Jump to content

Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Nobleeagle, your description of

The Aryan Invasion model suggests that an Aryan race, which originiated from outside India, were the creators of the Vedas and the original speakers of Sanskrit.

smacks of the 19th century. No-one would speak of an "Aryan race" today, and no-one would claim the immigrating Indo-Aryan speakers were "the creators of the Vedas and the original speakers of Sanskrit". These are either strawmen consciously set up to be shot down, or else "anti-IAM" polemicists really think this is what is proposed, in which case it is no wonder they feel uncomfortable with it. It would be correct to state that the immigrating Indo-Aryan speakers were the linguistic ancestors of the later (Indian!) people who established the Vedic schools 1,000 years later, and that Sanskrit is a refined language based on the vernacular of this early people. This is so different from the childish notion of a conquering Vedic Aryan race that I don't know what else to say if it doesn't impress itself on you. I think the problem is that Hindu culture is lacking a sense of history, which makes it impossible for people to wrap their minds around the concept of historical change. They are capable of imagining the proposition of the intrusion of a fully formed Vedic/Sanskritic culture, an idea which they rightly discard immediately, but they seem quite uncapable of conceiving of the genesis of Vedic/Sanskritic culture within India in the early Iron Age. After reading so much of this stuff on Wikipedia, I really think that this is what lies at the bottom of this almost comical impassé: scholars propose Vedic culture formed, in India, 1800-1000 BC. Hindu nationalists hear "Vedic culture originated in Central Asia" and are outraged. dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, the article I was sourcing was talking about the apparent 19th century version. I believe that under WP:OR, we shouldn't be misrepresenting the context of a particular view or article. In anycase, Dr. Agarwal's point was that Vedic culture originated long before 1500 BC, which is still around when scholars proposed it originated. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
that's precisely what I mean. 40000 BC, 7000 BC and 4000 BC is all the same to these authors, and all equally "Vedic", just as long as "Vedic" predates the Bronze Age and recorded history anywhere else :) this renders the term "Vedic" essentially meaningless. There is no inkling of historical depth here, everything was frozen in some eternal Vedic Golden Age for countless millennia up to 1900 BC. Then the Sarasvati dried up, everything collapsed, and history began. dab (ᛏ) 08:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I am lookig for some help in providing some references to the article. Being new to Wikipedia and not being very computer literete I am having a hard time. I wanted to add reference to Dr. N. Kazanas articles 2002 ‘Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda’ Journal of Indo-European Studies vol 30 (275-334) 2003 ‘Final Reply’ in Journal of Indo-European Studies vol 31, 1-2 Spring/Summer(187-240)

and "A new date for Rigveda" (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/rie.pdf).

If you can show me how I am supposed to record this (with internet link where available) it would be very helpful. Sbhushan 20:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC) sbhushan

Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

keep on topic

Nobleeagle, please try to avoid adding the exact same tired material already sprawled over Indo-Aryan migration, Sarasvati river, etc. If we turn this into another article about IVC and Sarasvati, there is no reason not to merge it back. These arguments don't hold any more water for being reiterated on ten different Wikipedia articles. This article is supposed to discuss the Out of India part, i.e. movement of I-A (or PIE) speakers outside India. Thus, discuss evidence from outside India that supports such a movement. This isn't the "Everything happened Inside India" article. We are only interested in cities dating to 7000 BC if some author or other has suggested that it is the locus of Proto-Indo-European. dab (ᛏ) 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, Stephen Knapp relates every ancient Hindu temple or ancient Indian city back to the Out of India theory, I realised that when I was reading some of his essays and extracts. There are many cases I've read while reading on the internet which I've simply disregarded as I thought they didn't prove anything. I'll try and keep on topic. I was wondering if you could add some stuff on the linguistic issues with the theory, ie. why linguists don't consider the OIT possible. Sometime in the future I'll create a Political Controversy section and can then detail the Hindutva bias that is sometimes found. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just concerned that this will replicate Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) all over again: do try to refer to that article whenever you are discussing material already covered over there. I am sorry, but I do think we need some minimal distinction of honorable scholarship from foaming crackpottery here: this Stephen Knapp is so far over the lunatic fringe that discussing him among more conservative approaches (it is possible to discuss OIT in serious terms, and it has been, back in the 19th century) just creates the impression that the whole topic is a gallery of cranks. Let's try to cite reputable publications in archaeological and linguistic journals separate from the din of self-styled decipherers and discoverers of Neolithic Bharato-Aryans. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLP. Bakaman Bakatalk 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I think some of the stuff on the AIT would be better off if it were shortly summarized there and sent over here. The cradle of civilization stuff is related to this theory more than that theory. We also need to work out how to write about the Hindutva bias without linking back to the Hindutva bias against the AIT. Opposition to the AIT and support for the OIT are often connected. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
surprisingly enough, our resident Hindutva crowd neglected to talk about an OIT almost completely: We get months of bickering over "AIT", but it was left to Paul and me to create the bleeding OIT article. They support it once they hear of it, of course, just as they'll support the Anatolian hypothesis as obviously true as soon as they are informed that it might give them IVC Aryans. The problem is that these people know what they want to believe and then merely sift actual evidence into "supporting the truth" and "not supporting the truth", a posteriori, so that all authors speaking the "truth" are defended automatically, no matter if they are actual scholars or just raving lunatics. This is much like dealing with biblical literalists, the hallmark of fundamentalism, and has nothing to do with scholarship, even if the occasional scholarly source is waved about. See 'Bakaman' just above for a quaint example, parroting what actual editors told him over at Witzel's article (as if we were writing some biography here). Half of the time, these editors fail the Turing test completely, we might as well be dealing with an armada of chatterbots unleashed from an underground BJP headquarters :o) dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Alright it looks like Dab knows how to rant about Hindu users. Hah a "chatterbot from the BJP Hq", what a joke. I guess the BJP mustered them to fight the Aryan race.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If AIT is called as " Christian motives of British Raj", then how it feels Dab. You are always spouting against opposers of AIT/AMT as if opposers are not intelligent enough and all intelligence lies with AIT supporters. I have already told about your `one way thinking' and shallow level of logical understanding in talk page of Indo Aryan Migration.

Something similar to OIT is always said by all Hindu Brahmins during reciting Shrimad Bhagvat much much before advent of AIT theory.( brahmins are told to be nearest to Aryans as per AIT/AMT. What a pitty for AIT supporters ! ) That means all Hindu Brahmins are biggest "chatterbot from the BJP Hq" much much much before BJP !!! I warn you to be in control as you or your gang is deleting rectification of your mis-guiding words from OIT article, in which you don't believe at all. You are now crossing limits of civilized behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WIN (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to make this a Hindu vs non-Hindu fight or something like that. I think everyone needs to present sources, the Basis of the Theory section I have expanded is full of sources, unlike the Overview section on the AIT page. Suggestion that a theory is pseudoscience must be sourced. We don't care whether you and Paul B are experts, if you haven't wrote a book about the subject or written something credible somewhere else then honestly I don't care. Please begin presenting sources. The way I go with OR is put a {{Fact}} tag for a few days and if there is no source then I shall remove the sentence, consider the {{Fact}} tag a message that this sentence is on probation. I'm sure sources will be found, but just want to make it happen quicker. Alright? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Terming oppositon to AIT/AMT as something Hindu nationalism is done by AIT supporters. But, it's a fact that during Western colonization period, conversion was an additional religious side effect.So, Hindu Indian or any Western scholar in Sanskrit, who knows about Hinduism and Sanskrit should not be termed as `Hindu Nationalism' as I don't know of any Indian Muslim who is well verse with Sanskrit and Hinduism. WIN 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

not quite. pseudoscience is characterized by remaining unnoted in academia. Therefore, the absence of any expert criticism is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If you want to discuss a publication as a notable contribution to a subject, it is up to you to provide evidence that it is indeed respectable. "reliable sources" does not mean "it has been printed":
Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field.
it is unacceptable to lump together actual scholarly discussions of a topic with random crackpottery from outside the peer-reviewing process. It is up to you to establish that your source qualifies as scholarly. Labelling a statement as "pseudoscience" is in fact a courtesy, saying that its scholarly status has not been established. If this is in doubt, it would be perfectly alright to remove the statement altogether. This has nothing to do with my personal expertise (which may allow me to locate proper sources more quickly, but which is does not carry weight by itself on Wikipedia at all). I am open to two possibilities: a) treat this as an academic topic, such as it is, and ignore crackpots like Knapp in favour of discussion of proper literature; b) include mention of Knapp and similar stuff, clearly labelled as standing completely outside serious scholarly debate. Case b) will warrant categorization as "pseudoscience/archaeology", but I am also happy to leave this stuff unmentioned altogether, also. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

Shouldn't this article have a criticism section written from the consensus perspective of historical linguistcs? As it stands, all sorts of supporting statements are advanced in the article which are linguisticly meaningless (i.e. Sanskrit is ... a grammatically complex and highly refined language. OIT supporters believe that the idea that Sanskrit is a language originating with Central Asian nomadic people is highly impossible -- consensus lingustics rejected any linkage between grammatical complexity and technological attainments several decades ago.) I appreciate that OIT supporters reject consensus opinion, and in some cases may misunderstand/misrepresent it, but shouldn't it get a voice here? -Ben 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

You could add a criticism section and fill it with well-sourced material. But note that what you call consensus is rejected by a number of voices and media sources on the subject. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
It may be rejected by "media sources", or by an overwhelming majority of the Indian population, or even by a majority of Indian linguists (though that would surprise me). But some note should be made of OIT's non-mainstream status within the non-Indian community of professional linguists. -Ben 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bizarrely POV article

I've tried to refrain from getting too involved further in the encroachment of hindutva propaganda and rewriting of history through wikipedia, but this article is really too much. It's full of nonsense, POV ramblings, and stuff that contradicts the rest of wikipedia. On a first read through I noticed:

  1. use of the term "Aryan Invasion Theory" to describe current theories on the migration of Indo-Aryan culture into South Asia. This seems to be a hallmark of Hindutva propaganda; presumably because its easier to attack your opponent by setting up strawman versions of them from 100+ years ago.
  2. another hallmark of Hindutva propaganda on this subject: the idea that "year after year", new evidence is uncovered that shows that the whole business of the "AIT" was invented by evil "britishers". This is completely false. The vast majority of the linguistic community outside of India does not consider the idea of the ingress of Indo-Aryan languages into India to have been discredited or disproved.
  3. whats "monosyllabic agglutinative language" supposed to mean?! Agglutinative by definition means words are made up of more than one agglutinated morpheme syllables.
  4. bizarre assumption that astronomical "data" in religious texts carries more weight in linguistics than actual linguistic evidence.
  5. racist assertion that Sanskrit is better than other languages and that the people of Central Asia could never have come up with something that "refined".
  6. a belief that genetics can be used to dismiss linguistics. Genetic evidence has also found almost no Central Asian (or South Asian, for that matter) admixture among Europeans either, but that doesn't mean they don't speak Indo-European languages.

