So do you see the problems with these sort of studies?

GMD Sufi says in his history that Kashmiris are descended from various peoples from Central Asia and adjoining areas, and some Jews, who settled down in the same space and mixed with each other genetically over time (no different to how other ethnic groups have been formed). Christopher Snedden also says similar in Understanding Kashmir and Kashmiris "Ethnic Kashmiris have a history and culture that goes back thousands of years. They have long ago assimilated invaders, immigrants and interlopers and their descendants from Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia and Tibet." Even Downie's inconclusive study (wrt to Greek/Jewish ancestry/while of course admitting a Mediterranean/Southern European admixture) has a similar conclusion, "Instead, the results suggest that the Kashmiri population, and nearby surrounding populations, share genetic ancestry broadly with west Eurasian and South Asian populations."Sheikh Fahed Dar (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Which is in line with Narasimhan et al. (2018). Sigh... Regarding we can't rely on any genetic study, that's a personal opinion; see my extended reply above, and Downie et al. themselves: High-density genotyping array or next-generation whole genome sequencing, applied widely in diverse populations, would provide these data. This way, there won't be many "facts" left to include. But that's also not the aim of Wikipedia; the aim is to represent what the relevant sources say, not to determine the WP:TRUTH. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DarSahab, while it is true that the Nilamatapurana and much of the Rajatarangini is composed of dubious content, the pro-Naga POV camp today, while ironically still basing their entire claim on that same debunked corpus which describes the Nagas as "half-serpent"-"half men", have conveniently changed their arguments. Their present claim is that instead of half-serpents, as their source material claims, the Nagas were simply human worshippers of the snake. It is this ex post facto claim that Majeed's work deconstructs, pointing out the lack of evidence for this cult, such as the absence of temple remains and inscriptions, unlike in the rest of the subcontinent. :While there is zilch satisfactory evidence proving the existence of this snake-worshipping cult in Kashmir, you also need to remember DarSahab that as far as the exact history of the origins of Kashmiris are concerned, its basically unknown. According to Henny Sender there's no satisfactory historical work on the origins of Kashmiris, because any works the Pandits wrote was to push legendary theories of descent from Kashyapa Rishi (the Nilamatapurana claims him as the the first ancestor of the Kashmiris, who was allegedly taught by Nila the snake-deity to start the Naga cult for his descendants). When they did not push that they promoted the theory of Aryan origin, partly because the Pandit scholars were fascinated with elevating their own Brahminical status to compensate for the disrepute brought about by their associations with Muslims. (see pages 9-11 of Henny Sender's 1981 thesis "The Kashmiri Brahmins (Pandits) up to 1930: Cultural Change in the Cities of North India"). :So in that case the incompetency of the Pandit scholars leaves us only with the genetic studies for any religious-interest free information (if we want an Origins section at all). These scientific studies indicate a complex genetic ancestry. Ironically you quote the Downie et al study (while refusing to entertain it in full!) to substantiate Snedden's solid point that the ethnic Kashmiris have absorbed ancestry from many places. :You may also find it interesting that Kashmir Valley was traditionally a “shatter zone”, which people moved through in peace and wartime. The Valley was a refuge area for people, linking Central Asia and Iran. Thats what Snedden is pointing out. :I accept your point that the study's research on Greek/Israelite ancestry was self-admittedly incomplete. We can include that. But the remaining conclusions are pretty much in line with the only previous genetic study of Kashmiris, which while similarly inconclusive on the Jewish point, found the Kashmiris to be pretty similar with the ethnic groups in Pakistan. Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Here is an even better proposal:

Kashmir’s early history is generally obscure. However, Kashmir is known to have been settled by numerous peoples such as the Huns, Mongols, Kushans, Tunghans, Qazaks, Turks, Kakhas and Bombas. All these peoples left a mark on Kashmiri civilisation. The Kashmiri people absorbed the descendants of migrants from Central Asia, India, Iran, Afghanistan and Tibet. The Valley was traditionally a site through which populations moved through in both times of peace and war. Central to Kashmir’s mythology are the Nagas, but whether they were an actual social population in ancient Kashmir remains uncertain. Bamzai and Hangloo believe that they were an actual population and cite as their evidence the stories found in the Rajatarangini, Nilamatapurana and Buddhist tales. Bamzai believes they were called “Nagas” because of their snake worship. However, Majeed and Lone state there is no evidence of the Naga cult in Kashmir outside such literary sources which they consider unreliable. The Rajatarangini’s account of the period before Ashoka is known to be mainly fictional. Some scholars such as Professor FM Hassnain trace a Jewish origin for the Kashmiri Sunni Muslims. Bernier observed that there was a similar physiognomy between Kashmiris and Jews and noted local traditions which narrated that Solomon forged a pathway for water through the mountains at Baramulla and built a structure which in Bernier’s day was referred to as the “Throne of Solomon.” The similarity of the names of places in Kashmir to Biblical names has also been cited as evidence for this idea. However, genetic studies have not found a link between Kashmiris and Jews. But they have cautioned that the reason for not finding a link may be because their sample sizes were small and also because modern Kashmiri and Jewish populations may not be representative of their ancient counterparts at the time the admixture was said to have occurred. The genetic study of Downie et al found that Kashmiris share a complex ancestry with both West Eurasian and South Asian populations. Populations in North India and Pakistan such as the Burusho, Kalash, Brahui, Sindhi and Baloch are found to share genetic similarities with the Kashmiris.

