Talk:Out of India theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

? edit Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q:I have a source that supports Out of India.
A:Does your source explicitly support Out of India?
Or does it just question an Indo-Aryan migration? (And perhaps only certain aspects or a narrowly defined version of it at that.)
Disputing a migration into India is not the same thing as demonstrating a migration out of it.
Q:Out of India is supported by "scholars" like Koenraad Elst and Shrikant Talageri.
A:Scholarly recognition is demonstrated by peer-reviewed publication, not by press releases.
Q:Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics.
A:

The Aryans came from outside India. We actually have genetic evidence for that. Very clear genetic evidence from a marker that arose on the southern steppes of Russia and the Ukraine around 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. And it subsequently spread to the east and south through Central Asia reaching India.
....
M17 is an Indo-European marker, and shows that there was a massive genetic influx into India from the steppes within the past 10,000 years. Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people — not merely their language — from the steppe appears to be true.

– Spencer Wells
currently director of The Genographic Project at the National Geographic Society
formerly director of the Population Genetics Research Group of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Human Genetics at Oxford University

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Out of India theory article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
More information about this article...
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] mainstream scholars

Sbhushan and Priyanath,
Proponents of the Paleolithic Continuity Theory (who are academics in relevant fields) reject the idea that the dissemination of Indo-European languages is the result of migrations by Indo-European speaking peoples.
However, they argue that there is no evidence for the migration of Indo-European speakers into Europe.
Proponents of Paleolithic Continuity cite the following:
Lack of archaelogical evidence
the archaeological research of the last few decennia has provided more and more evidence that no large-scale invasion took place in Europe in the Calcholithic
Lack of genetic evidence
80% of the genetic stock of Europeans goes back to Paleolithic
The antiquity of Indo-European place names in Europe
The deepest and most frequent ethnic and linguistic layer, which the study of place names permits us to detect in Catalonia as well as in the Ebro Valley and in Andalusia, is formed by some very ancient Indo-European populations, which created the first network of river and place names, sufficiently dense as to resist successive language changes and to this date
it would be Germanic peoples who would have settled the Scandinavian peninsula after deglaciation, invented techniques -such as tar production- that have exclusively Germanic names, and given exclusively Germanic place names to their newly settled territory (a fact that cannot be reconciled with the invasionist model).
Racism
If one, then, remembers that IE linguistics began after the end of 'catastrophism' and in the context of the Darwinian revolution, when science was faced with the discovery of evolution, and with the fact that 'even' Europe had been inhabited by 'antedeluvian' or 'savage' ancestors, it becomes clear why the believers in the myth of the superior and perfect Arian race would inevitably refuse direct continuity of modern Europeans from the newly-discovered European 'savages'. The Arians became then the mysterious invaders, originating from an unknown and unreachable place, with an unknown and unknowable prehistory, who descended upon Europe as the future world saviours.
These passages are excerpts from the work of Mario Alinei, who was professor of linguistics at the University of Utrecht from 1959 to 1987.
Alinei, Mario (1998), “Towards an Invasionless Model of Indoeuropean Origins: The Continuity Theory”, in Pearce, Mark & Tosi, Maurizio, Papers from the European Association of Archaeologists Third Annual Meeting at Ravenna 1997, vol. I: Pre- and Protohistory, Oxford: British Archaeological Reports .
The passage about Iberia is Alinei excerpting and translating Francisco Villar Liébana, professor of Indo-European linguistics at the University of Salamanca.
And, though he clearly disagrees with it, Alinei acknowledges that the mainstream point of view is the Kurgan hypothesis, whose original proponent Marija Gimbutas and current champion J.P. Mallory were both trained as archaeologists, rather than in the field of linguistics you object so strongly to.
Whatever its flaws, at least the "Indo-Aryan migration" article acknowledges archaeologists' and geneticists' objections.
Archaeologists and geneticists can't find any evidence for "Out of India" either, but this isn't reflected in the article. This needs to be fixed.
It is both misleading and intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on "Indo-Aryan migration" without acknowledging that they cast as much doubt on "Out of India," if not more, considering that scholarship supporting PCT has been published in peer-reviewed journals.
And to argue, as Talageri does, that the evidence supports "Out of India" demonstrates either his ignorance, his laziness, or his agenda of chauvinist propaganda. JFD 09:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
JFD, I've never argued for Out of India. There is not enough evidence to conclusively support either Out of India or IAM, just as you point out. I agree with you that it's intellectually dishonest to say that archaeology and genetics cast doubt on only one and not the other - but that cuts both ways, and exposes intellectual dishonesty by many editors. The IAM article should much more clearly state this—it doesn't. The lack of archaeolgy and genetic evidence should be in the second sentence, rather than buried in a long lead paragraph. 'Lack of evidence' is utterly buried in the respective sections (archaeology and genetics), which waffle back and forth. It's a very effective technique, but then there are some skilled editors protecting that article. ॐ Priyanath talk 13:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Indo-Aryan migration" article at least acknowledges the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics, even if you believe it should be given greater weight.
The "Out of India" article does not. At all. JFD 16:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
At all? From Out of India, third sentence: "This theory is deprecated by academic scholars." And the first sentence of the language subsection: "A concern raised by mainstream linguistic scholars is that the Indic PIE languages show extensive influence from contact with Dravidian languages, a claim best developed by Emeneau (1956, 1969,1974)." There's lots more in the article, including extensive cites from Witzel. In fact, there are more cites in Out of India disputing the idea, than in AIM disputing that idea. Both articles could use clearer writing showing that they are hypotheses. ॐ Priyanath talk 16:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The "Out of India" article does not explicitly acknowledge the doubts raised by archaeology and genetics.
In fact, it implies that the only objections to "Out of India" are linguistic. JFD 16:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I've never edited Out of India (except for one typo in a footnote), and won't be doing serious editing for some time still. I think both articles should be treated equally, but I don't see the IAM folks willing to compromise - so I guess in that regard there is some equality. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 17:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact remains that "Indo-Aryan migration" explicitly acknowledges the questions raised by archaeology and genetics whereas "Out of India" does not.
JFD 17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

First point, this sub-section is about the point that IAM and related theories are only linguistic theories and should be presented as such. Based on above discussion, it appears that you agree with this statement. So it should be clearly mentioned that these are linguistic theories and it is "mainstream linguistic scholars". Please confirm that in your own words.

Second point, nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT. If you can find any peer reviewed publication that says archeologists don’t support OIT, please go ahead and add that with proper citations. I have not found any publication yet. Criticism has to follow same WP rules; it has to be from published acceptable sources. Your personal views are irrelevant. The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet. Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle. My personal view is that this whole PIE homeland quest is a waste of time.

Third point, Gimbutas was an archeologist and her Kurgan hypothesis is supported by Linguistic Paleontology (I don’t recall the name of linguistic scholar). Linguistic Paleontology has lost its luster and Kurgan hypothesis is not in favor so much anymore. Mallory (1989) is quoted frequently to show Kurgan is favorite; that is already dated. But this does not account for all the criticism heaped on Kurgan after that point. A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.

Fourth point, each fundamental argument raised by linguistic scholars to support AMT, has been countered by mainstream linguistic scholars themselves. Such shaky theories should not have been used to re-write history. Talageri’s book and Kazanas article in JIES are acceptable as per WP:RS and Out of India theory is acceptable by WP:Fringe. So I am not sure what is the point of your argument. Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?Sbhushan 18:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

nowhere in OIT article it makes any claim that archeologist or any mainstream scholars support OIT.
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.
As illustrated by this excerpt, the OIT article implies—misleadingly—the support of mainstream scholars even if it does not claim it explicitly.
The problem is that most of the archeological studies have focused on tracing Indo-Aryans from Central Asia to India during a particular time period. OIT would be about 2000 years earlier in opposite direction, so no work done yet.
There's been plenty of archaelogical work done all over Europe and Asia and no mainstream archaeologist argues that the IE homeland is India.
Archeologists don’t care much for the linguistic constructs and are not as interested in solving this PIE homeland puzzle.
Both the Kurgan and Anatolian hypotheses were originally proposed and subsequently championed by archaeologists.
Sbhushan, if you're just going to make stuff up that contradicts the known facts, please don't bother. It just wastes both our time.
A significant number of mainstream linguistic scholars have rejected Kurgan based on linguistic evidence. Bryant 2001 has some section about that.
Bryant 2001 fails to address the Anatolian hypothesis or other models of IE origins, such as PCT.
Many of the objections to IAM found in Bryant 2001 depend on the 2nd millennium BCE dating of IAM in the Kurgan model.
In other words, the argument "not Kurgan, therefore OIT" is not a valid one.
Are you saying that Out of India Theory should not be on WP at all?
What I'm saying is that the OIT article shouldn't misrepresent sources.
It shouldn't, for example, imply that Kennedy supports OIT when he doesn't.
Nor should it cite archaeological and genetic evidence against IAM without acknowledging that the same evidence counters OIT.
JFD 05:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


You are misquoting/misrepresenting author’s positions. You also agreed to quote appropriate scholar in the field and now you are quoting a discredited linguist for archeological evidence. Do you have any idea why mainstream linguist reject Alinei arguments? His theory is in fringe of fringe theories and you are quoting him as authority. You have removed properly referenced verifiable content. On top of that, you take my comments out of context and accuse me. As I said to you during arbitration, it didn't seem that you were acting in good faith or making any effort to resolve conflict and you latest actions prove that. It is going to be hard to assume good faith after all this. I am quite busy for about 10 days, after that we will go through your edits line by line and fix them. So go ahead and have your fun, we will sort this out in few days.Sbhushan 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Gandhara as homeland

This dispute is about an original research in Memories of an Urheimat section. The statement is:

Many memories, and indeed historiographical records, of Iron Age migrations are preserved, and the Rigveda is no exception, presenting evidence, primarily based on hydronomy, of a gradual expansion from Gandhara, identified as the Proto-Rigvedic homeland (Asko Parpola (1999)[69] locates Proto-Rigvedic and Proto-Dardic in the Swat culture) to the Gangetic plain.

18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • This statement should be removed for these reasons:
  1. It is not verifiable. As per Jimmy Wales. "WikiEN-l insist on sources", it is better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources. Parpola has not identified Gandhara/SWAT as homeland in the reference provided.
  2. This is original research- an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.
  3. This analysis, even if acceptable, doesn’t address the OIT argument. OIT argument is that RigVedic Aryans preserve no memories of migration or identify any Urheimat outside of area know to them. Gandhara is an area mentioned in Rigveda. Migration from Gandhara is not a migration from Central Asia.
  4. This argument was presented in JIES, where it was subject to “nine highly critical reviews by referees” as per Dab. He should use that review instead of creating his own arguments.
  5. Dab has changed reference for this statement about 4 times. Previous discussion here and here. Rudra confirmed earlier that Parpola has not explicitily made this claim in the article. [[1]]
  6. RigVeda is pre-iron age.Sbhushan 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

It has frequently been denied that the RV contains any memory or information about the former homeland(s) of the Indo-Aryans. [...] However, in the RV there are quite a few vague reminiscences of former habitats, that is, of the Bactria-Margiana area, situated to the north of Iran and Afghanistan, and even from further afield. Such a connection can be detected in the retention by the Iranians of IIr./IA river names and in the many references in the RV to mountains and mountain passes.