I've added the totally disputed tag. Let's try to represent this theory properly: a mostly discredited early description of Indo-European language origins that has recently gained some support in India for political reasons. --Krsont 11:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

of course. but any intelligent reader will figure this out from the mere propaganda overkill, so no harm is done :) If anyone wants to clean this up: be aware that this is not the "anti AIT" article, it is the "OIT" article, i.e. opinions of "AIT is wrong" are irrelevant here, we want opinions about the movement out of India. "out of" does not equal "not into". dab (ᛏ) 12:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll go through these one by one:
  1. With the AIT linking, if the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis suggests that the Aryans entered India in 1500 BC, it shouldn't make a difference. Nowhere here are mentioned the old theories of chariots and things like that. Please refer me to specific bits where a link is made that directly refers to content of the historical Aryan invasion theory and I'll fix it.
  2. One thing needs to be made clear, linguistics isn't the only thing involved in this study. Archaeological, Archaeoastronomical, genetic etc. all have their particular roles. It is mentioned that the theory is rejected by linguists.
  3. I didn't add that, that was added by User:Paul Barlow here, he is a known opponent of the OIT.
  4. Does it say that? That it is more important? It just says that the OIT relies on other sources of data as opposed to linguistic data. I am getting the assumption that you believe linguistics are more important than historical texts and archaeological finds.
  5. Are you referring to the quote by Sir William Jones?
  6. Again it doesn't say that genetics is more important, just that it has been used.
Now if you notice, every time I make a point on this article that may raise controversy, it is adequately sourced by various groups of people, from the BBC to Koenraad Elst to (as Dab put it) lunatic Stephen Knapp. Yet you present no source as to your idea that linguistics is more important than all other forms of evidence presented to this page. Nobleeagle (Talk) 05:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
I think you may not be completely aware that this article is supposed to discuss a view on the history of the spread of the Indo-European languages. It is as such first and foremost an article dealing with historical linguistics. OIT supporters must argue that PIE was spoken in India, and that early IE speakers emigrated from India at some point. Just saying "Sanskrit is much too cool to have been spoken in Central Asia, and IVC was much too cool for Dravidians" (the usual latently racist 'anti-AIT' argumetn) does not address that at all. I see no scenario proposed for such migration out of India, which is the very thing this article should address. 4000 BC "Shiva" temples have nothing whatsoever to do with OIT, because Shiva is not reconstructed as a PIE deity. 3000 BC Soma vessels or 3000 BC chariots (haha) would be much more to the point. dab (ᛏ) 09:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, I'll work on that, but what you are saying isn't based on a Factual Accuracy Dispute. It's simply based on the idea that the article does not address its main points. As for "Sanskrit is much too cool to have been spoken in Central Asia, and IVC was much too cool for Dravidians", there is no mention of Dravidians on this page and neither is there a racist concept that Central Asians couldn't speak a refined language. It's just that this is based on a source in which Frawley says that the idea of a nomadic and primitive external Aryan force speaking such a refined language is improbable. If that is all you have to say then I shall remove the tag. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
yes, you are making sense. My gripe is that the article polemicizes about tangentially related issues instead of addressing its topic (but note it wasn't me who added the tag). The dispute would be about mentioning crackpot authors like Frawley or Knapp together with academic authors. I'm fine with mentioning them under a separate "pseudoscience" or "propaganda" header. Or else leave them out altogether and concentrate on serious literature. You will also appreciate that nobody claims that actual, 'refined' Classical Sanskrit was spoken by proto-Indo-Aryans, either at the Oxus or at the Indus. Sanskrit became Sanskrit ('refined') inside India, during the early 1st millennium BC, evolving out of what before was simply a dialect of early Indo-Aryan. But trust Frawley to set up such a strawman (being, again, a crackpot author). As long as people close their eyes to the historical evolution of Sanskrit, they will be unable to discuss the historical depth of its literature. dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

again, the Harappan chronology is fine, but it is wrong to state that "the OIT" assumes things about the Vedas wrt IVC (while it is Frawley that does, including, apparently, weird things like claiming the RV is Neolithic). This isn't "OIT". An "OIT" chronology would suggest dates for emigration of pre-Indo-Aryans from India. A proper "OIT" would state, for example (I am making this up, as it were 'writing for the enemy', looking for the best way to make the claim, assuming you do want to make the claim at any cost),

  • Pre-Harappan: Early and Middle PIE, separation of Proto-Anatolian
  • Early Harappan: Late PIE, separation of non-Indo-Iranian dialects; Satemization (spreading from India?)
  • Mature Harappan: Proto-Indo-Iranian ("Aryan").
  • 1900 BC: Iranians leave India. Proto-Indo-Aryan.
  • 1700 BC: Mitanni leave India. Early Rigveda

that would be an "OIT" scenario. This would be considered extremely unlikely by mainstream scholars, but it couldn't be dismissed with a laugh. If Early Harappan was indeed the PIE Urheimat, it would also make sense to say that IVC was "Aryan", it would give you continuity in India without any invasions and, and a Sanskrit that is the main direct successor of PIE (for staying conservative and in situ). Nothing that is anything like such a coherent scenario emerges from your kooky sources, and I really see no discussion of "OIT" here (except for Schlegel, who would no doubt have come up with something like that had he been aware of the IVC). Note that "OIT" doesn't necessarily entail the (untenable) claim of a Neolithic Rigveda or even the (hardly tenable) claim of a Mature Harappan Rigveda. OIT would most likely claim Mature Harappan as Aryan (Indo-Iranian) Urheimat. dab (ᛏ) 08:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm taking a break...I'll continue work tomorrow...thanks for your input. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
While I thank you for making an attempt to create a chronology for a theory you do not support. What you have presented above is unsourced original research and cannot be added to the article without an accompanying tag. Thus I will look for sources. At the moment all I've got is that Indo-Aryans spread to Persia (thus the splitting up of Proto-Indo-Iranian) and Central Asia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 01:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I found Koenraad Elst's chronology and (apart from the period in which the Vedas were composed) it was quite similar to yours. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Accusations of "pseudoscience" and "propaganda"

I'm afraid that, in the absence of sources to back up this claim, this constitutes a violation of WP:OR, as well as a potential WP:BLP violation that is defamatory. Therefore, I have put fact tags there and, if somebody does not provide a reference from a legitimate academicsource/peer-reviewed journal/notable scholarly text that Knapp has been accused by many academics of pseudoscience/propaganda then I am within the bounds of wiki polcy to remove that sentence as it is a violation of 2 wikipedia policies. As of my signature time I shall wait for 48 hours as a courtesy. Thank you.Hkelkar 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
look, if this is going to be an article about a bona fide theory of Indo-European origins (albeit possibly obsolete, see Schlegel), Knapp has no place at all in the article. He is so far from any sort of peer reviewed that even mentioning him in passing is a joke. There are two options: stick to peer reviewed academic discourse, which will mean Knapp is out of the window and Frawley must be qualified as extremely fringy, or we turn this into the "Hindutva propaganda and Indo-European" article and put it in Category:Propaganda. I am happy to oblige and remove discussion of Knapp altogether for now. If you are unhappy with this, it is your responsibility to produce an academic review of Knapp. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, unless you can provide sourced academic refs that attest that OIT is political propaganda, all this is OR. Since Knapp does not have peer-reviewed publications, I am not opposed to not mentioning him.However, unless you can provide verifiable sources that target specific claims, we have a violation of WP:AGF,WP:BLP and WP:OR.Hkelkar 18:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this page itself is WP:OR in that several disparate sources arguing different things have been thrown together under a neologism of an article title. I cant imagine how categorising this as pseudoscience is what violates OR rather than the article itself. Hornplease 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
That is a vague accusation and, in turn, is OR without WP:Reliable Sources. Categorizing anything as pseudoscience without third aparty verification is WP:OR ab-initio.Almost everything in this article is cited and uncited OR has been removed.Hkelkar 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
If you read the sources, Hornplease, you will see that every source relates to the Out of India theory (or a model showing the spread of IE languages out from India) specifically. It is thus NOT OR. As to "cant imagine how categorising this as pseudoscience is what violates OR rather than the article itself", perhaps you have misinterpreted WP:NOR, it says in a nutshell that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.. Your categorizing of Knapp and Frawley as pseudoscientific authors is your analysis of the arguments they put forward towards to Out of India theory. Nobleeagle (Talk) 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I know nothing of Knapp or Frawley, though I would hesitate to call authors pseudoscientific, only non-notable, if indeed they are, on which I have no opinion as yet. My observation was on the structure of the article. I find it difficult to believe that (a) the phrase "Out of India Theory" is not a neologism - the phrase itself is not sufficiently cited and (b) that there is not an artificial unity brought to all these views by presenting them under the same heading, without analysing the differences that were no doubt inherent in views from different ields of inquiry and at different times. That is what I feared was OR about the article - that was the 'new synthesis' that the policy page declares. I did not intend to take a position on the scientific virtue of the statements themselves, merely pointing out that saying the statement "this article is pseudoscience" is OR is hardly fair, when the article is perilouosly close to OR itself. But, if it makes you feel better, ignore that statement, and concentrate on avoiding points (a) and (b) above. Hornplease 07:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I have seen some authors talk of the Out of India term, while others have called it the Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Map

