u/Secure_Pick_1496

AIT and AMT is just a semantic debate. There is no such thing as a formalized Aryan Invasion Theory. Aryan migration to the subcontinent is a fact of history. The topic at hand concerns the degree of violence and domination involved in the migration (all migrations involve violence to some degree). Aryan Migration Theory is certainly an apt name, but it is not right to discredit the term Aryan Invasion Theory, as an invasion is simply a migration with significant violence and domination. If one supposes that the migration indeed involved a significant degree of violence and domination, then Aryan Invasion Theory is a perfectly valid description as well. An analogous debate exists about the Anglo-Saxon migrations/invasions of England.

I want to learn about Islamic history essentially from start the finish. I want to learn about the development of the major branches and sects and also learn about early Islamic history in particular. I also want to learn about Islamic epistemology and jurisprudence. Is the Cambridge History of Islam a good resource?

View Poll

We know that Yamnaya was almost half ANE. What about Iran_N?

If so, how much?

Has anybody else noticed that Australian Aboriginal languages share a near identical phonemic inventory to Proto-Dravidian and in general have an extremely similar cadence and acoustic quality?