(page 15 in preprint(?) linked to, citations removed)
Michael Witzel, "Linguistic Evidence for Cultural Exchange in Prehistoric Western Central Asia," Sino-Platonic Papers, 129 (December, 2003) talks about proto(?)-Rigvedic speakers in Swat

The speakers of the linguistically slightly later, though still pre-Iron Age �gvedic then moved into Arachosia (*Sarasvatī > Avest. Hara aitī), Swat (Suvåstu) and Panjab (Sapta Sindhu), before c.1200/1000 BCE -- depending on the local date of the introduction of iron (Possehl and Gullapalli 1999),

([2] Page 11). Doldrums 13:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


I have no objection to quoting Witzel's exact words and referencing it to Witzel instead of Parpola. A point to note is that in the first quote Witzel makes a general statement that there are quite a few vague reminiscences of former habitats, but fails to provide any specific section of RV.Sbhushan 12:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
the quoted statement is the opening of a section, titled Remembrance of immigration, which has all the gory details. Doldrums 12:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I read the gory details. He mentions river names and mountain passes. But he doesn't say that RV records that river names were named due to old memories. If names are common to Iran and India, it could be that names were transfered from West to East and it could also be other way around. Witzel is very vague on details. Only textual example of migration he provides is:

BSS 18.44: 397.9 sqq. It plays on the etymologies of ay/i 'to go' and amAvas 'to stay at home', and actually seems to speak, once we apply BrAhmaÍa style logic and(etymological) argumentation style, of a migration from the Afghani borderland of Gandhra and Parãu (mod. Pashto) to Haryana/Uttar Pradesh and Bihar:

This particular section has been proven to be incorrect translation.Sbhushan 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate citation

Kazanas, Nicholas 2001b - Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda - Journal of Indo-European Studies, volume 29, pages 257-93

The year, volume, and page numbers given are for a different article, that is, not "Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda".

What is the correct source for the text attributed? JFD 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazanas, Nicholas 2002 - Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda - Journal of Indo-European Studies, volume 30, pages 275-334
rudra 06:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Watch844

Watch844, you are deleting chunks of well referenced material without discussion and with vague references to "Indian Y chromosome haplogroups". If you are referring to Oppenheimer's research, this has been discussed many times. Perhaps you can explain what evidence you are referring to, but any "Indian" haplogroup that has its highest concentration in Georgia is very very unlikely to mark IE expansion for the obvious reason that the Caucasian languages are not IE and are not believed to have been intrusive on previous IE speakers. Therefore this evidence would suggest that the source of this genetic signature long predates IE expansion, and that its prevelance in Georgia would indicate a relic population largely unaffected by later migrations. Paul B 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OIT is proposed by some scholars

The first part of the page was patently false. The theory has not 'been rejected' by scholars. In fact the reference to this was a quote of almost 20 years ago by Mallory, which was false even then. It is well known that there are currently a few extremely credible scholars who are a lot more knowledgeable that you or I on the issue who advocate OIT. Therefore the first paragraph needs to remain how I have left it to reflect this current viewpoint.

Remember that genetic work is always developing and when there is any ambiguity (such as with dating) it can be read in a variety of ways. Usually this can refelct to fit any preconcieved notion that the person conducting the trails had. Oppenheimers work is important. His work shows that European population groups (and Middle Eastern) originate in an early expansion from India. This is widely accepted. The marker I am talking about is R2 haplogroup which seems to indicate another expansion from India and parts of Iran and into central Asia and parts of Europe (migration from India into the "Europeanized Indian" population in Europe, i.e modern Europeans).

Kivisild et al. (2003) states that R2 is—and I quote—"rarely found outside the subcontinent".
That hardly makes R2 "prevailent throughout Europe," to use your words.
Look at the genetic evidence properly, attempt to understand it, then respond.
JFD 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The r1a haplogroup is at present ambiguous. But since it is found in East Europeans but not much in West Europeans, and is prevailent in Iran, Afganistan and India it would again suggest a migration East to West, stopping at Central Asia where East European groups were encountered. East europe and Central Asia was largely Scythian before this. Again, the dating here is critical and work is being done on this. But it is likely that the r1a1 haplogroup also originated in Iran and/or Afhganistan/Northwest India. To claim it originated in central Asia is pure conjecture in the same vein as blind faith in previous preconceived views. The entire article and much of the Indo European debate here is skewed to refelct personal biases, and this is not acceptable. See recent genetic work by Kashyap on Aryan non-migration which also indicated outward movement from India and Iran.

Watch844 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what Kashyap himself has to say:

"The fact the Indo-European speakers are predominantly found in northern parts of the subcontinent may be because they were in direct contact with the Indo-European migrants, where they could have a stronger influence on the native populations to adopt their language and other cultural entities," Kashyap said.
He argues that even wholesale language changes can and do occur without genetic mixing of populations.

JFD 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The "credible scholars" you are referring to are David Frawley, a western Hindu with no academic credibility or relevant qualifications, and Koenraad Elst, a pro-Hindutva and anti-Islamist writer, neither of whom are professional linguists or geneticists. J.P. Mallory, in contrast, is a specialist in Indo-European studies, indeed he is one of the major experts and is editor of the main journal on the topic. He is the most authoritative figure it's possible to cite and it not for you to say that his view was "not true". You have provided no reply to the point about Georgia. Did you understand it? You have cited no sources and just made assertions, probably trotted out from Rajaram blogs. By the way, you have reverted SIX TIMES today. See Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR). Paul B 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] OIT is gaining support through multiple genetic evidence and scholarly/lingistic evidence whilst AIT/migration is consistently being disproven

This is also what Kashyap himself has to say:

There is "no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India, [and] establishment of caste system and gene flow."

Watch844, you do realize that there is a considerable gap in credibility between the National Geographic Society and a blog called "fugme", don't you?
JFD 08:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The link may be on a blog, but it is of a general press release from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies, of a conference which happened in July 2006. The same press release can be found here, and as it is official it is perfectly credible: http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/2006/07/aryan-invasion-bites-dust-ns-rajaram.html

Also it is interseting that the press release says the following:

"Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from The University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people dating to 1500 BC. Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory, though he continues to hold to a foreign origin for the people and civilization of India. As noted previously, he presented no data in support of his position though invited to do so by the organizers."

It seems even the Muller influenced proponents like Witzel have realised that the AIT/migration fantasy has unravelled in front of their eyes. Watch844 10:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Debunking myths and fantasy is always enjoyable, and much needed. I am not stooping to incessant edit warring, because a) what is currently stated on Wikipedia is rather irrelevant, in that the curent and recent genetic and linguistic studies are all supporting a radical shift in thinking on Indo-European history in line with Out of India and/ or Out of Iran theories. b) Many of the people editing on wiki have very little/no lnowledge of the issue and are influenced by desperate bias or just victims of the perpetuation of ignorance started by the Max Muller fantasy stories of 150 years ago.

The quote by Mallory is almost 20 years old. Much has changed since then, and it is therefore no longer valid, if it ever was.

Elst is definately a notable scholar by any standards, and slandering him with the 'Hindutva' label is a pathetic attempt that seems rather fear driven, as does most of the Eurocentric claimants arguments. Central Asians of this time I would just like to remind you are Kazak/Kurdish type people and very different from West Russians or Europeans. Frawley's work may be more open to criticism, but he raises many valid arguments as well, arguments that cannot be brushed aside by attacking his persona.

In the quote from Kashyap you cite, the key word is 'MAY’. He says ‘May’ be becasue they were in comtact with' . Unlike yourself, geneticists try to retain an objective neutral viewpoint that is open to all possibilities. They do not try to fabricate a story based on their preconceived hopes/beliefs. The evidence also indicates that it ‘MAY NOT’ be because they were in contact with Central Asians. It also suggests that the central Asians may have got their language through contact with the Indo-Iranians.

Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, who is probably the most influential of population geneticists, teacher of Genographic Project director Spencer Wells, in Genes, Peoples, and Languages, which was published in 2000, writes that "The Aryan invasions of Iran, Pakistan, and India brought Indo-European languages to Dravidian-speaking areas."
So how about you stop trying "to sound as tho you know about the issue" instead of casting aspersions on others.
And while you're at it, don't presume to speak for the entire discipline of population genetics "unless you are a professional academic who is actively involved in the debate and has a mutitude of sources". JFD 02:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence this is the clearest solid irrefutable genetic evidence that there was no widespread movement into India, thus comprehensively disproving any Aryan invasion/migration theory.

However, there is some (as expected) gene flow movement the other way, from Iran/Afganistan/Norwest India, into central Asia. Thus the evidence is COMPLETELY open to the direct possibility that the Indo-European languages spread: 1/. Through groups that migrated into Central Asia from Northwest India and Iran. 2/. Through these Indo-Iranian groups coming into contact with central Asians and transmitting their language to them without widespread mixing.

I CHALLENGE YOU to look at the 2006 genetic study that is linked here, and objectively see that it does indeed leave open and suggest the above mentioned real possible and likely scenarious.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46212/THERE-WAS-NO-ARYAN-INVATION-FROM-THE-STUDY-OF-Y-CHROMOSOMES

So what is it you are actually arguing for? AIT/migration has as noted been disproven conclusively. So I take it you are now clinging to a vague hope that somehow Central Asian tribes transmitted the language without migrating. Well this can go both ways. Central Asian tribes may have had the language transmitted to them.

The origin of the languages appears to be in Iran and India, more than it does in Central Asia. Since we know that most of central Asia spoke a Scythian (Iranian Language) at one time, this is a very real and likely possibilty for the early spread of Indo European to central Asia, before Central Asians took the language to Europe.

The genetic evidence already PRECLUDES (i.e Discards) the previous theory that a widespread migration from central Asia occurred into India, as was previously thought. Now you are trying to change the original theory and say languages may have come without genes. As sated, this is a wholly new argument that rests on much weaker foundations. Language may also have come to Central Asia from India and Iran without genes. But the genetic evidence indicates South to North expansion, East to West, with gene flow from India and Iran into central Asia, in line with the spread of Indo-European language from an origin in Northwest India/Afganistan and Iran.

Watch844 15:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a calumny to say that Elst is pro-Hindutva. He's completely open about it. As for your fantasy that some 'previous theory' of mass migration is being changed, I quote from E.B. Havell, writing in 1918, "It is probable that the Aryans were always a very minute fraction of the people of India...it was by spiritual rather than physical ties that Aryans and non-Aryans were gradually bound together into a political unity with an abiding sense of nationality." (The History of Aryan Rule in India). There is no change from an original theory. There were always very varied views about the nature and size of migrations. But the essential point is that this is an issue of language history. Paul B 16:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Have no doubt: The fact that it has been proven there was no invasion or migration into India from central Asia severely weakens any 'foreign origin' theory and changes the argument of a number of theorists. Yes there were diverse views from earliest times. In fact Out of India and Out of Iran theory of the spread of languages to Europe via central Asia were also amongst the earlest theories before they fell out of fashion for political reasons. And there is some gentic evidence for migrations of Iranian groups into central Asia. This is not surprising, as it would mirror the 'ancestral' routes taken by the original Indian migrants who created Central Asian and European populations through their north west migrations. But as noted, the spread of languages to central Asia from India/Iran may have occured without mass northward migration. The fact that the recent studies support a return to these viewpoints is likewise not a change in any theories that have been around since the beginning of the debate. Watch844 11:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

to put it kindly, you are confusing "proof" with wishful thinking. Why you should wish some Bronze Age tribe migrated or didn't migrate this way or that is of course your private secret, and doesn't affect Wikipedia. I fail to see what "recent studies support a return to these viewpoints". The only way to suggest there is anything new here is completely misstating the nature of long-standing academic opinion. Which is of course a rhetorical trick as old as the hills. Please don't waste our time citing "IntelliBriefs" by ideological harlequins like Rajaram. Elst is the only name in this unsavoury company that is at all quotable. That doesn't make him notable for anything else. Elst's reputation is his own to squander, and we can (and do) cite his rather baroque arguments for whatever they are worth (they always seem to boil down to "some of my best friends are Hindutva, and while I'm not part of that myself, I think we should listen to them. After all, do we really really know anything at all?" dab (𒁳) 12:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This press release has popped up before, e.g. here. It turns out this "Indic Studies department" is a joke, and the "release" had practically nothing to do with what the geneticists actually said. Cite actual literature, academia doesn't work by "press releases" issued by some random clown with access to a university website subdomain. dab (𒁳) 12:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

lol, "Notable proponants[sic] of the theory today are Koenraad Elst, David Frawley and Shrikant Talageri". Notability is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. To whoever wrote this, people are obviously notable because they endorse this nonsense. This actually translates "the OIT is endorsed by one known Indologist, K. Elst, who specializes on Hindu revivalism and Hindutva, plus a number of Hindutva ideologists masquerading as scholars." dab (𒁳) 12:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Glad to see you have realised how little it is much of the early 'scholarship' knew about the issue. Likewise we must remain open to debate as new developments arise. There are currently a few Eurocentric ideologists calling themselves scholars operating in the field, as has been the case for many years. The "Intelligibrief" is posted to corrobrate the Press release at the bottom of the page from the University of Masachusettes conference, to show it is part of the offical conference release and not part of a 'blog'.Attacking the press release is a strange tack. I have seen no evidence that it is nothing other than an official release and quotes exactly what was said by the genetecists involved, in line with their findings.