I want to know about Photo displayed as IE language expansion out of India ( put by anyone ). Central & Eastern India expansion is shown as post 2000 BC. And, main IE dates in NW & W India shows gap of around 6,000 to 4,000 years. Do you agree that language spread took same time from Sindhu-Saraswati basin area to Western Europe and Central & Eastern India ? Is it logical to think in that line ? Do you agree that it was as difficult for people to move from NW & W India to C & E India as from NW & W India to Western Europe ? This picture is utterly false. It is based on AIT/AMT. WIN 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I created it. It is based on Koenraad Elst. It is not a simple matter of Aryans saying they want to invade everything and anything around them. They split off for reasons...demographic expansion, internal rivalry etc. etc. In most of these cases they saw the Hindu Kush as a suitable place to travel to. With the drying up of the Sarasvati and the decline of the IVC, the Aryans began interacting with the Dravidians, who were not backward and to this date exist in large numbers. The two groups overran the Veddoid tribes of South Asia and to some extent South East Asia. I don't know why, but Elst does not use the evidence of Aryan settlements on the Gangetic plains around 3000 BC and I can't do anything about that. It's hard to believe but to avoid OR I created a map based on that source and that source only. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In Ramayan, Sita was from Mithila ( current Eastern U.P./ Bihar and parts of Nepal ). In Mahabharat, Rukmani ( wife of Krishna ) was from Vidarbha ( Nagpur area of Maharashtra ). In Rig-Ved, early periods mentioning Mandals like 6,3,7,Early I mentions Kasi which is one of most religious place for Hindus. Name of Kashi ( or Varanasi ) is same since Rig-Vedic time. WIN 06:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


it is unclear what is the origin of the dates given in the map. the article text discusses Elst's scenario, but the dates in the map seem to disagree with the dates in the article body. Elst apparently assumes a 6th millennium PIE near the Indus valley, with a spread to Central Asia (5th millennium?) and later Anatolia (3rd millennium?), but it is unclear where the "pre-6000 BC" and "8000 BC" dates are taken from. What do we mean by "pre-6000 BC"? Of course all of Eurasia was inhabited since much earlier, but per Elst's scenario, this would lie in the pre-PIE period. If the map is to be consistent with Elst's "emerging scenario", the "pre-6000" and "8000" dates should be replaced by "5000 BC" (PIE). Note that this would give us a credible (close to mainstream) time depth for PIE, and "OIT" would just reverse the direction of migration, without needing to make far out claims about chronology at the same time, which is a good thing. dab (ᛏ) 08:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I might upload the map again. I made a mistake while reading Elst's scenario and attributed 6th millenium BC to 6000 BC instead of 5999-5000 BC as it is meant to be. What you are reading as 8000 BC is meant to be 6000 BC but it got stuffed up so I'll have to fix that and adjust it to 5000 BC. Of course I wouldn't date anything at 8000 BC. The first split of PIE from the Indus Valley was dated to the 6th millenium BC, thus I am assuming that the PIE were in the Indus Region before this breakup, which is why I used Pre-6000 BC (which I am now changing to Pre-5000 BC). Thanks for pointing that out. Nobleeagle (Talk) 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objections then :) I am in fact grateful that we now cover this perfeclty reasonable scenario, it is a refreshing breeze of sanity after all the Pleiades-and-Saraswati-cruft. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If Saraswati is some cruft then why there is complete mis-match for time period of said Rig-Vedic Saraswati and actual geographical findings ? And, don't tell that Rig-Vedic Saraswati was Afghani river Harahvaiti. It's is easy to term something as cruft due to your inability to adjust with newer archiological findings.

You will rejoice with finding of Troy on Turkey coast but when in India there are plenty of places corresponding to Vedic, Ramayan and Mahabharat periods with same naming & legends for thousands of years. But then it is some fabulus stories and cruft for you. WIN 06:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding a paragraph

The following sentense is confusing:

... The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT. Kennedy claims that the Harappan inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization are no different from the inhabitants of India in the following millennia. This suggests that the Aryan people were indigenous to India or similar in skeletal structure to the Harappans.[19] ...

This comment is totally illogical. It does not prove at all that ancient Aryans were similar to the ancient Harappans. Let me give you an example:

if we compare the skelettons of ancient inhabitants of South America with those of the modern population of South America, we will find many similarities. That's because the majority of modern South Americans are direct descendants of the ancient population. But it would be wrong to claim that the "old inhabitants of South America were almost identical to Spanish Europeans, because modern South Americans also speak Spanish".

Only because the modern populations of Europe or India speak Indo-European languages, it does not mean that they are direct descendants. "Language replacement" by a "ruling minority group" could also be a convincing explanation.

Assuming that modern Indians are not direct descendants of the ancient Aryans, but only "linguistic descendants" (through "language replacement") and direct descendants of the ancient population of India, it's no surprise that the skelettons have similarities. While modern Indians are descendants of the originial, Non-Indo-European population of India, their ancestors had adopted the language and religion of the small Indo-European speaking elite.

Tājik 00:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tajik,this is subject of Aryan Invasion and regarding this we have lots of sentences to read in AIT and Aryan Migration talk pages. Do read from all archieves. OIT is based on the one major point that there was no Aryan Invasion of ancient India and so called effects of it in India. Now, if there is some similarity between Sanskrit and other IE languages then it might be due to other way round. For any Aryan Invasion or Migration there are neither any literally records nor in traditions of any Indian people. Where as for ancient Indians moving out of India, you will find plenty of literally records. Spanish invasion of South America example would have been good example to justify your points if Aryan Invasion would have been proved to be true. WIN 04:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are some sources in the Vedas or in the Gathas that point toward a migration of the Indo-Iranians from Central Asia, including the Zend Avesta - Vendidad: Fargard 1 ("... There (Airyanem Vaejah - "Land of the Aryans") are ten winter months there, two summer months; and those are cold for the waters, cold for the earth, cold for the trees ..." [1]), a discription of the cold steps of Central Asia. There are also discriptions of warfare of the semi-nomadic Vedic and Avestan populations against urbanized people who - very obviously - were not "Arya".
Besides that, this theory does not explain two major question: the horse has always played a major role in IE societies, even in the Vedas. However, there were no horses in India at the time of the suggested "migration out of India". This theory also fails to explain how a highly civilized people such as the Harappans (the aleged ancestors of the IE) could turn itself into a backward nomanic society (the IE of Europe and Iran were nomads and semi-nomads, as well as the Aryas of the Vedas)?! This does not make any sense. Nomadic peoples become urban and "civilized", and not vice versa.
This article is interesting, but it is totally one sided.
Tājik 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Fixed (I think). Please check if it's alright. I basically added that the idea that there was only a transfer of languages is not countered by this. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article is biased through and through and has clearly been written by proponents of the OIT. It uses weasel words, it used biased and unreliable sources, it doesn't represent the general consensus of Indo-Eeuropeanists and it misrepresents linguistic fact (linguistic data does not support for example any notion of Sanskrit being hiighly refined, or the improbability of it having evolved from a language of "primitive" people (sic), and linguistic evidence isn't "soft" evidence that can be used for whatever purpose) I have added a POV tag.Maunus 06:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

half of it is pure quackery. that wouldn't be so bad if it didn't mix up the nonsense with the reasonable parts, the reader could still stick to the latter. But mixing up respectable 19th century scholarship, Elst's tendentious speculations and complete loonies like Frawley, Knapp and anonymous websites makes it essentially useless.
"OIT supporters believe that the idea that Sanskrit is a language originating with Central Asian nomadic people who have been described as "primitive", is very improbable"
— this is from Frawley's "Sanskrit is supposed to be the language of primitive invaders", so first of all it belongs in the Frawley section. What "OIT supporters"? Schlegel? And then Frawley doesn't even himself call the invaders "primitive", he alleges that "AIT supporters" allege that invaders were "primitive", so it remains unclear who "has described" Indo-Iranians as "primitive" in the first place. Frawley doesn't understand the first or last thing about linguistics of course, he is just piling on rhetorics. therefore this article has just two possibilities:
  • separate the loony stuff (Frawley, Knapp and friends) into a separate "popular/religious literature" section, and keep the main part focussed on scholarly discussion (peer-reviewed linguistic journals and the like; Schlegel, and if you like Elst, characterized as an isolated minority opinion)
  • tag the whole article as pseudoscientific Hindutva propaganda and be done with it
but do not keep mixing up reasonable arguments with all this batshit. It will not do to imply that "OIT" has any academic support worth mentioning as the article does at present. If I am personally prepared to treat "OIT" on equal footing with the Anatolian hypothesis, I am being (a) very kind to "OIT" for the sake of peace, and (b) very unkind to Renfrew. A proper encyclopedic treatement would file "OIT" closer to things like "Troy was in England!1" or "Ithaka was Paliki!" or "Atlantis was in Britain or Antarctica or India!1" -- these are nb all published theories that could be defended on Wikipedia with just as much zest as OIT if just their supporters thought it worthwhile. Such support would not render them a iota more notable in an encyclopedic sense. dab (ᛏ) 07:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For Western world, finding of Troy mentioned in ancient book was a puzzle. But, in India you will find so many places name, city name , river name or kingdom name used very much till today. All these names links from Veda,Purana , Ramayana and Mahabharat. Even legends and stories associated with these names are part of that particular area and associated with that Veda, Purana , Ramayana or Mahabharata. This is called Continuous Civilization. Dab is trying to equate Sanskrit scriptures & it's legends with those Troy in Britain kind of stuff. This is really rediculous of that person who always tries to downgrade India. Dab, I or others have asked many questions in talk pages of AIT or AMT. Try to answer that with some sense and logic ( something very hard to find from you ) - instead of your garbage equations. WIN 10:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