Dilpa kaur (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

References

The archaeologists' Nagas

One of the objections raised above was that there was no archaeological evidence of Nagas. But the archaeologist Jonathan Mark Kenoyer is quite happy to accept the legends of Nagas:

The legend of the Nagas is very old. Even before they could write, ancient people remembered important things by telling stories, singing songs, and drawing pictures about them. Their storytellers became good at memorizing things, able to remember the equivalent of thousands of pages of written text. Some of their legends and hymns were passed on for thousands of years before they were finally written down in the ancient Indian language of Sanskrit. The legend of the Nagas is found in the Nilmata Purana. Legends from the Nilmata Purana were at least 1,000 years old, and maybe much older, before they were finally written down in about 500—600 CE.

The archaeological/geological facts seem to be the following:

About 400,000 years ago, earthquakes tilted up one side of the valley so that the lake moved and exposed new land. The stone tool was made by someone who hunted for food in the newly exposed land next to the deep, dark lake. More earthquakes cracked the mountain ranges about 200,000 years ago, and the water began to escape and form the Jhelum River, shrinking the lake further.

Winters in this valley were hard—too cold, windy, and snowy for early humans to survive. In the beginning, people hunted in the valley during the summer and moved back to the plains in the winter. Finally, in about 10,000 BCE, the climate warmed, the glaciers melted, and humans could live on the land all year long. The only remains of the once mighty lake that covered all of Kashmir are small lakes such as Nagin Lake, the "Lake of the Serpents."

References

• Kenoyer, Jonathan M.; Heuston, Kimberley Burton (2005), The Ancient South Asian World, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-522243-2

Not true. The Kennoyer source calls Nagas a legend. Legend, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means "a traditional story sometimes popularly regarded as historical but not authenticated." There's no mention in the source of any archaeological evidence supporting the, existence of a people called Nagas, contrary to your claim that "archaeologists are happily accepting Nagas." Your second quote is from an earlier page and it does not even say there is any archaeological evidence for the Naga inhabitants. That quote is actually about Kashmir's geological origin and prehistoric (presumably hunter-gatherer) inhabitants. It doesn't say the 400,000 years old people were Nagas. This is what the source text actually says when it comes to the Nagas:

According to the Nilamata Purana, Kashmir was first settled by people who were called "Nagas". They lived around the springs that fed Satisaras, the Sea of the Goddess (an ancient lake in the valley of modern Kashmir). Unfortunately for the Nagas, the evil demon Jalodbhava and is black-hearted henchmen...(Then it goes on to summarise what the mythology is)

. The source is not saying Nagas existed. Its just describing the mythology and attributing it to the Nilamata Purana, without stamping it as fact. As in the rest of the sources, the Nagas are only referred to as a part of the fable Nilamata Purana, not as fact. Finally the source text ends with this

What are we to make of this story? Who could have composed it? And how could they have possibly known about the prehistoric history of the region. That is an unanswered question, the kind of puzzle that scholars hope to be able to solve one day.

Kennoyer says the scholars are still to figure out what to make of this story. So this source is not supporting the existence of a social group called Nagas. FreeKashmiri (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I said "Kenoyer is quite happy to accept the legends of Nagas". I think Duh! would be an appropriate response. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Architects' Nagas

This is from Fergusson, James (1868), Tree and serpent Worship, or illustrations of mythology and art in India, Allen, pp. 46–47

It is not, however, only in the valley that our Chinese traveller (Xuanzang) repeats the Hindu legends about serpents and their power, but at every stage of his journey from Cabul to Cashmere, he everywhere finds some spot where a dragon king or Naga Raja resided, and played an important part in the legendary history of the land. These legends, as might be expected, were found in the seventh century very much altered from their more primitive forms, but they are interesting, in the first place, as showing how essentially the north-west corner of India was at one time the seat of Serpent Worship, and also, in what manner it was eventually—except perhaps in Cashmere—amalgamated with Buddhism. (p.46)