Please do not try to sound as tho you know about the issue or are in a position to asess what Elst or indeed any scholar who has researched the issue in depth is or is not doing for his career prospects, when leading Harvard academics like Witzel are drastically changing their viewpoints in light of new evidence. Genetics is extremely useful and has aided in our reconstructing the real origin and spread of the Indo-european languages. Whether or not that conforms to preconceived opinions is frankly irrelevent. What is important is to assess the information in light of what it conclusively rules out, and then where that leaves us.

Shrikant Talageri is likewise a respected academic and if you are truly interested in maintaining neutrality and looking at current scholarly viewpoints with a broad analysis of the issue, here is his position: http://www.geocities.com/dipalsarvesh/rigHistory/ch7.htm

All in all, recent genetic, archeological and linguistic evidence is a step in the right direction of descerining the truth of the matter and freedom from the socio-myth constructs that have plagued this field over the last century.

Watch844 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch844, you may not realize this, but we have discussed this stuff for more than a year. Believe me, I am familiar with everyting you say, to the point of terminal boredom. It has no merit. Familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy. WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN. Yes, there is a handful of people trying to push the view you are embracing. They are driven by ideology and utterly isolated. Cite academic sources for each claim of your "recent evidence". Avoid cherry-picking. There is some room for debate on the topic of Genetics and Archaeogenetics of South Asia, where you will note we cite studies that come to conflicting results, but none of the points debated by the geneticists would crucially affect the scenario of Bronze Age Indo-Aryan migration. Sorry, but you are really hitting rock bottom here, we've been there, discussed it, and debunked it as fringy nonsense. It appears you are prone to misconceptions regarding the actual gist of scholarly mainstream. This is a result of calculated misrepresentation by the propagandists you have been exposed to. Forget the Hindutva websites, start by reading the Wikipedia articles, but go on to read the academic sources linked directly, and if you are willing to treat it as an academic question, not one of ideology, you will realize you have been misled. dab (𒁳) 12:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, but your post is utterly ridiculous. Firstly, scholars such as Elst and Talageri have support by others working in the field. They are by no means isolated, and new evidence garners them increasing support. They debate and are in correspondence with other leading scholars such as Witzel about the issue. So unless you are a professional academic who is actively involved in the debate and has a mutitude of sources as do the three mentioned, your opinion is based on titbits and odd misconceptions from reading previously debunked theories and old pieces here and there.

Secondly, much of the evidence that has emerged has done so in the last 3 years. In particular, the Kashyap headed study was done in 2006 and continued research is being currently done. As such, the implications and resonance of it is still being felt, and this type of work is continuing to affect mainstream academic scholarship. Forget the skewed and misinformed articles you may have read from the past, and focus on what we KNOW FOR CERTAIN. That genetics of 1 year ago has definatively disproven AIT/migration is beyond doubt. This view will only stregthen as more work on it is done. Regardless of what has been discussed before, the very scholars on whom you get your opinions are debating the ramifications of all of this now, and the informed discussion is only just beginning.

Watch844 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but you are wrong. Just repeating claims over and over doesn't make them any truer. Read WP:RS. Cite reliable, peer reviewed literature for all of your claims. Before that, you probably won't even get a reply, since everybody is tired of this particular topic. " this type of work is continuing to affect mainstream academic scholarship" is precisely what I mean by "wishful thinking". Predicting that mainstream will accept your pet view at some point in the future is a classic crank signal, and falls under WP:CRYSTAL. Feel free to come back once mainstream opinion has been swayed (don't hold your breath. I expect we'll have cold fusion first). dab (𒁳) 14:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Necessary but not sufficient

Sbhushan/Watch844 et al. repeatedly fails to recognize the distinction between necessary conditions and sufficient ones.

To whit,

Although the overall socioeconomic organization changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organization, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the ‘invasions’ or ‘migrations’ of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilization and the sudden rise of urbanization in the Ganga-Yamuna valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts...

Even if we take Kenoyer's statement as a given, it's still insufficient to prove OIT.

For instance, the timeframe of the Anatolian hypothesis is consistent not only with an IA Harappa, but also with Kennedy's observation of Indus Valley population discontinuity between 6000 and 4500 BC.

If Renfrew is correct, that doesn't "prove" OIT.

Regrettably, editors who share a certain POV seem to constant reminders of WP:REDFLAG:

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.

  • Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

In other words, it's gonna take a lot more than a press release to demonstrate a sea change in the academic consensus. JFD 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


I think you will find that 'sea change' is occurring at the moment at some levels, and the Maschusettes conference gives an indication of this changing tide. As much of the archeological evidence and genetic evidence is being reviewed, we can expect it to take time, especially if a new consensus is to be received. I have not said that at present the OIT has been proven only that the possibility of a Northwest India and Iran original homeland of the Indo-European speakers is very much still open. So we can we summise that

1/. The OIT/ with out of Iran theories are still very much open and current linguistic, archeological and genetic research is not at odds with it. 2/. The AIT/migration has been proven to be fiction by genetics.

As such, I think we can at least agree that a signifcant change is occurring with regard to present discussion, and that has been initiated by unambiguous genetic evidence, in contrast to extremely ambiguous linguistics, the consensus of which is also changing.

Therfore I think we can also agree that the proposition has not been 'rejected by scholars', as there are indeed some scholars who support this view and they are very much involved in the discussion at present.

Watch844 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

we agree on no such thing. If such a "sea change" is taking place, that's cool, why don't you come back once you can document it by pointing to actual academic sources. We do not anticipate academic "sea changes", we wait for them to happen first. Even if there was new evidence for ana actual out of India migration was presented (I haven't seen any), I am afraid it will have a hard time getting wide recognition: the Voice of India goons have done too much of a good job at discrediting the concept as propagandist bullshit. dab (𒁳) 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Masacusettes conference is a good place to start if you want to see where the aacademic changes are occurring and discussion is heading. The idea that any such theories are 'propagandist' is similarly a common and expected defence mechanism that has likwise been emplyed frequently by the Eurocentric nonsense camp. Thankfully, in light of real indisputable genetic evidence, the real theores can be separated from the Eurocentric propagandist material of the last century (and it is) easily enough. Living in denial of the obvious changes will not help , especuilly since leading theorist like Witzel have now changed their tune. The next few years will be tremendous in starting to definatively separate fiction from the reality. Watch, and learn.

Watch844 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"living in denial" pretty much summarizes most of this article. I'm watching and learning. See you in a few years, then. dab (𒁳) 12:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. When you can cite your reliable, peer-reviewed academic sources, Watch844, then we'll listen. Until then, stop reverting. You are quite clearly edit-warring against consensus here. Moreschi Talk 12:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The famous "MA conference" is a surreal joke [3][4]. I doubt it is at all possible to be academically more discredited than N. S. Rajaram. In Asko Parpola's words, Thus far Rajaram has got away with this dishonesty because the scholarly community has not considered this work worthy of consideration: it has been taken more or less for granted that any sensible person can see through this trash and recognize it as such. However, the escalation of this nonsensical propaganda now demands the issue to be addressed. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Scholars"

Here's the thing: J. P. Mallory and Colin Renfrew, advocates of respectively Baltic-Pontic and Anatolian homelands, hold professorships in relevant academic fields at respected universities.

Elst, Talageri, Kazanas, and Frawley do not.

More importantly, Mallory and Renfrew have to their names any number of publications which have passed peer review and been well-received by academic colleagues in relevant fields.

By contrast, peer review had to be waived for Kazanas.

In sum, it is fraudulent to contend that Elst, Talageri, Kazanas, and Frawley have as much academic authority as Mallory or Renfrew.

JFD 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The issue of 'academic authority' is extremely subjective. In in any case, it is not an issue of percieved 'academic authority'. Neither is holding a professorship at an American institution (lol) in any way shape or form required.

Renfrew held a professorship at Cambridge for over 20 years and Mallory is a professor at Queen's University Belfast, in other words, not American institutions.
Your inability to get even basic facts right does your credibility no good, Watch844. JFD 17:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In fact due to the skewed nature of dogma and debate, it is probably in some ways a hindrance, as is demonstrated by the closing of centres for 'Indo-European studies' in a numebr of institutions, such as Cambridge. The issue is whether scolarship is divided on the issue or not. And it is clearly fraudulaent to claim that the theory is rejected by scolars, when it is not.

In short, Elst and Talageri are actively involved in scholarship, enough that scolars such as Witzel and Trautman have been in discussion and correspondence with them. They are recognised scholars in the field, as is Kazana, and only those with a deceptive hidden agenda would claim otherwise.

Watch844 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

They are being gradually recognized as raving cranks. Your score on the Crackpot index is appreciable,

  • 10 points for arguing that a current well-established theory is "only a theory", as if this were somehow a point against it.
  • 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".
  • 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
  • 40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)

This nonsense used to be ignored as beneath reviewing, but you are right that there is a "sea change" in that academics feel compelled to defend their field against ideological propaganda. Yes, Elst may be cited as holding a PhD in Indology (his PhD was about ... wait for it ... Hindutva: his interest in OIT is an outgrowth of his interest in Hindu nationalism). We do accept Elst as citable. Elst's is an isolated fringe view within Indology, and we would never even heard about it if it wasn't for the propaganda machine boosting it. As opposed to Elst, the Frawley-Rajaram-Voice of India "cargo cult scholarship" literally oozes bad faith and thinly veiled national mysticism, and really shouldn't even be brought up outside articles discussing "communalist" propaganda stunts. dab (𒁳) 07:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


The scientific establishment is very much open to both Out of India and Out of Iran theories, as evidenced by Kashyaps genetics work from the India Institute of biologicals, and Peter Underhills study from Stanford University, both of which date to 2006. So please get you facts right before making incorrect claims about the 'Scientific establishment'.

On the contrary, it is you who seems to be claiming that the 'scientific establishment' is engaged in some kind of 'conspiracy' to prevent the view you have, since most of the recent scientifc studies that are being done support Out of India and Out of Iran, whilst systematically demolishing AIT/migration fictions.

Watch844 12:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...said Rajaram. If the situation was like you claim, we would hardly have to rely on self-published autodidacts like Kazanas to cobble together a half coherent scenario for this article. Sorry, but you are just making a fool of yourself now. Rajaram's blog is one thing, Wikipedia is another, and they are happily separate. dab (𒁳) 12:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not see what link highly regarded and leading population geneticists such as V.K. Kashyap and Peter Underhill have to Rajaram. If the new evidence is written about by any authors that is one thing. But it should not detract from the legitaimate scientific equiries that are being done and the impact on current thinking it has, whatver 'position' is held on the issue.