--> here's what I mean with "zest" :) it is you who are 'downgrading' the rich and multi-cultural history of India with your single-mindedness. "continuous civilization" since 6000 BC, yeah sure. dab (ᛏ) 11:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You are a much better person in `downgrading' India. Don't try to teach me non-Indian Dab. WIN 05:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

you may be Indian, but hey, I don't blame the subcontinent, morons are equally distributed the world over, India is no exception there. dab (ᛏ) 07:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As per you all persons opposing AIT/AMT are morons. This shows how stupid a person can be ! Instead of ostrich like behaviours, engage youself in finding logical answers of said questions sensibly. But , I know whenever this question arises , you will start showing peacock's back. WIN 08:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop bickering here and instead fix the page and remove the bias.Maunus 10:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Right, I tried to list all your concerns to make it easy for myself.
  • Frawley/Knapp are crackpots and deserve their own section or complete removal.
  • The primitive language point seems to be a contentious one.
  • The article seems to give an aura that the OIT is mainstream
I tried to avoid OR as much as possible, so if you are disputing information, you are pretty much disputing the sources. I'll have to work on that sometime. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
First: no linguist who believes in the methods of comparative linguistics (basically all serious linguistist after 1900) have doubts that Sanskrit has developed from the same language that the other indoeuropean languages (i.e. english) have developed from, using the comparative method a hypothetical a language can be reconstructed which is the hypothetical ancestor of all indoeuropean languages. A number of regular sound changes can be used to derived from this proto-language all the modern indo european languages from Sanskrit to Hindi and English. In linguistics I do think that it would be justified calling someone a crackpot if he were to dispute the general idea of an Indo-European linguistic family. Using accepted linguistic methods there is no way to for example suuport a cliam that the other indo-european languages are derived form sanskrit.(I don't know Knapp or Frawleys work and don't comment on it but on the wordings of the article) Linguists after ca. 1900 have not used the term primitive language because it is derogatory and because it is not tru that any languages are more complex, refiined or primitive than other. Languages are equally complex no matter what kind of culture speaks them. There is no evolutional scal of languages because the human mind from which the languages spring are equally complex (talking about primitive vs. complex languages is essentially racist). So it is not a question of whether Sanskrit is derived from a primitive language, Sanskrit is derived from an early language and the longer we go back in history the more "primitive" are the people speaking it (that is. they have less technology). So it is definately traceable back to a language spoken by stoneage people and which was also the ancestor of the other european languages. The question is where these primitive proto-indo Europeans lived. There are different theories, one theory is they lived in central asia and spread in all directions from that point, this is supported by different archeological and linguistic evidence etc. and the OIT theory says that they lived in India supported by mythical and religious texts, that while they are old should not be used uncritically as historical sources. What this article should say is that scientific methods such as linguistics and archeology does not support the OIT in the least but that people who refute the common scientific methods in favour of a more esoteric view of science based mostly on hindu religious texts find the OIT appealing. This would be much closer to a balanced viewpoint than thee current state of the article.Maunus 09:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In reply to your edit history points about Mishra: he believes that it was first monosyllabic and then agglutinative ("the 'isolating' Indus language consisted of unalterable mono-syllabic words, then developed into an agglutinative language with grammatical elements such as word endings attached, and finally into fully flexional Sanskrit" - summary from Witzel's review). I don't think it's always POV to refer to languages as "refined" or even "grammatically complex". Sanskrit has regularly been called the former - after all that's what the word "sanskrit" means! Paul B 10:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this article for a while, and I see that the sentence on the very obscure and idiosyncratic Mishra has now be placed in a context in which he appears to represent a long-standing mainstream view ("In the past, it was always argued that Sanskrit is the language that evolved over millennia in the Indus Valley, or elsewhere in the Indian Subcontinent. Thus M. Mishra argues..."). In fact Mishra does not represent a view that has been established for "many years past", but a very modern Indian attempt to reconcile historical linguistics with belief in the primacy and purity of Sanskrit. Paul B 10:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It was not clear what Mishra meant the way it was written, probably because it was misunderstood by the person writing it originally. Referring to a language as refined or highly complex can be either POV or an empty statement: complex and refined in relation to what? All languages that have acquired a "classical" status are called refined and highly complex by the people studying it, Greek, Latin, Sanskrit, Nahuatl, English, Old Norse, Japanese, Old Chinese, etc. and so it is an uninformative if not exactly chauvinist statement that does not belong in an encyclopedia.Maunus 11:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
yes, every human language is "highly complex". What we mean is "highly regularized" (aka "refined"): this may be an objective observation: inasmuch as a language becomes a "classical language" it ceases to be a "living language". This happened to Sanskrit as well as to Latin and Attic/Koine Greek. The point is that Sanskrit became a "classical language" in the mid 1st millennium BC. "Vedic Sanskrit" is a sort of extension of the term referring to the language before it was "classical" or "regularized". This is entirely a question of Ancient (1st millennium BC) India, not of prehistoric ("Vedic") India, and extremely obviously not at all of "OIT" or PIE migration. It is illustrative to compare the stages of Greek and Sanskrit. The timeframe corresponds almost exactly (give or take a century or two):
dab (ᛏ) 11:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Saraswati River in Rig-Veda

Witzel is translating Sanskrit samudra as terminal lake in Rig-Veda verses. Samudra is translated as ocean in all Indian languages as opposed to terminal lake. But Rig-Veda hymn 3.33 says that Vipasa and Sutudri rising from mountains ( Parvat ) and flowing down to Samudra. Now, what should be assumed - ocean or terminal lake ? Then, who is moron or trying to make other moron ? WIN 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Harvard professors are rarely idiots. Read what he actually says.[2]. It's amazing how quick you are to "downgrade" all cultures other than India. Has it occurred to you that most people in other cultures don't even care where PIE originated, and so wouldn't dream that being its place of origin would either "downgrade" or "upgrade" a country. Paul B 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Griffith has translated Samudra as Ocean here. And, the Harvard professor translates BBS verse wrong.But shhhh ... don't make fuzz out of it as it's not liked by Pauls & Dabs ! WIN 09:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism/Opposition section

Many people have pointed out on this talk page that no serious linguist would support the theory. Why? We need to have a criticism section which may discuss desicive bits of data and how they completely ruin the fundamentals of the OIT. That would help make the page not seem like a biased one. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 06:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

What would really help the page seem like an un-biased would be if the entire text didn't read as if the OIT theory is the only sensible and most widely accepted theory. A criticism section would be a start but the article is permeated by the biased viewpoint, and the entire text needs fixup.Maunus 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
it is one thing to refer to expert opinion, it is another thing to repeat the entire debate. We cannot turn this into a crash course in historical linguistics, and even if we did (this would fill volumes, people don't become 'experts' because they felt like it one day), it would drown out the actual topic, and it still wouldn't help people like WIN with strong opinions but no background knowledge. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


What is Sanskrit Apbhransh / Degradation ?

To find what's meaning of Sanskrit Apbhransh or Degradation, look at South East Asia's Sanskrit based words in vocab. Even though SE Asia's language are considered as from different language family, they have high % of Sanskrit or Sanskrit based words.

Just take recent names appearing in Thailand Coup.

Thai King , Bhumibol Adulyadej = Bhumipal Atulyatej Old thai capital ,Ayuthaya = Ayodhya of India Ruangroj Mahasaranon = Rangaraj Mahasharan or Mahasharanan ( in South Indian style ) Suriya Jungrungreangkit = Surya .... ( remaining name can not be understood right now ) Pratheep Ungsongtham Hata = Pradeep .... Pridiyathorn Devakula = Pritiya Devakula

You can see that there are many pronunciation errors from Sanskrit words. And, this is called Degradation or Deviation. Due to different pronunciation habits, Thai people are pronouncing Sanskrit word differently. You will always find very high stress given on exact pronunciation of Sanskrit words in India. It's similar to changing place names of Indian cities or rivers by Western people like Pliny or Britishers due to their habitual inability to speak original Indian name. WIN 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

please

can we keep at least a little sense of historical depth? A groundbreaking realization in 1780 may sound similar to absolute drivel in 2004. 1780 isn't 2000, there are 220 years intervening. Jones realized that Sanskrit was an archaic IE dialect. This was more than 200 years ago. To cite Jones as support for modern dilettants is, to say the least, bizarre. Lumping together 1780s scholarship and 2000s kookery betrays the same compelte lack of historical perspective than lumping together Neolithic cultures and Iron Age texts. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Extraneous material

There is some quite bizarre stuff here. What does the California text book controversy have to do with this? Why are we told about an 11 year old kid who was teased by other kids? I very much doubt that was because of AIT! "Ya boo, your country wasn't the source of Proto-Indo-European! Sucker!". More likely they were repeating standard Christian evangelical ridicule of multi-armed or elephant-headed gods. Do we really need to narrate the history of AIT? This is supposed to be about OIT. Paul B 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

:rolleyes: more likely, these kids are teased because their parents are fundamentalist loonies... dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Looks like dab can do nothing but call people names.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
how about you "close communication" with me too, Bakaman? I'll be more than happy in Zora's company. Or with all of en-wiki while you're at it? It is not like you are making a secret of your agenda. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
That's what people call me. Luckily some anon IP counterbalanced you in the names by calling me a "Gandhian/Nehruvian secularist". "Ya boo, your country wasn't the source of Proto-Indo-European! Sucker!" Bakaman Bakatalk 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
so there are people with their heads even further up their asses, that's hardly a surprise (rather an axiom of online culture :) dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sen