These accounts by native authorities are fully confirmed by such scanty notices as we glean from classical authorities; Onesicritus tells us that two ambassadors sent to the king of Cashmere by Alexander, brought back news that the king of the country cherished two large serpents of fabulous dimensions. Maximinius of Tyre tells us, that when Alexander entered India, Taxilus (King of Taxila) showed him a serpent of enormous size which he nourished with great care and revered as the image of the god whom the Greek writers, from the similitude of his attributes, called Dionysus or Bacchus. (p.47)

The latest authority we have, is that of Abulfazl, who tells us that in the reign Of Akbar (1556—1605) there were in Cashmere 45 places dedicated to the worship of Siva, 64 to Vishou, 3 to Brahma, and 22 to Durga, but there were 700 places in the valley where there were carved images of snakes which the inhabitants worshipped. (p.47)

All this is fully confirmed by the architecture of the valley; with very few exceptions, all the ancient temples of Cashmere seem to have been devoted to Serpent Worship. They stand in square courts which were capable of being flooded and were crossed by light bridges of stone, some of which still remain. Even at the present day some of these temples are unapproachable without wading, in consequence of the water which surrounds them, and all might be rendered so by a slight repair to their waterworks. There are, of course, no images in the sanctuaries which long prevented antiquaries from perceiving the form of faith to which they were dedicated. But where the deity is a living god and mortal, when he and his worshippers pay the debt of nature, they leave no material trace to recall the memory of their past existence. (p.47)

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

Hi User:Joshua Jonathan, thanks for your desire to improve the article on Kashmiris. I noticed that you restored a source published by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing", whose reliability was questioned at WP:RSN. I replaced information cited to that reference with a more reliable one. Would you mind explaining why you wish to retain the former? I look forward to hearing from you. With regards, Anupam^Talk 06:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Anupam: apologies for the messy editing. This issue has been discussesd before extensively; see Talk:Kashmiris/Archive 2. I wrote a propsal, which also treated the Nagas and Pisachas, placing them in context. The sentence you added,

Archaeological findings postulate that the earliest inhabitants of the Kashmir Valley were the Nagas and Pisachas.

References

seems to be too simple in that respect. Your source also says that the accpounts about Nagas and Pischachas are largely legendary; if you quote Shali, you'll have to quote that part too. I'd still prefer my extended proposal, but alas, any serious change to the Origins-sections seems to be impossible... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I actually agree with your edit attributing the statement with respect to Nagas and Pisachas. My main contention was your restoration of content sourced to a single book by "Cambridge Scholars Publishing". What are your thoughts on that? I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 07:41, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no particular thoughts on CSP. Most sources on this tpic are questionable, so the best approach seems to be to balance all of them, with attribution and proper quotes. Otherwise, they'll be merely used for pov-pushing. But the status-quo on this section makes it impossible to do this... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In my edit, you will have noted that I removed the content sourced to "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" per this discussion. The original revision that I supplanted it with is buttressed by ABC-CLIO, an academic press; there are scholarly sources on this topic available and we should use them, I think. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 08:10, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@Kautilya3: what do you think? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Talk page archives also show that there has been no agreed version for the section since it has been always disputed. I also agree that everything is disputed here and some of the mentioned hypothesis (Jewish and Middle Eastern origins) are completely rejected by every single scholar. You had removed the entire section for this very same reason.[18]  I would support blanking that section entirely as alternative. Shashank5988 (talk) 10:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it is fine to get rid of the #Origins section. It is all mythology, either old mythology or new mythology.

Personally, I find Parpola's strong two-wave model of Indo-Aryan migrations as the most satisfying model in explaining all the observed facts. According to it, a first group of Indo-Aryans migrated to the subcontinent as early as 2000 BCE, probably coming through the Hindu Kush mountains, and a second wave of Rigvedic Indo-Aryans came around 1500 BCE via Arachosia. The second wave people probably called the first wave people by names such as "Nagas" and "Pishachas" due to their distinctive customs. But over time, these distinctions disappeared. I don't think the history of Kashmir would have been much different from that of the neighbouring Gandhara. The Buddhist sources club the two together as Gandhara–Kashmira. No special "Origins" need to be proposed for the Kashmiris. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Who were those first Indo-Aryans? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to removing the section as the current version is largely sourced to a reference that fails WP:RS. Thanks, Anupam^Talk 06:29, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy-vios?...

@Diannaa: could you take a look at this? It seems to me that this editor does not understand what a copy-vio is. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Diannaa (talk · contribs) is well aware that adding lengthy quotes is considered a copyright violation, per WP:COPYQUOTE. This situation[19] is not acceptable for the legal safety of Wikipedia.Dilpa kaur (talk) 11:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to admit, I see your point in this particular case. Nevertheless, I suggest you discuss such matters with experienced editors before jumping to conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:59, 29 December 2018 (UTC)