Watch844 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Where exactly do Kashyap or Underhill say that genetics supports OIT? JFD 19:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
they said there is no clear evidence, genetically. That this harmless statement is touted as 'disproving IAM' or even 'proving OIT' speaks volumes about the desperate lack of supporters. If there was a single Indo-Europeanist supporting what is after all an Indo-Europeanist hypothesis, I am sure we'd have heard of him by now. dab (𒁳) 08:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAQ

looking at the amount of rehashing that goes on on this talk page, perhaps an {{FAQ}}, such as the one on Talk:Fox News Channel and Talk:Routing protocol is indicated. Doldrums 09:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

this FAQ is the article itself, which is after all the referenced outcome of previous discussion. The people who refuse to read the article itself will hardly be bothered to read a FAQ. When dealing with people who do not want to listen, such efforts are wasted... dab (𒁳) 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erdosy's "lunatic fringe" comment

needs to be qualified as referring only to a particular current strain of OIT and not historical OIT theories. Doldrums 06:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recognised scholarly theorists

Elst and Talageri are both recognised theorists subscribing to the OIT. It may generally be a minority view at present, but that is parlty due to the overturning of longstanding fantasy dogmas of the 19th century.

Yes, Elst is very much citable. And so is Talageri. Whether or not amateur Wikipedia posters think Talageri is citable or not, he was cited by Trautmann in his book "Aryans and Britsh India", so he is very much part of the scholarly debate, and if he is citable by the standards of professional academia of the field, he certainly merits mention here.

Watch844 11:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Elst and Talageri are the reasons we have this article at all (did you even read it)? It is undisputed that this article revolves around the opinions of Elst and Talageri. It is a minority view. I don't know of any tenured Indologist defending it. In fact, I know of no Indologist defending it besides Elst. Wikipedia does have room for fringe theories, but they have to be clearly marked as fringe theories. This topic here is a textbook case of a fringe theory steeped in crackpottery. Did you ever consider that there may be actual reasons why experts reject this scenario as a non-starter? Reasons beyond paranoid allegations of Indophoby and colonialism? OIT presents a pathetically implausible scenario as soon as you look into the details. Even Elst's timeline and map is a joke. If it was plausible, people would show interest. If a strong case could be made, Indo-Europeanists sceptical of the Kurgan scenario would be enthusiastic. As it happens, the Kurgan scenario looks almost watertight compared to the "OIT" case, and no sceptic dismissing the Kurgan model as too speculative would touch OIT with a five foot pole. And the VoI pseudoscholarly propaganda stunts have rather shown that no coherent case can be made even by authors who want to quite badly. dab (𒁳) 12:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

A case could be made that views such as those held by David Frawley may be considered 'fringe' (i.e India is the fount of most of world civilization, culture, and language ) . However, well established theories such as Out of India and Out of Iran on the origin of Indo-European languages are by no means 'fringe', and it is ridiculous and totally false to claim that they are. They are part of the debate. Any serious researcher in the field would know that we know far too little definitavely about the subject to make any bold assertions either way. And as noted, Trautmann cited and discussed Talageri's position and Kazanas was also discussed whilst Witzel has had back and forth correspondance with Elst. That is the definition of current scholarly debate.

Watch844 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

chuckle, "well established" indeed. A theory proposed by an expert on Hindutva in 2000, and rejected by practically every expert in the field. Stop your disingenious attempts to create the impression that this is in any way 'well established' when it so clearly isn't. This is a fringe topic if there ever was one. We could present it as a 'serious' minority view if you could cite a single Indologist, Indo-Europeanist, or historian tenured at a halfway respectable institution (Maharishi or Hare Krishna Universities and similar do not count) who supports it. Trautmann's book is on the Indigenous Aryan debate in Hindu extremism. The OIT is certainly relevant to that, but that's a matter of contemporary Indian sociology, not of historical lingistics or Bronze Age history. dab (𒁳) 08:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] explain revert

have reverted[5] for the foll. reasons.

  • rejection of the theory by several reliable sources was removed without any reason.
  • characterising work (self-published or published by non-academic publishers) or that failed peer review as part of a "scholarly dispute" as opposed to scholarly rejection is misleading.
  • qualified doubts about the nature of AMT, such as by Kenoyer and Kashyap does not by themselves imply support for OIT
  • WP articles should not have an editorial tone - "understandably", "clear distinction should be drawn"

Doldrums 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up:

My first removal of the "Indo Iranian and Avesta" section was undone by User:Darrowen in (what appears to be) a blanket reinsertion of some previously removed material.
Although I've reinstated my removal, I'm not familiar enough with this article or the subject material, and so can't determine whether Darrowen's changes are constructive.

-- Fullstop 09:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: they aren't. OIT is a fringe theory at best. Mallory's review in the JIES "debate" is particularly apropos here. rudra 04:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OR/False citation/coatracks detected...

  1. Talageri[63][35] argues that the documented evidence shows Indo-Iranian were present earlier in Eastern region. Talageri quotes P. Oktor Skjærvø "the earliest evidence for the Iranians is 835 BC in the case of Iran, and 521 BC in the case of Central Asia. ... He[?] also quotes Gnoli[66] as stating that "very clearly [...] the oldest regions known to the Iranians were Afghanistan and areas to its east". Gnoli repeatedly stresses "the fact that Avestan geography, particularly the list in Vd. I, is confined to the east,"[67] and points out that this list is "remarkably important in reconstructing the early history of Zoroastrianism".
    • Contradiction: "Talageri argues Indo-Iranian (sic) were present earlier in (sic) Eastern region" is followed by "quotation" that says precisely the opposite. Not that Skaervoe actually said anything about the origins of the Iranians.
    • OR/False citation: Gnoli is speaking of why Zoroaster's mission should be considered to have occurred in the mentioned areas. Gnoli does not in any way or form allude to where the proto-Avestan peoples are supposed to have come from. Gnoli also does not say anything to support "Indo-Iranian were present earlier in Eastern region."
    • Coatrack: how does being present earlier in X support the Out-of-India theory?
  2. The Iranian Avesta is considered[really?] to be a literary indication of Proto-Iranian culture after they were split from Vedic culture sometime during the 3rd millennium BC.[and the date comes from where?] The Vedic deva "god" is cognate with the Avestan daeva "demon" while the Vedic asura "demon" is cognate with the Avestan ahura "god", which Burrow explained as a reflection of religious rivalry between Indo-Aryans and Iranians.[71]
    Coatrack with socks instead of a coat: Neither does Avestan daeva mean "demon", nor does Vedic asura mean "demon".
    But even IF there was that ahura/daeva "moral dichtonomy" as once-upon-a-time suggested (seriously outdated, but which Burrow is anyway brought on to cite for), this does not support the "Iranian Avesta is considered to be a literary indication of Proto-Iranian culture after they were split from Vedic culture"
  3. The Avesta also shows that Iranians of the time called themselves Dahas, a term also used by other ancient authors to refer to peoples in the area occupied by Indo-Iranian tribes..[72]
    OR/False citation: Noone has ever said the Iranians called themselves Dahas. Quite the opposite. The aryas of the Vedas are exactly the same as the aryas of the Avesta (i.e. in both cases, the community of the composer himself) and the anarya of the Avesta are the dahas of the Vedas (in both cases, the others, the enemy, the bad guys).
  4. Just a quick scan reveals that this article is evidently full of "cite-cites" (quoting the sources of a source). This is a very insidious and nasty kind of OR.
-- Fullstop 19:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
"Cite-citing", or name-dropping, is a staple with this lot. Quite often they're just paraphrasing (when not copy-pasting) from some screed in blogspace, and whether that "source" did its homework would be just as unclear. There are even specimens who have read a book or two, but they usually have no trouble demonstrating their incomprehension. The point of this page is to be a valve, an outlet for their righteous steam, while other editors come by and chip away at residues:-)rudra 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to change it as you see fit. This kind of OR is quite normal where there are editors actively promoting the fringe view that they are editing about. The Behnam 00:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
heh. Well, I'll certainly remove the section that the above-mentioned fake RS things are in.
But change as I see fit? As in delete the article entirely for being unencyclopedic and non-notable? Gee. that'd rock.
Seriously though, the article is only redeemable if it underwent a name change to "Out of India theory dispute"
In which case it would be a report of the dispute, and not a "view" of whats happening inside that dispute. An encyclopedia is neither a real-time news agent nor a soapbox.
-- Fullstop 01:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose it couldn't be taken that far. Too bad. That would be an amusing deletion debate though. The serious editors versus the nationalist promoters and, of course, the inclusionists. The Behnam 02:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Found and will remove another zinger, but because tagging it is so damn boring I've livened it up a bit. Real bugs in red, fun in green.
According to Shrikant Talageri,[hallelujah!] mention of Airyanam Vaejo,[uh, where did grammar go?] first of sixteen holy lands[everything holy!] rendered unfit[say what??] for man by Angra Manyu,[WHO??] the evil spirit of Zend Avesta,[hahaha "Zend Avesta" hahaha] in the Zoroastrian scripture[hahaha "Zend... scripture"] Vendidad[oh wait not Zend at all] and three ancient Indian lands[huh? "Indian lands"] with Rigvedic references[like "Kashmir"?] identifies Airyanam Vaejo with Kashmir.[stop press! We know where Kashmir is now][58]. He[hallelujah!] further adds[more more!] that if there is any doubt[can't have that, eh?] that Airyanam Vaejo refers to Kashmir[then perhaps they need to buy a map?], the designation of the next[as in "The Thursday Next"?] as Hapta Hindu, that is Sapta-Sindhu[gosh! not seven Hindus?] should remove it.[never heard of a place of having both an eastern and western boundaries?] The argument[hallelujah!] is then that the absence of migration stories[of the many potty breaks?] and mentions[what grammatical form is "mentions"?] of a homeland outside of India[which the Avesta doesn't have either] suggests[hallelujah!] that there were no such migrations[because the Avestan people stayed where they were?] and no such homeland for the Indo-Aryans[and what happened to Kashmir? Oh wait. Yeah, that Indo-Pak thing.].[59][54]
Ignoring the atrocious grammar, the gist of that construct is:
  1. Airyanam Vaeja borders on Sapta Sindhu
  2. Kashmir borders on Sapta Sindhu
  3. ergo Kashmir is Sapta Sindhu.
  4. There are no migrations stories in the RV, ergo the RV authors didn't migrate.
now, ignoring the idiocy about Angra Mainyu defiling Airyanam Vaeja:
  1. There is nothing in Av. texts that suggests Airyanam Vaeja borders on Sapta Sindhu
  2. got one thing right
  3. And why can't Airyanem Vaeja be on the other side of Sapta Sindhu?
  4. There are no migration stories in the Avesta either, ergo the Av. authors didn't migrate either.
I have a better idea: Since the Av. has no migration stories AND (as seen elsewhere) the Rigvedans make no references to the Harrapans or to single-cell organisms, I propose that the Avestan peoples carried the RigVedans to India in curtain-drawn palanquins and called the service "Air India"
That is perfectly LOGICAL! OMG! I AM SO GREAT! yeah! yeah! yeah!
-- Fullstop 08:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It used to be worse - I had to write a whole book of correspondence with User:WIN in order to get rid of some even crappier writing about Airyanem Vaeja. The Behnam 17:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