Sen is commenting on the "AIT controvesy", he is not alleging to have done any research of his own, he is simply commenting on the bizarre constellation of scholarship vs. brute nationalism. His voice thus belongs in a "political implications" section. Or, once again, we could clean this article of all unscholarly exploits and confine those to the one that is ostensibly about the jingoism, Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

cleanup, again

this article keeps forgetting that it is about OIT, not anti-AIT. Most of the stuff in the "Basis" section is again compeltely off-topic and belongs on Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) (these arguments do not become more convincing by repeating them in three different articles). So far, the only marginally notable contemporary supporter of OIT appears to be Elst. Frawley's stuff is just as incompatible with Elst's OIT as it is with any other reasonable account, and if we must keep Frawley around (to the discredit of OIT as presented here), at least keep him in his own section. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

again, we can keep Talageri, Mishra, Knapp, Frawley and friends, but all they achieve, being as blissfully innocent of any required background as they are, is make the theory look silly. Elst's thing is the only reasonable reference so far, and pending other citations, the article should really focus on that. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

3500 BCE

The article says Talageri places the RV at 3500 BCE. Can the book and chapter please be used as reference (it could maybe be a misrepresentation). Witzel can be used as reference when discussing criticism of Talageri, but when describing only Talageri's model, Talageri or a neutral source like Bryant should be cited. Especially because Witzel has also been criticized by Talageri for misrepresenting Talageri. --RF 13:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

true, I cannot find the date. Talageri alludes to his belief of Indo-European presence in such early times in India, but I couldn't find him actually claiming such an early date for the RV. What he does imply is a homeland in the Gangetic plain with a gradual expansion westward during Rigvedic times, which flies in the face of just about anything that can be glimpsed about Rigvedic geography. dab (ᛏ) 14:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a calculation based on his estimates for the time given to compose the rv. Here's a review which indicates that his dating is far too modern. The RV should be put at 5000BC![3]. Steve Farmer is also an opponent, but he gives a useful summary.[4]. It's also worth pointing out that the "misrepresentation" was citing his name misspelt in a footnote. Scholars make that sort of slip up all the time in elaborately footnoted publications. Paul B 14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
well, it appears from your link that Talageri offered a 3500 estimate for Mandala 6 in some online forum posting, i.e. not from his book. The 5000 date is from some would-be Indus script decipherer, quite another shade of crank. Talageri can at least have a coherent argument, even if he knows what he wants to find beforehand (i.e., "AIT was invented by evil British bible thumpers"). Other authors don't care if the RV dates from 8,000 BC or 2,600 BC just as long as the IVC is Ayan, Aryan Aryan :) dab (ᛏ) 14:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I was of course referring to Talageri's replys to Witzel's review of Talageris book. There's plenty of misrepresentations that gets mentioned there. I have found a reference to the 3500 in this article. [5]
Talageri says that these dates were speculations from an email letter: "Farmer had no scruples in publicizing and ridiculing, on his Internet site (not that I have ever objected to it), my estimated dates, given reluctantly, and with many qualifications, in a “private email”. And Witzel has no scruples in quoting the same."
The basis of this reference from Witzel is an email letter of Talageri. --RF 14:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Either that's what he argues or it isn't. Paul B 15:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
If we begin citing private emails in the article, then this email should also be mentioned:
“I certainly refuse to be so naïve as to join in the game of making speculative assignment of specific ‘hard dates’ to Mandalas, hymns and verses without hard proof (such as an archaeologically datable and decipherable inscription commemorating some Rigvedic personality or event).” (email from 7 July 2000)--RF 15:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
well, there is a man called Talageri who thinks RV 6 dates to 3500 BC. He said so on the internet. We are really stretching who and what we are quoting in this article, and I think it is fun, but it would be better to at least confine ourself to what has been printed. If we start quoting online flamewars, this article is going nowhere. dab (ᛏ) 15:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

POV

This article tends toward a POV pushing of this "theory", and gives short shrift (when it gives any shrift at all) to the views of actual historical linguists, or the weighty evidence against the theory. It must therefore be labelled as NPOV until such time as it is cleaned up. RandomCritic 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

that's because actual historical linguists have nothing to say on the topic. the "linguistics" cited at present makes it perfectly clear that this is the lunatic fringe. Heck, the whole article betrays that it treats a lunatic fringe topic to any reader who isn't asleep or braindead. The article presents such proponents as there are, and these proponents speak volumes about the theory's notability. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Delete archaeogenetics section

The following section has no relevance or value in an article about linguistics; it falsely claims that genetic studies support the "OIT" theory, when such conclusions are not only dubious but impossible. Language is not a genetic trait. RandomCritic 16:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Archaeogenetics

Main article: Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia

Recent studies in genetics have also been in support of the Out of India theory. The University of Massachusetts has not only found that modern Indian people trace their origin to nowhere other than the Indian subcontinent, but also determined that a movement of people out of India towards Europe is a more likely model. This was proposed by two of the leading researchers in the field: Dr. V. K. Kashyap and Dr. Peter Underhill of Stanford University. [1]

Other geneticists have carried out studies amongst varying castes of India. Dr. Vijendra Kashyap carried out a study of 936 Y chromosomes and determined that people living in India 10,000 years ago carry the same genetic traits as those living in India in modern times. However, this does not necessarily support one model for Indo-Aryan migraiton which proposes that instead of an influx of migrants from Central Asia, the Indo-European languages travelled via a small group of people who carried their languages and cultures throughout Asia.[2]

the relevant bit here is "determined that a movement of people out of India towards Europe is a more likely model." can we say "Kashyap, Underhill et al. determined that a movement of people out of India towards Europe is a more likely model"? I don't mean the silly press release, I mean in their actual publication? Journal, volume, page please. dab (ᛏ) 17:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
In many cases on Wikipedia, we do not use journals etc. We trust press releases from universities to often be true. Removal of a whole section simply because one believe's it falsely claims the genetic studies support an Out of India theory isn't justifiable. The sourced article states clearly that In fact, the original people and culture within the Indian Subcontinent may even be a likely pool for the genetic, linguistic, and cultural origin of the most rest of the world, particularly Europe and Asia and that Underhill said the spatial frequency distributions of both L1 frequency and variance levels show a spreading pattern emanating from India. The second paragraph states that it is not conclusively in support for the OIT, restoring section. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 02:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


When any form of Aryan people influx is debunked by many scholars ( archeologically or genetically etc.), then how Indian subcontinent turned in Vedic and Sanskrit ? Or how some IE based words spread in Europe ? That means that due to people moving from advanced ancient India to savage like Europe. And, then Sanskrit based words spread in those original European people ( same way SE Asian languages show high % of Sanskrit words ).

But, Max Muller - who was having only language knowledge with political backup and zeel to make India a Christian country was believed in totality as it suited that times dominant European political scenario - ( now don't tell that I am spreading lies. It's evident from his own letters published in 1910 - after his death in USA. I have given link in AMT or AIT talk pages.) WIN 05:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, who is right ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29
or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_India_Theory and the text quoted above ....
I quote : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29
"R1a likely originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and is associated with the Kurgan culture and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, as well as among some populations of Mongolia and southern Siberia, where it might reflect Scythian influences of classical antiquity. [...]"
dharma


Is anyone can reply to my question ? TIA.
Dharma

Arkaim - a nomadic steppe town or migrated IVC Indians planned town ?

In Arkaim in Russia , just north to Kazakhstan ; a city of around 2,000 to 2,500 people was found on steppes plains. Read what biggest russian newspaper Pravda says about it from this link http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/15814_Arkaim.html . Arkaim town , contains sewage system , well , food storage area - Each house was outfitted with “all modern conveniences,” - the town was built as a projected plan and it was not some natural development.They had bronze smelting ovan. They had central ritual site with arranged bonfires. It is dated 1700 BC. It's claimed to have some Astronomy in it and is called Swastika City.

Now, above descriptions in Pravda says that it was a planned town with sewage system, bronze smelting ovan , systematically arranged ritualistic fireplace. This are Hallmark of IVC people who were very advanced from central asian nomads.So, how some steppe nomads called `aryan' is resembling with IVC people ? If claims of Astronomy and Swastika is considered than also it's clear indication that this was IVC Indians' settlement who migrated to this land area after complete drying of Saraswati river after 1900 BC. Astronomy which is woven in Indian life and culture much more than any other people on the earth or IVC excavated Indian Swastika symbol - is hallmark of Indian culture.

This means that Arkaim was settlement of migrated IVC Indians. Suppose, this is some nomadic central asian steppes people's town ( what a irony ! nomadic and town - both words are opposites to each other ); then nomads learnt so much from IVC Indians that they tried to replicate their life in steppes !

But, then how those nomads were able to impart their language & culture on vast Indian subcontinent !

WIN 06:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadly certain users think they are too high and mighty to counter WIN's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
no, no, indeed, WIN is absolutely right, Arkaim is Swastika City, hence it was planned and built by Vedic Indo-Aryans, nothing could be more obvious than that. I mean, come on, who but Vedic Aryans could plan their way out of a paper bag, let alone plan sewers or fireplaces?? It must be Aryans, everybody else at the time were pretty much monkeys, what more proof do they need, for crying out loud? Fie, stupid, arrogant, eurocentric academia, why do we need specialists in the first place if they cannot see things as obvious as this. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
indeed. this should be Aryapedia anyway, non-Aryans need not apply, you and WIN would then be free to tell the self-evident truth without wasting time with inferior half-wits. Oh wait, you could already do that if you set up your own wiki at aryapedia.org, think about that. dab (ᛏ) 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
And what logic would that be? It's nice that WIN has finally discovered the existence of the Sintashta-Petrovka culture. It's difficult to understand why he would think the existence of ovens and sewers is evidence of links to the IVC, unless only Indian Übermenschen could ever invent such things. You know, other people had them too. In other respects there is almost no resemblance to IVC cities - as a simple look at the place should indicate. Nor, btw, are there any swastikas there. Paul B 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what's Sin.-Pet. culture but Paul, you were not knowing that Avesta never mentions any modern Iranian place ( as evident from talk pages of AIT or AM ). What's your level of understanding or intentions that are known. WIN 04:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

yes, the sad truth is that WIN keeps us amused for weeks before he goes and reads (alright, looks at the intro of) one other article to throw in the fray. At this rate, it will be years before he reaches the rationalism or even just WP:ENC page :p dab (ᛏ) 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What are you trying to suggest with "Übermenschen"? You suggesting WIN's a Nazi, because we do have a german user editing this article and his name's not WIN.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What is his name, Mr. Godwin? I am about as German as Arkaim is in India, and your conclusion German>Nazi is about as sound as Swastika>Aryan. I am sure it all makes sense in your head, though. dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Unlike user subhash_bose, I have no idea what these german phrases mean. Perhaps if you translate it (since you are German) I'd know what it means. I was suggesting that you were the only one who actually knows what Ubermenschen means, and that Paul Barlow's useless rant fell on deaf ears.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not German, but I can answer your question. Or you could have just looked it up, whatever. Anyway, in brief, Übermensch, plural Übermenschen, was a term coined, or at least made famous, by the 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. A literal translation would be "overman", although it means something more like "superman" or "superior man". Although Nietzsche himself was not a national socialist (far from it, his writings often pretty violently rejects Germany, the German people, and blind nationalist ideologies in general) the idea was later appropriated by the Nazis and incorperated into their national/biological mysticism. To the Nazis, anyone of "Aryan" descent was an übermensch, and anyone not of "Aryan" descent was an untermensch, an under man. I'm guessing Paul Barlow was pointing out that the prejudice that only sophisticated and clever Aryan Indus Valley Indians could have taught the Central Asians how to build sewers or ovens is pretty much identical to the Nazi prejudice that German Übermenschen were the source of the Aryan culture and that Aryans could only have come from superior Germany. Both are ridiculous, imperalist notions based entirely on politics, not fact. --Krsont 11:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for not being a dick and being straightforward about this. I dont think Paul Barlow meant that though, I think he obviously wanted to paint me as a Nazi, because I'm a Hindutva sympathizer or as dab says "chatterbot from the BJP headquarters".Bakaman Bakatalk 16:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I meant exactly what Kronst said (thanks Kronst for expaining). BTW, if you didn't know the meaning of the word why would you think it was intended to "paint you as a Nazi"? That's a rather idiosyncratic interpretation, since the comment was explicitly in response to what WIN said!Paul B 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Because painting people as Nazi is generally why people use German words. Otherwise there are 6000 other languages you can express yourself in, its funny why only german had to be used.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Kronst explained clearly why German was used. Not wishing to create too much angst or to display schadenfreude, I'm quite sure that there are many reasons why German might be used that have nothing to do with Nazis. It may just be the Weltanschauung created by the post WW2 zeitgeist: or perhaps your have been blitzed a by Nazi references creating a gestalt that equates Germanness with Nazism. Very sad. Still, times change - alle herrlichkeit des Menschen, wie des Grases Blumen. Paul B 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Nein mein freund.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Bs, you are being a dick, consistently, and you know you are. This is about the fifth time you made your gratuituos Nazi allusions in mock innocence. If you really think you are so smart, why don't you write some useful article for a change? Or do you really enjoy pestering people and intruding on adults' discussions with your puerile smugness so much? You should then join your peers in an online discussion forum, because that isn't what we do on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I urge that you see some life style related TV programmes on Central Asia & nomads on Discovery - Travel & Living or National Geographic. Currently these nomads are not living in Bricked houses with such `modern facilities' ( as told in that newspaper article ) so definitely before 3,700 years one can easily imagine their life.Secondly, IVC people were advanced even in other civilization's comparisition. So, central asian nomads with sewage system which was even not present before some 200 years in Europe - impossible, unless I am Aryan theory supporter with `one way' thinking. Aryan theory Supporters can believe that those central asian nomads can travel to ancient India, but ancient IVC people can not travel there. It was a `One Way Road'! A true Ostrich behaviour ! WIN 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sanskrit Vedic & Puranic names in Europe

Vedas were created in ancient India by vedic rishis. Then why below names which are from Veda & other Sanskrit scriptures , are found in specially Russia or other European countires ?

Mitrova - Russian town name = Mitra - Vedic deity

Agnova - Russian surname = Agni - Vedic deity

Purvova - Rus. name = Purva - Eng. East

Vedova - Netherland , Russian name = Veda

Ravova - Serbian name = Ravi - Sun

Devova - Rus. name = Deva

Indrova - Czech name = Indra - Vedic & Puranic Hindu God

Meneka - Czech name = Menaka - famous Apsara of Puranas

Dasova - Cz. surname = Das - servant ( and Dravidians as per obsolete AIT )

Rambova - Rus. female name = Rambha - famous Apsara of Puranas

Brugov - Male German name = Bhrigu - famous Vedic rishi on whose name ancient & historical seaport Bhrigukachch ( or current Bharuch ) is named

Slastikov, Slastik - Rus.,Polish name = Swastik - Hindu sign dating IVC

Mantrov, Mantrova - Rus. name = Mantra

Havanova - Rus. name = Havan - Vedic Firepit or Vedic Fire ritual ( a major Hindu practice even today )

Yamnova - Rus. name = Yamuna - famous & big Indian river

Gargova - Rus. name = Garg - Vedic rishi or a Hindu surname finding lineage from Rishi Garg

Mudrova - Rus. name = Mudra

Durgova - Rus., Bulgarian female name = Durga - Hindu female God from Three major Goddess who represent different aspects of virtues. And, wife of Hindu trinity Shiva.

Gangova - Croatian name = Ganga - Ganga river's name or Eng. Ganges river

Parvatova - Rus. female name = Parvati - origianl name of Durga - Hindu female goddess

Shaktova - Rus. surname = Shakti - Eng. Energy. - Hindu Shaktism

Kaspova,Kashapova - Rus. surname = Kashyapa - Vedic & Puranic rishi who is told to go to far Northern countries to India. Name Kashmir , Caspian etc. is told to derive from his name.

Agatsova - Rus. surname = Agastya - Vedic Rishi

Rudrova - Rus., Cz. name = Rudra - Vedic God and other name of Shiva

Gitova - Rus. surname = Gita - associated with Bhagvad Gita

Omsk - Rus. city = Aum or Om - famous Hindu symbol

Minsk - Rus. city = Min - Skt. word meaning fish Novosibirsk - Rus. city = Nava Shibir - Skt. word meaning New Settlement.


Above are just few names which I could transform in Russian style and searched from Google. Similar way there will be more transformation of Sanskrit words in other IE languages which I am not able to reconstruct myself rightnow and search on the net. Anyother names in this list is most welcome.

Since Vedas are Indian then how the above so many names are found in Europe which are Vedic or Puranic ? [User:WIN|WIN]] 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WIN, you really do not need to prove that sanskrit and IE-languages are related that is already well established. However your wordlists do NOT support your conclusions in the least. Please, please, please read a book about historical linguistics. User:Maunus 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that Vedas and Puranas were created by central asian nomads in Central Asia. And, that's why it's possible to find Vedic & Puranic names in Europe. As per supporters Shiva is Dravidian so how come those wife names of Shiva reached Europe ? Do we understand that those nomads were having all vast Sanskrit Vedas & Puranas in their PIE language in central asia and when they came to India , they modified PIE to Sanskrit and accordily constructed Vedas and Purans in Sanskrit ?

It is definitely clear that you are not having understanding of Vedas and Puranas or that's why you lack in logical understanding.If Rig-Veda is some story of Aryans warring with Das ( interpretated as Dravidians ) in India then how above names reached Europe and local people adopted those name like in South East Asian people Sanskrit based names are found. WIN 07:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

WIN, you should really go and write a book about this. Why do you still bother posting your stuff to Wikipedia:talkpages when you know this isn't welcome, you know it has no effect beyond slightly amusing us, and you aren't interested in listening or reading what scholars have to say? Just go and publish your ideas on your own website or in book form. Thank you and goodbye. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

'Edmund Leach wrote that after the discovery of the Indus-SarasvatÉ civilization “Indo-European scholars should have scrapped all their historical reconstructions and started again from scratch. But this is not what happened. Vested interests and academic posts were involved” (1990)' WIN 09:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I reckon it's worth to mention these connections somewhere. If we assume Aryans originated in Central Asia, they would not have knowledge of the Ganga and the Yamuna. If we assume Hinduism originated in c. 1500 BC in India, it would again, mean that these connections between cities and words do not fit. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 08:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What conections are you referring to? Not WIN's Russian surname list? There's obviously no reason to assume that Central Asian ancestors of Vedic culture would know of the Yamuna, nor does anyone say they did. I looked up one of WIN's names. "Mitrov(a)" derives from a diminutive form of Dmitry,[6] the Russian variant of the Greek name Dimetrios, itself derived from Demeter. So it ultimately traces back to a Greek deity, not a Vedic one. Does this prove that the Mitrovs were migrants from Greece? Paul B 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right,I am precisely saying the same. If Aryans were native of central asia then Ganga , Yamuna rivers should not be known to them. Swastik is excavated in IVC. It should not be found in European name. If Aryan theory is believed than Aryans were not Shakti worshipper then why names like Shakti , Durga , Parvati etc. is found in Europe ? Vedas were created in India and have Indian rishis like Kashayapa, Agastya ,Bhrigu etc.as composers of mantra , so why their names are appearing in Europe ? Puranas which are latter than Veda, Upnishads then why Menaka & Rambha are appearing as female names in Europe ? WIN 09:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am native to the extreme West of Eurasia and yet the Yamuna is known to me. Get it, they migrated, over several centuries. 1900 BC: Kazakhstan, Yamuna not known. 1000 BC: Gangetic plain, Yamuna known. Amazing, isn't it, the theory is so advanced, it includes considerations of space and time!! You do realize, I trust, that the distance from the Indus to the Oxus (Afghan-Tajik border) is about a third of the distance from the Indus to Varanasi. No Swastika was excavated in Arkaim btw, these are claims of your Russian fellow crackpots. Oh, and the Swastika plays no role in Vedic religion, it only appears to gain importance in Hinduism in Vedantic times. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indus plain to Oxus valley distance can be one third of Indus plains to Varanasi ( Gangetic plain ) BY AIR , but when there were no TAR ROAD CARVED on high mountain passes of NW then that time the same distance was very difficult to cover than moving much much smoothly on plains of Indus to Ganga.