You people fail to understand the brilliant logic of the argument. No Indo-European people has urheimat memories (except for the Kalash, but then they also think they are Greek). From this it follows that the urheimat must be India. What could be more clear? The Aryan civilization must have been extremely advanced, and it is ridiculous to assume they would have left no written record. And the only ancient civilization that has left records that have not been deciphered is the great Sarasvati-Sindhu Civilization. From this it follows that the Sarasvati-Sindhu civilization must be Aryan. If you dispute the stringency of this, you only show that you are minions of the colonialist British conspiracy. The British since Max Muller have been lusting after the Indian homeland, and have stooped to every ruse to conceal the obvious truth in order to ensnare Hindus in ignorance and confuse them into adopting Christianity. But their plan has finally been laid bare, thanks to the valiant and eminent S. Talageri, N. S. Rajaram, K. Elst, N. Kazanas, D. Frawley, S. Kak and D. Pavanar. All of them brilliant scholars who are not afraid of the ridicule so lavishly bestowed upon them by the corrupt establishment of so-called "Indology". dab (𒁳) 18:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Pull string in back of toy... sycophant mode kicks in...
  • (sound of palm smacking forehead is heard) But of course! What a fool I've been! Please, barra sahebs, please excuse my chhota bheja for not immediately recognizing such intellectual prowess. Maaf karye, maaf. My mother didn't beat me enough.
Pull string again... goonda mode kicks in...
  • Arre, not only brilliant, totally fanta, yaar. For such cluelyness, those bilayet puglas should always waive peer-review. And if they don't I will waive it! We'll see then who can waive it longer and higher!
"Only 2.95. No down payment. Batteries not included." -- Fullstop 20:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Lead

From WP:LEAD

“ The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. ”

The current lead does not do this. It serves to ridicule the Out of India theory, not to discuss it. This article is a blemish on the face of Wikipedia as it represents a POV group of editors stamping on a theory that they do not support. I am changing the lead. Do not revert my changes please. Darrowen 03:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

How is it "stamping" to describe the theory based upon its mainstream academic reception? We'll note it for what makes it notable. There is little else to "discuss" about this theory aside from that it has been previously rejected, and that the 'revival' has been ridiculed by those who have noteworthy opinions in the field. The 2nd paragraph in your version is unnecessary and in fact somewhat misleading, as it presents the supposed 'basis' for the claims without noting that the legitimacy of each aspect of its advancement has met disagreement elsewhere. If we are going to mention the various strange ways that proponents have forwarded their claims, then we must mention for each way how it has been rejected by mainstream academics in the field, but this would over-inflate the lead. So it is best that your version not be used. I invite others to comment. Regards, The Behnam 06:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
This article spells out Elst's linguistic arguments in great detail, but what archaeological evidence does the Out of India theory base its claims on? Evidence that positively supports Out of India, not evidence that merely questions an Indo-Aryan migration. JFD 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You nailed it, not once but twice. It is clearcut whitewashing to have supposed underpinnings of the theory in the lead (suggesting that there is a case) when the point is that mainstream academia has basically dismissed it (i.e. that there is no case). Darrowen is not the first, nor will he be the last, to try to breathe academic life into revisionist roadkill. rudra 07:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV

Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.

When a POV group of editors lies to Wikipedia's readers by implying that non-academic propagandist dilettantes like Koenraad Elst and Shrikant Talageri are "scholars" comparable to genuine academics like J. P. Mallory and Spencer Wells, now that is a blemish on the face of Wikipedia. JFD 08:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
apropos majority-view:
Is there *any* (pro or contra) accredited source specifically adressing OIT in live debate?
Or is this theory getting the silent treatment from the established reliable sources?
cf. "notability" guidelines of WP:FRINGE: i.e. that "notability" through acknowledgement (even if only to refute) by reliable sources is necessary for a theory to be considered "notable"
-- Fullstop 10:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
You don't understand the point:
  • A lead is meant to summarize the article. Do you agree?
  • The article contains supposed evidence for the OIT. Do you agree?
  • The article describes that evidence as lunatic fringe science. Do you agree?
  • Then as summary of the article, the lead must make mention of both supposed evidence and the analysis by renowned Western scholars who are not brain-dead lunatics like Koenraad Elst and, undoubtedly, millions of other Hindu nationalists.
Darrowen 07:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Let us discuss the nature of this linguistic "evidence". Note how earlier I referred not to linguistic evidence, but to Elst's linguistic arguments. There's a difference. An important one. In her review of Bryant & Patton (2005), Jamison (2006) writes:

the fact that [Elst] is not a linguist and works entirely from secondary materials flaws his contribution: he seems not really to understand linguistic concepts and argumentation (e.g., loan word phonology, derivation vs. "artificial coinage", language "mixture") and so characterizes them rather crudely, and then in turn either dismisses them prematurely or builds arguments upon them that they will not support. Elst's specialty is offering alternative explanations for the numerous strong arguments that have been put forth for the into-India hypothesis—e.g., how to explain the characteristic and complex patterns of isoglosses and subgrouping among the other Indo-European languages if they all came spurting out of NW India like toothpaste out of, a tube. He himself characterizes one of his own alternative hypotheses as "counter-intuitive but not strictly impossible", a phrase that could be applied to all of his hypotheses. And since his alternative model, the out-of-India model, depends on all of these implausible hypotheses being true at once, it is time to invoke Occam's razor.

JFD 13:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose that opinion of Elst comes from a notable internet typo such as yourself, who gets in information from opinions about sources from the net. LOL. If Elst was not credible, he would not be in correspondence with leading academics. And criticism of him from an intenet observer is meaningless.

Watch844 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch844,
"Jamison" is Professor Stephanie Jamison, head of the Indo-European Studies program at UCLA, whose field of expertise includes Vedic studies and both Indo-European and Indo-Iranian linguistics, according to this bio from when she was a Visiting Lecturer at both Yale and Harvard Universities.
I excerpted Jamison's opinion of Elst from an article published in the Journal of Indo-European Studies, hardly the "meaningless" opinion of an "internet observer". (It goes without saying that Jamison did not receive the exceptional waiver of peer review that Kazanas did.)
And Watch844, should you—whose genetic "evidence" for OIT came from a blog called "fugme"—really be lecturing your fellow Wikipedians about citing "meaningless" sources from the internet? LOL indeed.
A friendly piece of advice, Watch844: if I were you, I wouldn't dismiss an article published in a peer-reviewed journal by a university professor with the relevant expertise as a "meaningless" source from the internet. Especially if you're going to cite a blog called "fugme".
It makes you look—how can I put this civilly?—uninformed. Deeply, deeply uninformed.
JFD 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Prima facie, I do not see that much of a problem in Watch844's version of the lead. If anything, it puts things in perspective by spelling out what it(OIT) is, who its proponents are, who else(nationalists) is sympathetic to the view, what its standing is in academia. The last thing (standing in academia) seems to be the concern here and some who have commented above seem to suggest that there's some whitewashing here. That needs to be examined and perhaps fixed (more about that later). Having said that, I still feel that Watch844's version of the lead reads far better and objective than the one that is being reverted to. I wont revert to Watch's version just yet, but I propose to maybe modify Watch's version and improve the lead. But just for the record, if the choice is between this lead and this one, I'd go with Watch844's version. More later. Gotta run now. Sarvagnya 19:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarly support is divided, and has been for the last 150 years.

Despite every trick, attempted misleading statements, it does not change the indisputable fact that scholarship is divided, and has been since the beginning of the debate. OIT is as astrong as ever amongst mainstream scholars.

Read Trautmann book THE ARYAN DEBATE (2005) if you want to have an analysis of what is happing in the world of academia. Until then, your statements on this topic are damaging to Wikis credibility and only serve to make yo look foolish.

Trautmann himself divides the current scholarship into 2 broad camps.

1/. the immigrant aryan view. (Iran or central Asia) 2/. the indignous aryan view. (Out of India)

If you do not even know this basic fact, you really have no business attemting to comment on the debate. It is that simple. What next, will you make an attempt to discredit Trautmann? Watch844 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

the "indignous aryan view" is not equivalent to OIT, but also compatible with a pre-Indo-Iranian migration ("Aryan" developed in situ). This is a fallacy so basic, and discussed so many times before, and pointed out in the very lead of indigenous Aryans, that I must wonder if you can be serious, or if you're just being indignantly argumentative for the sake of it. dab (𒁳) 13:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
of course "indiginous aryans" are "not a recent invention": they have been a dead horse for about a century. dab (𒁳) 14:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


Actually, the indiginous aryan view is equivalent to OIT according to Trautmann. Again this is a topic that he discusses. Since the term 'indingous aryan' can mean different things to different people depending on interpretaions, and will no doubt including the small minority who try to posit that 'indignous' could mean 'in situ', he clears it up. In his definition which is the main scholarly interpreation, 'indinignous aryan' means the orginiators of the Indo-European language family originate in India, and it is therfore in his interpretation the the same as OIT. This point is very basic and has been widely discussed. I am surprised you are still raising it. Therfore in all of Trautmanns arguments and almost all scholarly arguments, Indignous aryan means OIT.

The wiki lead on indignous aryans is misleading since it does not state that the general consensus on indiginous aryans is that it means OIT, with the tiny minority proposing the alternate 'in situ'. Please do not quote references to other badly edited or misleading Wiki pages.

Trautmann also states unequivically that OIT is and has been supported by scholars since its inception in the early 19th century and continues to do so.

Dear me, pulling people out of fantasy is a difficult task. That is why Scholars like Trautman write books I suppose....you should read them.

Watch844 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch, "indignous" is not in fact an English word, I was making fun of you. here is what you will find in Trautmann (ed.) in terms of OIT, [6]

Colin Renfrew, S.P. Gupta and B.B. Lal pushed for a re-evaluation of the existing picture.

Renfrew is, of course, not arguing for OIT, but for early (pre-Aryan IE) immigration. Lal argues for early presence of the horse which would be supporting an "Aryan IVC" along the lines of Renfrew, but which would obviously go nowhere towards establishing "OIT" (you'd need elephant remains in Kazakhstan for that argument, not horse remains in India). So, yes, early Indo-Iranian presence in India is indeed a valid possibility. Even Parpola is willing to admit Indo-Aryan presence from 1900 BC. That would go towards pushing back Proto-Indo-Iranian to Mature Harappan times. Needless to say (?) this goes nowhere at all towards establishing anything like "OIT". The upshot is that

The two sides of the debate, despite substantial differences, share a common ground. Neither accepts the theory of the destruction of the Indus Valley Civilization by the Aryan invasion. Both emphasize continuity rather than discontinuity between the Indus and Vedic civilizations. Trautmann rightly says that until the Indus script is interpreted, we cannot reach any decisive conclusion regarding the interrelationship between the Indus and Vedic cultures.

If the Indus script would be shown to be Indo-Iranian, people wouldn't say "gosh, Mr. Rajaram, you were right all along", they would say "gosh, Mr. Renfrew, surprisingly, there is IE presence in India earlier than we thought, maybe we should reconsider your model". dab (𒁳) 14:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, I thought the trolls were giving us peace because they had finally realized there is no way they will dodge WP policy. Now it turns out that this was merely due to summer holidays at American high schools. Holidays are over, the diaspora kids are back at their terminals, and none of them has invested their time in actually learning about the topic they're so interested in. Still going in circles copy-pasting propaganda from the same old nationalist blogs. Why bother? The stuff is already online, and anyone who cares to read it can do so. We have completely debunked this stuff over and over again, and there is just no way Wikipedia will host it. Why don't you spare everyone the waste of time and enjoy your beginning of term parties instead, kids. dab (𒁳) 07:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your attitude Dbachmann sir. You seem to be a very nice person. And as for your pointless ramblings on spelling mistakes. I wonder whether it has ever occurred to you, sir, that people edit Wikipedia when they are NOT living in a predominantly English-speaking country and English is NOT their first language. Of course, maybe you are too royal for civility, but at least try please. Darrowen 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
yeah, "pointless ramblings", I'm sure I am a great problem editor in this respect. Sorry, but after mucking out ungrammatical nonsense from these articles for two years, I somehow cannot be bothered to call bullshit anything other than bullshit. If valid material is added in poor spelling, I'm not above cleaning up after people. But sadly, broken grammar is too often indicative of poor content. People whose command of English is barely sufficient to follow the discussion would do better to refrain from "knowing better" than tenured experts in the field, it's as simple as that. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
some issues with Darrowen's version
  1. first paragraph is repetitive
  2. "Debate falls into" needs to be rewritten to be more clear - does it mean OIT implies or requires (or both) a dating of the rigveda at odds with the accepted one.
  3. The relation between Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis and OIT deserves a mention in the lead.
  4. is it necessary to mention "Kurgan hypothesis would not hold true if the Rig Veda were dated early than 2000 BC, a proposition which most OIT supporters advance at some point."
  5. Do Elst, Talageri deserve a mention that earlier proponents do not?