In Shrimad Bhagavat ( Srimad_Bhagavatam )'s Eighth Skand ( Chapter ) and 8th Athyay where Mohini swaroop of Vishnu is mentioned ; there is mention that Vasant ritu is in Vaishakh month. But, in today's time Vaishakh month is proper summer ritu. ( Ritu = season ) Which means that 3 months of change in Ritu w.r.t. month. It's proved by all scientists that in 2000 years of time around 1 month of season change take place. So, 2-3 months of change will correspond to 4,000 - 6,000 years. i.e. 4000 BC - 2000 BC, which coincides with IVC period. Read http://www.crystalinks.com/precession.html on precession of equinoxes. Read last photo properly where Earth's Orbit today and on it's left 5,000 years ago is shown. See that in today's time the month which is Summer was Spring 5,000 years ago to understand WHAT I MEAN.

You told above that Swastik sign's importance increased in Vedantic time and not in Rig-Vedic time. But, Shrimad Bhagavat is a post-Vedic scripture ( it's Purana ) and it's time is matching with mature IVC period, when Swastik sign is found from IVC excavation. So, your words that Swastik was a Post-vedic symbol matches perfectly with Post-Vedic scripture's timeline of mature IVC period. ----- ( You can now tell that scientists are `crackpots' and only `Witzels' & `Pupolas' are `scholars' ! ) WIN 05:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We have no reason to believe that Russians with the surname "Yamnova" are named after the Yamuna, or that the name "Slastikov" is somehow connected to the word Swastika. Until someone provides etymologies for these names that link them to Indian words, this evidence tells us nothing. It is also a clear case of OR. Paul B 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Then you should ask `Witzels' & `Parpolas' to disprove this. Because even after so many India specific names appearing in Russia, you can ask for `etymologies' given by them so that you can `scholarly' disprove something. Why Parvati, Durga or Shakti names are appearing in Russia or why any foreign people will name their city after Hindu Om ? You are just ignoring in your usual manner with `one way thinking'. Then, find above goddess or apsaras female names in Greek and then tell that they came from Greek !!! Then, Ushova & Varunova which is Rus. name of Sanskrit Vedic Usha & Varuna must have come from Greek Ushos & Uranus respectively !!! Greek visitor in ancient India is pronouncing Chandragupta as Sandracottus or Pataliputra as Palimbothra. i.e. Greek person of political visitor caliber can pronounce very differently ( even after staying in India ) then common persons in Greece will definitely pronounce those Sanskrit words equally or much more differently. But if Russians have adopted names from Greek ( as said for Mitrova ) then how it became possible that Russians are pronouncing words very near to Sanskrit words ? And, how Indian Vedic rishis & apsaras' name reached Russia without much transformation as Greek are known to transform words based on their speaking habits !!! ----- ( I pitty you for your clear pseudoism plagued with ostrich behaviour & `one way thinking' ).

Then, why SE Asia is also showing Sanskrit names of persons and city names like Ayuthaya ( Thailand's old capital ). Migrations of ancient Indians to Afghan & beyond is attested in ancient Sanskrit scriptures.( e.g. very clearly in that controversial BSS verse mis-translation of Witzel ). But you AIT/AM supporters don't want to understand due to `one way thinking' becuase it's mis-match with AIT/AM dates. And, that's why you are resorting to such low level of words. WIN 04:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Your timeline is based on AIT assumptions and OIT is against this theory. Tell me how in 1900 BC in Kazakhstan , Yamuna is not known and in 1000 BC : Gangetic plain Yamuna is known.

In Arkaim , central asian nomads contructed planned town with sewage system, well, bronze ovan. Then, tell those Russian `crackpots' that there was no planned town because nomads are not known to build some planned town in 1700 BC. ( expect IVC `nomads' ) WIN 12:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

um, because the Yamuna is in the Gangetic plain? The people living in the town weren't nomads. Kazakhstan is only 2,724,900 km² large, so maybe there was room for a nomad or two outside Arkaim? Do you even realize the level of stupidity of your "contributions"? Even the most vicious vandals over at Rajput made more sense than your imperturbable dimness. There is a possible BMAC connection with Arkaim. Note that the floor plan is round, like BMAC settlements, and unlike IVC settlements. Central Asia had its very own Bronze Age 'urban' culture, not more connected to the IVC than the IVC was connected to Elam. And the Rigveda is composed from the point of view outside these towns, hence the 'nomadic' theme. These are the very basics, check Parpola or anybody. We shouldn't have to discuss on such an infernal level. "Out of India" was a reasonable theory in the 19th century, and we should address that, not random misguided national mysticism, try to "de-colonialize your mind" on some other forum, WIN. dab (ᛏ) 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Round floor plan is because they were not big town like IVC town where 50,000 people were living.Arkaim is very small in size with 2000 - 2500 population. It's situalted in steppes plains and round structure is for defence against enemies. Now, if Arkaim is `nomadic' town then they will not have to worry about enemies. And,then they would not have built planned town of Arkaim in round shape.Secondly, still today steppes nomads are living in individual Tent like home in group. And, Arkaim is a single planned town found in Kazakh steppes. So, do we assume that only Arkaim `nomad' people were able to develop such planned town in 1700 BC and this knowledge of town planning with sewage system was the exclusive advancement against their fellow nomads in central asian steppe ! Finding round shape settlement in BMAC is also explained on similar enemy defence model.

Even in Croatia , earliest Aryan culture shows during 3000 BC - 2200 BC where astronomy & copper smelting is major marker of those people. But, India is always known for deep rooted astronomy and metal smelting technologies. Indians ( not Kazakh or Uzbek people ) are known for deep astronomical knowledge and copper, bronze, brass or Iron/steel smelting. IVC people were found to make beautiful bronze dancing statues.

Astronomical knowledge,metal smelting knowledge or medicine knowledge is some of marker of ancient Indians which was advancedly science due to which they were having edge over other savage or nomad people when they moved to far lands. WIN 05:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


Some more Russian name of person or place descended from Sanskrit.

Krasnaya Presnaya - area , Expocentre name in Moscow and Kazakhistan town name = Sansk. Krishna Pranaya ( Pranaya means Prem ) i.e. Pranaya ( Love ) for Krishna ( Main Hindu God ) ( type of Bhakti Yoga which is Premlakshana bhakti )


Moscow - Russian capital whose Rus. name is moskva = Sansk. Moksha

I have previously cited that in Israel, there are places names which are Palmahim, Caesarea and Kishon.

Why Russian or Kazakh people will name area or town name based on popular Hindu God and for Hindu spiritual tradition. This is like Indonesians naming their city name as Yogyakarta or Jakarta ( mis-pronounciation of Jayakarta ) or new Malayasian Adminitrative capital Putrajaya. This names are totally Sanskrit.

If Paul or anyone can attribute the above names to Greek then you are most welcome ! WIN 09:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Aryan vs. Dravidian and AIT/AMT/OIT theories

I have been following the article and talk pages on both the AIT/AMT and OIT articles. As a South Indian it struck me as quite strange that neither article has made a mention of any theories about Aryan vs. Dravidian concept with respect to the AIT/AMT or OIT idea. The last sentence under "Koenraad Elst" section says "...while others travelled southwards and interacted with the Dravidian people." This implies that the dravidian people already existed and had a distinct culture when the Indo-Aryans split up.

So does OIT apply only to "north indians" while "south indians" lived in happy isolation all the while? Is there a way this article can also mention how 'dravidian' fits into the OIT theory? Or at least use a different term because Aryan/Vedic somehow appears to imply that they are liguistically and genetically very different from Dravidian and that Dravidians do not have a Vedic root. Correct me if I am wrong.

(in common language "aryan" is used with respect to North Indian and "dravidian" is used to denote South Indians.) Roshan 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Roshan

these are linguistic terms. there are Dravidians in North India (viz., the Brahui). IAM assumes that much of NW India was populated by Dravidians in IVC times (especially in the Elamo-Dravidian picture, cognate languages would have been spoken from Elam all the way to the Indus. The AIM broke up the Elamo-Dravidian dialect continuum, and Proto-Dravidian dates to about that time. The OIT as far as I gather doesn't care about Dravidians at all, they just fall outside the scope of the model, just doing whatever it was they were doing somewhere in South India (and of course it doesn't account for the Dravidian language insula of the Brahui). dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No-one can deny that Dravidians were seperate from Aryans linguistically. I'll look for an official academic view, but it does seem from Koenraad Elst's account that Dravidians were in the south of India before breakup of PIE. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 07:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you mean "no-one can deny"? The issue is not Southern Dravidian, but nothern Dravidian, which exists in pockets. To some extent the demographics of Dravidian speakers are also relevant, such as the fact that it is spoken by Gondi tribes, who have been partially isolated from mainstrean culture. Of course that would not necessarily contradict an Indus PIE, but it means one has to construct ad hoc arguments to explain the isolated pockets. It's much more difficult to reconcile with Talageri's model. Paul B 07:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
the OIT explains nothing elegantly except for the presence of Indo-Aryans in N India (and this is all it wants to explain) - the rest of the world is just a nuisance to this theory, and it has to account for it by introducing ad-hoc anti-Occamisms. There is, after all, a reason nobody endorses the theory. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to note: the picture concerning the Dravidians is a lot less clear than that of the Indo-Aryans. Lots of mainstream scholars, including Hock, Witzel, Southworth, and Kuiper don't think that the Dravidians once necessarily occupied the entire subcontinent. They tend to explain Brahui and other North Dravidian languages through later migrations. --Xiaopo ʘ 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the section added on Dravidian model definitely improves this article. Thanks. --Roshan 09:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

IE Vucedol culture in Croatia dating 3000 - 2200 BC

In Croatia there is Vucedol culture which is dated 3000 to 2200 BC and which is told as earliest Indo-European culture in Europe. Read http://www.geocities.com/vucedol_culture/ for complete info. These people were remarkably much more advanced than any nomads of central asia. They were having high knowledge of astronomy, copper smelting technique, high quality of pottery, developed labour divison sytem etc. which are marker of high ( & certainly not nomad ) culture.