Doldrums 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that "Kurgan hypothesis would not hold true if the Rig Veda were dated earlier than 2000 BC". Who said that? The RV is dated to the 2nd millennium for reasons completely unrelated to the Kurgan hypothesis. "Kurgan IV" a.k.a. Yamna culture is dated 36th–23rd centuries BC. I agree the Kurgan hypothesis would be untenable if the RV dated to before 3500 BC, and would be have to be seriously reconsidered if it dated to before 3000 BC, but from a Kurgan standpoint, there would be nothing wrong with a RV of 2500 BC. It's internal evidence that rules out the RV dates to this early. dab (𒁳) 09:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] There are 2 broad camps in modern scholarship- Immigrant Aryan and Indigenous Aryan

These are the two main arguments, as well as a broad 'middle ground'.

I quote Trautmann directly:

Trautmann, The Aryan Debate pxxviX (2005) "After the discovery of the Indus Valley civilization, the alternative view that the Indus Civilization is the Vedic Civilization, the Aryans are indigenous to India, and the Indo-European languages radiated out from a homeland in India began to take shape."

Indigenous Aryan IS OIT. Thats is what the term has meant since the Indus Valley was discovered, and the theory that India was the homeland of all Indo-European languages began to gain support.

And as Trautmann repeats again and again, this is the main scholarly alternate view. And it does not change the fact that the most recent genetics supports this viewpoint.

Watch844 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

as your citation out-of-context again establishes, you lack the ability to discern between what people say and what you think they are saying. This may not be a problem for you in a world where others are equally undiscerning, but it is and will always be a problem here.
To put it very simply (should your language skills not otherwise suffice), your "quote" is a sham. Trautmann did not say that. Trautmann is summarizing the debate, and not making a statement of his own.
And no, Trautmann does not "repeats again and again, this is the main scholarly alternate view," and no "the most recent genetics" (sic) do not supports "this viewpoint" either.
Your attempt to define a "broad middle ground" is laudable, but quite your own invention. Similarly, thank you for your definition of "modern scholarship." Unfortunately, your favourite works do not fulfill the criteria necessary for recognition as "scholarship."

-- Fullstop 12:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

indeed. It is undisputed that the "idea that the Indus Civilization is the Vedic Civilization, the Aryans are indigenous to India, and the Indo-European languages radiated out from a homeland in Indiabegan to take shape". Trautmann is reporting on the history of this sad mess. That such completely confused "ideas began to take shape" doesn't make them at all tenable, or even coherent. Your "arguments" are so clearly presented in bad faith that I think it is futile to continue replying to your posts. dab (𒁳) 12:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of interest

I've proposed that Watch844 be banned from this article at Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. Moreschi Talk 17:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

And, as I sort of predicted, another one has stepped into the breach. We now return you to our regularly scheduled edit-war... rudra 04:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
it is surprising what people will waste their time on. It should be clear by now that this goes nowhere. to think that there is Wikindia, where such clueless-yet-enthusiastic spirits will likely meet less resistance. Dear sockmasters, how about you invest your time by writing a nice out of India article there. Eveyone will be much happier. --dab (𒁳) 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gupta?

while Elst and Talageri are amateurs (Elst at least with a university degree), and both associated with VoI, Gupta is an archaeologist. If he has argued for OIT (The Indus-Sarasvati civilization (New Delhi, Centre for studies in civilizations, 1999, pp 270-9,339-51), why are we not discussing this first and foremost? We would, of course, still have not a single Indo-Europeanist endorsing this "theory of Indo-European origins", but at least we could cite an academic. Does Gupta actually discuss the question directly on "pp 270-9,339-51", and if so, why does this article prance around with amateur literature of the Elst/Kazanas/Talageri type? --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Gupta was not a field archaeologist. He was an archivist, curator and art historian: his career was with the National Museum, not the ASI; but in fairness, he had long and close associations with archaeological activity. I haven't read his book, so I don't know if he argued for OIT there. The reference given, however, is wrong on two counts.
  • It is not to Gupta's book. The reference has been lifted copy-pasted (what else?) osmoted from Thomas Trautmann (ed.) The Aryan Debate, p.157), where Trautmann has excerpted p.270-9, 339-51, 366-75 from Gupta's article, titled The Indus-Saraswati Civilization: Beginnings and Developments, in GC Pande (ed.) The dawn of Indian Civilization (up to 600 BC).
  • Gupta's article says nothing about OIT. Instead, he tries to make a case for Vedic Harappans by correlating archaelogical data with the "philological" work of Bhagwan Singh, The Vedic Harappans, of which he says "I am sure the book [...] will be an eye-opener to all the archaeologists who have very little knowledge of Vedic Sanskrit and Vedic literature."
Enough said. rudra 21:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Gupta meme seems to have been introduced by Watch844 (talk · contribs). No surprise, as these blog-warrior SPAs can't do much better than copy-paste anyway. First, from Bryant; now, from Trautmann. rudra 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Gee, I looked at the index in the book instead of the contents page, so I saw "Gupta" only as the name of the dynasty, not as the contributor. Dumb or what? However, rudra is right. Gupta seeks to claim that the IVC was Vedic, not that IE originated in South Asia, so he never argues for OIT. Paul B 01:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

in this case it is of course blatantly incorrect to tout him as an "OIT supporter". Which means our list of OIT supporters is down to a Belgian freelance Indologist, an Indian bank employee, and a Greek Yoga teacher. All of them smart people, no doubt, but somehow not quite up to the realization that TINC. --dab (𒁳) 07:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

there is also Stephen Knapp, who apparently opts for "Vedic" by default (Vedic Taj Mahal?). We really need to compile a Vedic pseudoscience article soon, covering everything from Vimanas to mesolithic Aryans. --dab (𒁳) 09:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
And Kak's stuff (the "astronomical code", heliocentrism in the brahmanas, whatnot) will finally find a home. rudra 23:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems with Flameoffire's version

[7] for starters,

  1. see above disc. on Gupta
  2. undid copyedit of the first paragraph.
  3. what the heck is "affected some people's views to the theory"?
  4. distinction between OIT and indigenous Aryans has been pointed out before.

Doldrums 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

that was just a revert without discussion, not a new proposal. plus Fof is apparently a member of the Great Hindutva Sock Circus.[8][9]. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My proposed lead: please indicate problems

OK. This is the lead I propose. Please don't go off topic with the whole fringecruft etc. Just talk about the lead, not the writer. If possible.

The Out of India theory (OIT, also called the Indian Urheimat Theory) is the proposition that the original homeland of the Indo-European language family is India. The theory proposes that the Proto-Indo-European language group originated in the Indian subcontinent, after which a series of migrations saw various groups leave the subcontinent and spread to the remainder of the Indo-European region. Proponents of the theory today include Koenraad Elst[1], Srikanth Talageri,[2]and historian S.P. Gupta.[3]

Originally proposed in the 18th century to explain connections between Sanskrit and European languages, the proposition has always held some scholarly support but in modern times is considered to be a fringe theory, in preference to the more widely held Kurgan hypothesis which states that the introduction of Indo-Aryan to India precluded the Indus Valley Civilization.[4] [5][6][7] The Out of India theory is not to be confused with the theory that the Aryans originated in India, which can be held true in not only the Indian hypothesis but also the Anatolian hypothesis and has relatively more support amongst scholars.[8] [9]

There has also been a recent Hindu nationalist revival that incoprorates the OIT. The mixture of political and scholarly fields has affected some people's views to the theory. [10] [11]

Darrowen 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

as has been pointed out before
  1. first paragraph is repetitive (and i've therefore condensed it)
  2. what does "mixture of political and scholarly fields has affected some people's views to the theory" mean? (even after it is fixed for grammar). i've turned it into "contentious debate" instead.
  3. as has been pointed out about seventeen times till now, OIT is not identical to the proposition of indigenous Aryans. that the latter "always had some scholarly support" does not mean the former did too. Kenoyer and Kashyap are being misconstrued.
  4. rather than tell readers not to be confused between OIT and IA, my version states that OIT extends IA and doesn't spend half a paragraph talking about IA's standing.
  5. Gupta's support hasn't been established.
  6. why mention Elst and Talageri, but not Schlegel or Dhar? why mention them without anything to indicate that they are autodidacts whose work has not withstood professional scrutiny?
in addition, your version has a statement that a theory of language dispersal relies on linguistic, philological and archaeological evidence - too broad to be useful.
and "incoprorates" has a typo in it. Doldrums 08:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

and whats with the strange practice of stuffing quotations in references? Quotations should be inline, in plain view. The source of that quotation is what should be a reference. And if you're using {{harv...}} referencing, then please do so consistently. You may wish to consult the source of Rabindranath Tagore to see how thats properly done. -- Fullstop 19:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

the current intro is superior. Mentioning Elst, Talageri and Gupta in the first para is disingenious. As established above, Gupta is not in fact supporting the theory explicitly. VoI authors Talageri and Elst cannot be mentioned separately from Hindutva interest. Talageri is a full-blooded amateur, while Elst has a degree, but his field of interest is Hindutva ideology, not ancient history. "has affected some people's views to the theory" is just a nice way of saying "a lot of people who don't know the first thing about the issues involved feel they must rant about it at the top of their voice, on and off Wikipedia." Thanks but no thanks. --dab (𒁳) 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


1/. The Kashayap and Kenoyer links are good. They have been quoted well and explicitly show support for the Indigenous aryan theory and the difference between that and OIT.

2/. Your opinion on Talageri is without any kind of basis. He is as credible as Erdosy if not more so. At least he refrains from the kind of infantile and emotional name calling that Erdosy lowers himself too. That type of behaviour is what has dredged the debate down in the first place. Talaegri is as credible as could be wished for and a very good source, and his theories stand up to current scrutiny.

3/. Linking Elst only to 'Hindutva ideology' is false. In fact, The Trautmann quotes have addressed this very issue and again, Elst theories stand up to currrent scrutiny. If you attack Talaegri and Elst, you attack Harvard professors Witzel and the like, since he has been in public debate with them. That is demonstraitve of their credibility.

4/. Guptas theory on the Indus Sarasvati civilization is Vedic = Harrapan and indigenous aryan. Unless there is a significant pushing back of the dates for the origin of the Indo- languages, this effectively supports OIT.

The excessive edit is therfore unnecessary and misleading, although I will bear in mind some of the points raised.

Does anyone have anything on B.B. Lal? He is another VERY well respected archeologist and historian who I am quite sure supports OIT.

Flameoffire 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

  • 1: wrong. it doesn't get any truer if you just keep repeating it.
  • 2: Talageri is a Bombay(?) bank employee with no academic background whatsoever.
  • 3: Elst isn't (necessarily) a "Hindutva supporter". He is an expert on Hindutva in the sense that he wrote his PhD about it. That's what expertisee he can bring into this debate. His gist is that Hindutvavadis are generally nice guys if you get to know them, and hey, cut them some slack, maybe we can rephrase their theories so they don't sound quite so kooky. I don't doubt that, but it's hardly relevant here.
  • 4. "Indigenous Aryans" isn't a concept that even has a well-defined meaning any more than say "Black Egypt". It's not a scholarly topic. The (fringy) hypothesis that Indo-Aryan was spoken in Mature Harappan civilization is unrelated to OIT (neither necessary, nor sufficient).

Anybody at all who says things about "indigenous Aryans" is "VERY well respected" (and probably "eminent") in certain circles. That's practically a tautology. I am sure that if I compiled a blog in support of OIT, I would receive the epithet "eminent Swiss scholar" overnight. Sure, we can cite Lal if he says anything about OIT (as opposed to "Harappan Aryans", see point 4). --dab (𒁳) 12:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


It is quite clear to anyone that has done even a tiny bit of research into this area that the indiginious aryan concept against the migrational aryan concept is where the main scholarly debate is happening. Your ignorance on this issue is of course the type of thing that needs to be overcome if wiki is to have schoalry refelction rather than amateureist POV, which basically summarises most of your contribution, to put it politely. If you really believe what you just wrote (which I doubt, even you will surely have read enough abouty the subject to know what the main gist is), then I suggest you do more reading, starting perhaps with Trautmann, as he seem to be the consensus arbitrator on all this.

I fail to see any connection to fictional 'theories' such as 'Black Egyption'. 'Black Egyption' would seem to me as ludicrous as 'blonde aryan'. Both are primarily socio-political constructs that have demonstratably no basis in reality, aside from idiotic and desperate 'white nationalist' or 'black nationalist' groups. Of course some may argure that that the 'Pharoes were black as evidence by the hidden cites of Africa' or that the 'aryans were blonde, originating in Atlantis', but thankfully any such junk or historical foolishness as a basis for a false sense of 'nationalism' has been stamped out largely for the last 50 years in the face of all percievable evidence.

There is indeed a real scholalry and ongoing debate about the origin of the 'arya'. To what extent does it even represent a people, as opposed to a religious usage? IF a people are identified, whether indingenous to India, Iran, Anatolia or central Asian Kazakstan, at least if historical evidence can be analysed and done so in a spirit of historical accuracy, we will be on our way to answering some of these questions.

Flameoffire 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

don't we just love being accused of being "amateurish" by people who cannot write a straight sentence without multiple misspellings. I also suppose Fof is a sock of Watch844 (seriously, how likely is it that we get two editors at once who accuse us of ignorance on the academic notion of "indiginious" Aryans (who no doubt invaded Central Asia making use of nucular propulsion). --dab (𒁳) 12:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


Who is 'we'? You seem to be isolated in your specific interpretations. As such, I would not be surpised if you are a sock of 1 or two of others here, surely no more than 1 or 2 could be so clueless? Let me understand, are you making the ridiulous assertion that you are NOT an amateur? (Chuckle). Do not complement yourself by trying to say I am 'accusing you'. I am not accusing you of anything. I am making a quite clearly factual observation.

Many Scholars are indeed in support of the thoery that the Aryans originated in Kazakstan or Anatolia, and I accept this fully. We know that people from this region historically entered Europe on the western front, but the possibilty remains that this historical movement from Central Asia and Anatolia into Europe was part of a first wave that had its origins in Iran or India. There is nothing unusual about this hypothesis in the slightest, which you might realise had you actually read any current scholarship (which I am increasingly doubtful of).

If you are indeed not in pure support of a POV, then I would like to see you make the same effort that you seem to enjoy in waffling disjointed statements to find the work you mentioned by B.B. Lal.

Flameoffire 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Who is 'we'? -- you have been reverted by several veteran editors. Now would be a time to (a) familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy, (b) familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia Manual of Style, (c) familiarize yourself with actual expert literature on the topic, (d) start using a spellchecker, and (e) note the "FAQ" at the head of this page, which should pretty much answer all you are trying to do here. As for "current scholarship", everybody would be grateful if you could cite how this hypothesis is "not unusual". Historically, there has been wave after wave of population movements into India. The only known movement out of India towards Central Asia was that of the Gypsies (probably as refugees from Mamluk expansion ... wait for it ... into India). Occam's razor says that the more unusual your claims, the more compelling your evidence will need to be. It is obviously a blatant Occam-violation to postulate that the while all expansions or conquests across the Hindukush in historical times happened to be towards India, the last expansion predating the setting in of historical sources just so happened to exceptionally go in the other direction. --dab (𒁳) 14:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

>>We know that people from [Kazakstan or Anatolia] historically entered Europe on the western front
Umm. So, what's the other option? Walk across the Atlantic? Naah. Only OIT proponents can work those miracles. -- Fullstop 15:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

he is proposing an I-E phylogeny of Aryan+"Anatolo-European", as opposed to Indo-Hittite (Anatolian+Indo-European). Oh wait, Indo-Iranian is much closer to Greek than Greek to Hittite. Case closed: it's a one-liner :) Of course, we cannot expect every editor to have a clue, which is precisely why WP:SYN and WP:NOR are policy. --dab (𒁳) 16:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Europeans think that they created the world they cannot bear to think that a 'stupid' country like india is land of origin. India is the most ancient land. There is neither Aryan nor Dravidian. We are one race. Vande mataram —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svr5494 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 76.199...'s addition

moved content added by 76.199.8.45 from article to here. Doldrums 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased and twists genetic studies by picking and choosing only those genetic studies that support the AIT/Migration theory.

why is there no reference to genetic studies and papers from Journals that have concluded quite the opposite of AIT/migration ?

For example, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems quote many references that concludes the opposite, that any Aryan invasion/migration had taken place. (I do not know if quoting part of paper by Chaubey constitutes copyright violation as long as I give credit to him). Chaubey on the other hand does discredit OIT as well as you correctly quoted, just because it suits your agenda.

Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Mait Metspalu, Toomas Kivisild, Richard Villems, Peopling of South Asia: investigating the caste-tribe continuum in India, BioEssays, Volume 29, Issue 1 , Pages 91 - 100, 2 Dec 2006(Below is given quote from this paper)

Certain genetic variants were found to be shared among Indian and European populations. However, subsequent studies using more representative sample sizes and, importantly, a higher level of molecular resolution, have established that, even though Indian and West Eurasian populations share a common genetic ancestry in late Pleistocene, gene flow into India during the period of the proposed Aryan invasion has been minimal.(15,17,18,52) As yet the evidence is equivocal and there is no genetic signal for a major genetic component associated either with the spread of Indo-Aryan languages or the caste system within India.(53)

The uniparentally inherited non-recombining haploid Y chromosome is a widely used marker for assessing the origins of populations along the paternal descent line.(66) Most Indian communities trace their origin back along the male ‘gothra’ or clan, which is often the basis of endogamous marriage networks. It is notable that the gothra system exists in caste as well as in tribal populations. The majority of Y gene pool of South Asia contains haplogroups C, H, J, R1a, R2, L, and O2a (Fig. 1b).(18,22) The high STR variance and widespread nature in Indian subcontinent of haplogroups C5, F*, H,R2 and L1 has usually been considered of indicative to their indigenous origins in the subcontinent.(64) A few studies have suggested haplogroup R1a, with its wide geographic spread including Eastern Europe and Central Asia, as a potential marker of the Indo-Aryan invasion that introduced the caste system to India, as the frequency of this haplogroup was found to be specifically higher among the caste groups.(21,50,58) Several other papers, however, have argued against such a simple, essentially single alpha-male lineage initiated migration scenario, which receives no significant support from the maternally-inherited gene tree.(22,64) The higher variance of STRs in the Indian R1a lineages as compared to those from Central Asia further weakens such a scenario, implying a strong founder effect.(18)However, the current lack of sufficient SNPmarker resolution makes it difficult to infer the geographic origin of haplogroup R1a. The high frequency and STR diversity of haplogroup R2 in Indians corroborates its Indian origin.(18,22,64) It has also been reported in Iran and Central Asia(50,67) with marginal frequency, which more likely suggests a recent migration from India. It is present at high frequency (53%) among Gypsies of Uzbekistan, known to have historically migrated out from India.(50) Interestingly, this haplogroup is absent or infrequent among Gypsies of Europe whose predominant Y chromosome haplogroup is H.(68) Haplogroup O2 spread is characteristic mostly of the Austro- Asiatic speaking populations of India and South East Asia. The predominance of the O haplogroup and its sublineages in populations of Eastern and Central Indian suggest a SE Asian origin of Indian Austro-Asiatic and Tibeto-Burman speakers, with the latter being likely very recent immigrants.(63)

15. Kivisild T, Bamshad MJ, Kaldma K, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, et al. 1999a. Deep common ancestry of Indian and western-Eurasian mitochondrial DNA lineages. Curr Biol 9:1331–1334.

17. Kivisild T, Papiha SS, Rootsi S, Parik J, Kaldma K, et al. 2000. An Indian Ancestry: A Key for Understanding Human Diversity in Europe and Beyond. In: Renfrew C, Boyle K, editors. Archaeogenetics: DNA and the Population History of Europe. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp 267–275.

18. Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Mastana S, Kaldma K, et al. 2003. The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations. Am J Hum Genet 72:313–332.

21. Basu A, Mukherjee N, Roy S, Sengupta S, Banerjee S, et al. 2003. Ethnic India: A genomic view, with special reference to peopling and structure. Genome Res 13:2277–2290.

22. Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximi T, et al. 2006. A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:843–848.

50. Wells RS, Yuldasheva N, Ruzibakiev R, Underhill PA, Evseeva I, et al. 2001. The Eurasian heartland: a continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:10244–10249.

52. Metspalu M, Kivisild T, Metspalu E, Parik J, Hudjashov G, et al. 2004. Most of the extant mtDNA boundaries in South and Southwest Asia were likely shaped during the initial settlement of Eurasia by anatomically modern humans. BMC Genet 5:26.

53. Endicott P, Metspalu M, Kivisild T. 2006. Genetic evidence on modern human dispersals in South Asia: Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA perspectives. In: Petraglia MD, Bridget A, editors. The Evolution and History of Human Populations in South Asia. SpringerLink publication (in press).

58. Majumder PP. 2001. Ethnic populations of India as seen from an evolutionary perspective; J Biosci 26:533–545.

64. Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, Edmonds CA, et al. 2006. Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of central asian pastoralists. Am J Hum Genet 78:202–221.

66. Jobling MA, Tyler-Smith C. 2003. The human Y chromosome: an evolutionary marker comes of age. Nat Rev Genet 4:598–612.

67. Cinnioglu C, King R, Kivisild T, Kalfoglu E, Atasoy S, et al. 2004. Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in Anatolia. Hum Genet 114:127–148.

68. Gresham D, Morar B, Underhill PA, Passarino G, Lin AA, et al. 2001. Origins and divergence of the Roma (gypsies). Am J Hum Genet 69:1314–1331

please do not re-add this material unmodified to the article as it breaches Wikipedia's content guidelines in several ways. instead, pls discuss here what parts are appropriate and what modifications are needed before adding it to the article. i'll point out some obvious problems with the edit as it stands, to begin with,
  1. discussions about the contents of the article ("This article is extremely biased and twists genetic studies..") should not be carried out in the article.
  2. it includes a lengthy quote from a paper by Chaubey. this paper needs to be fully identified.

Doldrums 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to the part in bold. The part containing R1a haplogroup. I think you have mentioned in your article that presence of R1a1 haplogroup in Indians somehow shows that AIT and/or migration has happened. While Chaubey's paper shows that there are varied opinions among scholars in the field of Genetics regarding the same. I request you to append the article on Physical anthropolgy or better still is try to contact a scholar and ask their opinion on this. You may send invitations to some Scholars working in this area to write an article or append your article in the corresponding section. After a cursory reading of the paper, I think scholars decide both ways in this regard.