I have question - as they were earliest Indo-Europeans in Europe dating 3000 - 2200 BC then these ancient people were not nomads & civilized in Croatia. But Croatian language is found of Indo-Iranian origin and Croatians call their language as Hvar and themselves as Hrvati which is non-slavic name ( like Indians is Anglisized name of Bharat ). Then it means that ( as per OIT ) that , these early Aryans left India very early and it matches with IVC as Vedantic age.

Now, if AIT/AM is believed then these nomad aryans took much more time to travel from central asia to India then Croatia. ( central asia was nearer to India - in terms of culture or distance ). Then how nomad aryans reaches faster to Croatia then reaching ancient India ( Afghanistan included ). And Remember - Arabs gained major knowledge of Astronomy from India by translating Sanskrit scriptures. WIN 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

you are spouting pure nonsense again. Croatians aren't Indo-Iranians. The Slavs arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century AD, some 23 centuries after the Indo-Aryans settled in Gandhari. dab (ᛏ) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Read website on Vucedol culture of Croatia given above. Read it and then spout. You are gulping history of slavanization of Croatian language. And, I have said anything for language. And, aryan Vucedol culture of 3000 - 2200 BC in Croatia is pre-slav. Then why Croats call themselves Hrvati and their webdomain is ending with .hr  ? You are telling as if I have written that Vucedol website.

And, why are you speechless about precession of equinox mentioned above and same is mentioned under Orion in above Vucedol website ? If I can co-relate and deduce some clear similarity ( as per OIT ) then it is obvious that you will spout. Then, why you are speechless for finding Vedic Rishi names in Russia or above Shrimad Bhagavat's timeline of 4000 - 2000 BC. WIN 09:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Look, WIN, it's a geocities website. You can write whatever you like on those things. Vucedol is an archaelogical culture of the so-called copper age. People had some sort of "system of astronomy" going back to Stonehenge. So what? We have no idea what language they spoke. Maybe it was some ancestor of IE. There's no way of knowing. The "nomad aryans" didn't just make up their own language out of thin air. They inherited it from their own ancestors. But we have no way of reaching back through time to some Proto-PIE, so it just becomes guesswork. Paul B 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Even PIE is a hypothetical so pro-PIE holds no point. You are saying as if there was PIE found among some population. Vucedol related tht website is fairly nice in giving good amount of information. I am just deducing from that site info. That site don't say that aryans were ancient Indians but from the info I am deducing ( in same way Aryans were thought to invade IVC !!! ) Read http://209.85.135.104/search?q=cache:46ToqSsCMC0J:www.hindunet.org/saraswati/croats1.PDF+hrvati+india+saraswati&hl=en&gl=in&ct=clnk&cd=1 WIN 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep proposing your original research based on non reliable sources on these pages WIN? If you want to deduce anything at all write an article about it and publish it in a peerreviewed journal and when it gains wide acceptance in the scientific community we can start putting it here. This is not a discussion forum nor a place to present personal original research.Maunus 11:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
since this guy obviously just Doesn't Get It, I suggest editors begin removing his ramblings again. He has filled pages and pages with the stuff by now. This is NOT what Wikipedia is for. For the sake of uncluttered talkpages, please try to keep some order here. We do not as a rule remove comments or opinions from talkpages just because they aren't referenced, but this is an extreme case. dab (ᛏ) 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is talk pages of OIT and Dab is a firm opposer of OIT. I am again asking to you that why are you speechless about Vedic Rishis names in Russia or Shrimad Bhagvat's dating based on Precession of Equinoxes. Do want to say that Precession of Equinoxes explaining Season change w.r.t. months is unscientific ? I am covering from wide subjects that are very scientific. If Russian people can adopt Vedic Rishis or Apsaras or Great Indian Rivers names ( inline with later SE Asian people's adoptation of Sanskrit names ), then what that imply ? OIT or AIT ? WIN 05:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you or dab or anyone here thinks it implies. It matters what reliable sources say about the material. If reliable sources have nothing to say about the vucedol culture then there is no need at all for mentioning it here. Please discontinue turning this talk page into a discussion page for or against the OIT theory. The page needs only to present what the theory is in a balanced way, and what we need to discuss here is how to do that. Publish your opinions and ideas on a geocities site.Maunus 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Quotes

The last two quotes in the "Quotes" section are unimportant for reasons explained in the Archaegenetics section. They should either be removed or a refutation of the presented flaws in the Archaegenetics Theory should be posted. Humancadaver101 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

It's better to expand the archaeogenetics section, and I think that context-free "quotatons" are in general a bad idea, except when famous words are being recorded. Otherwise we just get whatever opinions editors want to be included. We shold point out the problems of defining history through genetics and include - concisely - the full range of genetic studies. Paul B 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, move the quotes to their relevant areas in the article. This isn't the type of topic where you would want such a random list of quotes at the end. Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


Warning to OIT opposers for deleting points

I have recently noticed that OIT opposers are deleting my points from talk pages. It's not for you opposers who want to behave like Supremist. When you are getting some more & more unpleasing points , you have started resort in deletion of those points. You don't have answers that is OK but you don't want others to read and put it in the article, that is the objection. WIN 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


Structure of the Article

Guys, sorry for the long note. I have read all the discussion related to this topic on (talk pages Wikipedia) and the article as presented (Wikipedia). Although great effort has been done on the article, I believe the presentation of this article can be improved. Specifically, the impression I get from reading the article is that only linguist opinion counts and people who support this theory are non scholar and Hindu religious fanatics and not enough details about the actual theory. I don’t think this is correct.

Regarding the first issue, the discussion is not only about common language, but common culture of PIE, so linguistic are not the only stakeholders in the discussion (point earlier made by NobleEagle).

Regarding second issue, the scholars I see supporting IA as continues culture from 5th millennium BC to 500BC in India are N. Kazanas, Shrikant G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst, D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, Edmund Leach, Jim Shaffer, Diane Lichtenstein, S.R. Rao, B. B. Lal, S. C. Kak, N. Achar to name a few. Notice that these people are from all over world and are all serious scholars from different specialities (eg. Indology, Vedic scholars, anthropologist, archaeologist, astro- archaeologist). D. Frawley is only scholar in the list whose writings have some religious bent, but the issues and facts raised are still valid points. I read reference to Talageri in talk page, but did not see why his view should be excluded. So this should be presented accordingly. If you disagree, please provide valid sources.

I am suggesting a possible structure for presentation of OIT theory. Essentially the page should show what the theory is (details of theory), what facts support the theory, how other specialities (linguistic, archaeology, anthropology, genetics etc.) view it and Criticism sections. We can all agree that the OIT dating does not agree with linguistic theory, but again linguistic is one of stakeholders. Objective is to present all relevant facts from sourced material. As Dab mentioned in one of earlier post, let us keep the discussion about pro/con of theories on the other pages.

Primary articles I am referencing are (I am providing weblink eventhough some of these are publised in Journals and one is a book) Update On The AIT by Koenraad Elst(http://www.voi.org/books/ait/index.htm), various articles by N. Kazanas (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html), “The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis by Shrikant G. Talageri (http://voi.org/books/rig/).

The proposed structure is (I can provide more details and page reference):

1. Textual reference: content to date the IA presence and Vedic literature in India relative to IVC (Rig-Veda is primary document used by both AIT and OIT supporter). This secion should also discuss if IVC is vedic. Conclusion bulk of Rig-Veda before IVC, other vedic literature (Brahman and Sutra) same time as IVC – source Talageri, Elst, and Kazanas.

1a. Geographic data (mainly Saraswati, I see Dab’s views but this is integral part for dating of the documents)

1b. Rig-Veda material culture relative to IVC – urbanization, rice, brick, silver etc.

2. Vedic Sanskrit compared to PIE – mainly Kazanas and some Elst – conclusion Sanskrit is closer to PIE. We can add mainstream linguistic view here.

3. Linguist discussion – need input as to why Sanskrit is lower on the tree?

4. Vedic culture compared to PIE culture – Kazanas discussion about comparative mythology. Conclusion Vedic Mythology preserves most of the common IA mythology implying Vedic being source of others.

5. Overlap/movement with Indo-Iraninans – Talageri – conclusion early Avesta literature being same time as Mandala 8 of Rigveda quotes

6. section each for Archeology, Anthropology, genetics, astro-archeology etc.

7. Criticism section.

What do you guys think?Sbhushan 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed one thing mentioned in the article extensively that the linguistic theory has been proven by archeological evidence. Can someone provide me links to this archeological evidence (pretaining to 1500 BC in India)? I have been trying for sometime now to find this evidence and haven't found it yet. The whole problem I have with linguistic theory is lack of evidence from other sciences to support it. If there is no evidence then the article should be ammended.Sbhushan 21:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  1. ^ Scientists Collide with Linguists to Assert Indigenous origin of Indian Civilization
  2. ^ National Geographic India acquired language, not genes from West, study says Brian Handwork. January 10 2006
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory/Archive_1&oldid=1136716163"