The following website gives contact details of these scholars.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114030416/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

Gyaneshwer Chaubey 1 *, Mait Metspalu 1, Toomas Kivisild 1 2, Richard Villems 1 1Department of Evolutionary Biology, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Tartu and Estonian Biocentre, Tartu, Estonia 2Leverhulme Centre of Human Evolutionary Studies, The Henry Wellcome Building, University of Cambridge, UK email: Gyaneshwer Chaubey (gyanc@ebc.ee)

  • Correspondence to Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Tartu University and Estonian Biocentre, Riia 23, Tartu, 51010, Estonia.

this article is about a linguistic hypothesis. Detailed discussion of archaeogenetics goes to Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. The connection of R1a1 with PIE expansion is tenuous. Clearly, R1a1 is somehow correlated to IE distribution, but neither R1a1 => IE nor IE => R1a1 holds true. --dab (𒁳) 10:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me quote your own statement. The article is not merely about linguistics. Why does a article on linguistics still twist archaeogenetics section in favor of an invasion theory ? Your own statement in the article betrays your political motivations.

"Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true."

Obviously the above statement is twisting genetic data to suit your political stand on this issue. Update the section properly and don not mislead readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.12.101 (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense, I have no political motivation. You're confusing the issue. This is about the spread of languages. Obviously, for languages to spread, there must be contact between populations. Genetics and archaeology is relevant as long as used to discuss the plausibility of such contacts. "OIT" is a much, much stronger claim that merely "there was no invasion". I am completely open towards genetic evidence that there may or may not have been a Bronze Age "invasion" of India, or whether R1a1 is connected to PIE expansion. You know what, how about you spend some time reading the article and past discussions, and the text of your own posting. What you should have boldened is "there is no genetic signal for a major genetic component associated either with the spread of Indo-Aryan languages or the caste system". This means that genetics at present tells us nothing. Consequently, variation of R1 and R2 in Indian populations while very interesting really has no impact whatsoever on this topic and belongs in a genetics article. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I did not say OIT is true. Clearly it is reactionary on your part. I have already said that OIT is clearly false as per the paper I cited. Go and read my post first. Anybody can see reading your article and the discussions here that both the nationalists and the author(s) have political motive. There is no real objectivity here. You have not answered my question yet regarding twisting genetic studies to highlight only those that support you political aspirations, have not updated the part on genetics even after citing papers published in scientific journals that was quote by you also, and have deleted my update on the article which runs to just two lines with one sentence. If this does not show your political bias then what does ? You guys need to be exposed for your intellectual dishonesty in the name of academics.

You said: "What you should have boldened is "there is no genetic signal for a major genetic component associated either with the spread of Indo-Aryan languages or the caste system". This means that genetics at present tells us nothing."

If genetics tell us nothing as per your statement, then why does your article contain the following statement that invasion hypothesis is supported by genetics.

"Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true."

Clearly the above statement in your article is biased and politically motivated, as even you agreed that genetics provide nothing.

Second, genetics does provide some data against the invasion hypothesis. If you read properly the paper, you will see that genetic data shows that invasion did not take place. Read the part in bold where it says that maternally-inherited genetic tree and high STR variance in R1a lineages weakens the hypotheis that invasion had taken place. This means that invasion did not take place atleast in large scale as hypothesised by early overzealous christian scholars like Muller and now parroted by others like Witzel and co., including the authors here.

Genetics cannot prove that an invasion did or did not not take place, since an 'invasion' may mean mean different things. Can genetics prove that the Romans never invaded Britain? There is almost no evidence of Italian genetic influence in Britain, but the fact is that the Roman invasion did take place, whatever genetics may seem to imply. However, you are right that the section as currently written priveliges Spencer Wells' views at the expense of those of other legitimate geneticists. So, what rephrasing do you suggest? Paul B 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Romans in Britain? That's too far away. Let's try home base instead. It hasn't occurred to these blog-warriors that the "evidence" that they think establishes what they want to have established, also establishes on precisely the same grounds that the subcontinent was not "invaded" by Greeks or Huns or... wait for it... Muslims. rudra 02:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This whole section needs to be summarized into a few sentences. Right now it's a collection of bafflegab and disjointed technobabble on haplogroups and the like, not any of which, even if sense could be made of it, would be relevant to the time frame of OIT anyway ("deep ancestry" starts at 10kya or more, sheesh.) As such, the "issue" is migrations within a time frame where it makes sense to speak of an IE language family, and so far we have no reliable secondary source to tell us what light, if any, these research papers in genetics shed on that. rudra 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the author(s) are still adamant about keeping their AIT/Migration theory being supported by genetics. If genetics cannot confirm anything regarding so calle dinvasion/migration why is the following sentence still existent in the section. I will quote the statement here again.

"Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true."

As far as AIT/migration is concerned, it is not like Greek invasion or invasion by huns etc. AIT/migration states that Aryans settled in India and imposed their culture unlike Greeks. The case of Muslims is also different which is recent phenomenon and well documented history is available, unlike wild conjectures made regarding the so called AIT/migration. Unlike Islam, Vedic civilization spread to every corner in sub-continent and has been there for atleast 3500 years, which is a long time for Aryans to spread their genes. Genetic data shows no sign of such invasion. Rudra's argument is pathetic at best, with ad-homenim attacks. AIT/migration states that so called Aryans settled in India from somewhere outside India and imposed caste system etc. If Aryans settled in India, then there should obviously be some effect in genetics. Present genetics clearly demolishes AIT/migration as false. It is very clear that the author(s) and supporters of AIT/migration clearly have political motive just like their predecessors(Muller etc.).

"So, what rephrasing do you suggest? Paul B 21:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)"Paul

The author(s) have been removing my paraphrasing continuously. Obviously author(s) seem(s) to be extremely biased and politically motivated too.

since you insist on posting lengthy sermons of tenuous relevance here, could you not at least sign your posts? The "Aryans" whom you expect to "spread their genes" are an ethno-linguistic group, who as likely as not by 1000 BC could claim genetic "indigeneity" to 96%. The crucial bit is the "Aryanization" of NW Pakistan (Gandhara) around 1700 BC. How many people did that take? 20,000? India at the time had maybe a total population of 5 million. Dilute the "Gandharan Aryans" to "every corner in sub-continent", and I'm not surprised the "non-indigenous" component isn't noticeable any more 3,500 years later. 20,000 diluted in 5 million gives you 99.6% "indigenous Aryans", or 96% even assuming that "invaders" bred ten times more successfully. This simple calculation goes to show that your genetic argument is void, and that there is a reason we are asking you not to synthetize your own conclusions. dab (𒁳) 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is the case, it still does not make sense as to why the article uses genetic study and twists it by not giving complete statement about it. It still does not explain why the article contains the following statement as though genetics supports AIT.

"Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true."

It is obviously misleading the readers.

In addition the whole section on archaeogenetics becomes irrelevant as it provides nothing of value regarding AIT/migration hypothesis. The entire section must be rephrased or removed, particularly the statement quoted above must be removed. Obviously auhtor(s) here do not want to do that instead involve themselves in needless arguments showing how biased the academia is these days. Quit beating around the bush and answer why the above quoted statement is there in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.12.101 (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the archaeogenetics section needs to be there since people inevitably will bring the question of genetics up. The usability is limited, however, since genetics generally give little support either for or against prehistoric migrations (unless we are talking of the first peopling of the continents, of course). Consequently, there is no reason to argue that genetics disproves the standard theory of an immigration of Indo-Arians into India.--Berig 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to underestimate you, 76.199 (which appears to be rather difficult anyway), the quote you object to is not in Wikipedia's voice. It is in quote marks, and clearly attributed to Wells (2002:167), which is a publication in a peer-reviewed genetics journal. We also quote genetics studies who claim there is no evidence either way. I am agnostic as to which view is correct. --dab (𒁳) 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Still it does not make sense as to why only one study is quoted(even if wells quotes it) which supports the AIT/Migration theory and no alternative viewpoints on genetics is included. It is clear that the author(s) as well as wikipedia is biased in its opinion and thus chooses only those studies which support its conjecture and political motivation. An objective article clearly does not misrepresent like this.

Why did Wikipedia not give quotes which state just the opposite, that archaeogenetics infact does not provide any data in favor of AIT/migration either ? Anybody with a neutral stand on this issue can clearly see that this is obviously biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.243.51 (talk) 19:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidently genetic support of the AIT which the quoted section refers to, and I think that support is the best we can hope for when talking of migrations in this time span. However, I am quite sure that few would remove a quote from a comparably reliable mainstream source that said otherwise. Note that ideas about what constitutes "evidence" is a highly subjective matter especially in controversial issues.--Berig 20:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
no genetic studies supporting OIT are quoted because there are none, it's as simple than that. Name one and we'll include it. --dab (𒁳) 20:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Relax Dab, I have not said otherwise.--Berig 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I know, sorry for the extra indent, I was of course addressing the anon :) dab (𒁳) 06:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In other words Wikipedia subscribes to particular subjective views that is in harmony with its political motives and/or religious motives and does not give a damn about facts, even when pointed out that genetic data does not prove in favor of or against AIT/migration. That tells a lot about Wikipedia with regard to this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.243.51 (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy stipulates that we refer to reliable scholarly publications, which this article does. If you disagree with the article you have to present reliable scholarly publications that support your point of view.--Berig 04:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you people at Wikipedia ? I have already quoted from a peer reviewed Journal with so many references and the entire discussion was based on the paper on Genetics, which clearly says that Genetic data does not support AIT/Migration hypothesis. Yet as I have already quoted a million times from your article, which concludes the opposite taking only those Journal papers that support your point of view and political bias.

My question is even after quoting from peer reviewed Journals that shows clearly that genetic data does not support AIT/Migration, why the article still misleading readers as though genetic data is supporting AIT/Migration ?

The argument that only few people(10,000) were needed to subdue an urban population as vast as Harrapa is nonsense. AIT/Migration theory says that Aryans subdued local population and took over India. This obviously is disproved by modern genetic studies which I have already quoted.

Even if you disagree with the argument, Why did Wikipedia remove my addition to article consistently which brings in balanced view according to papers published in peer reviewed Journals ?

I am convinced Wikipedia is run by bunch of christian missionaries or binch of internet goons in the form of so called scholars etc. Here is my quote which was removed. It contains references to scholarly publications and yet this was removed by goons posing themselves as scholars in wikipedia.

At the same time other studies have shown that maternally-inherited gene tree [12] and the higher variance of STRs in the Indian R1a lineages as compared to those from Central Asia[13] further weakens the hypothesis of an invasion of people.

12. Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximi T, et al. (2006), “A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios.”, Proc Natl Acad Sci 103: 843–848 , Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, Edmonds CA, et al. (2006), “Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of central asian pastoralists.”, Am J Hum Genet 78: 202–221 .

13. Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Mastana S, Kaldma K, et al. (2003), “The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations.”, Am J Hum Genet 72: 313–332 .

You are addressing Indo-Aryan migration into India, only tenuously related to the claim of an out of India migration. Thus, the argument you are trying to make belongs on another article. And even on another article, it would be WP:SYN to translate "minor genetic influence of Central Asian pastoralists" to "further [sic] weakens the hypothesis of an invasion of people". This has been patiently pointed out to you about five times over now. At this point, I think we'll have to assume that you do not want to understand. Re "I am convinced Wikipedia is run by bunch of christian missionaries or binch of internet goons in the form of so called scholars etc.", way to go, Mr. anon. Towards a block that is. I maintain WP:DFTT now applies. dab (𒁳) 15:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ha..After clearly proving you are wrong with respect to genetic evidence in favor of AIT/Migration hypothesis, you are further presenting direct quotes from published papers as WP:SYN. Remember all my statements are direct quotes from papers published in peer reviewed journals and thus your contention of WP:SYN is completely wrong. The evidence I have provided clearly shows that genetics does not support AIT or Indo-Aryan migration. Yet you would like to present it otherwise as though I am making up conclusions by myself inspite of quoting directly those conclusions from published papers. Indology is/was an Indian culture bashing field and will continue to remain so as Max Muller revealed his original intentions in his letters and his followers continue to do so to maintain their status co, else their religio-political motivations and economic motivations be lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.6.179 (talk) 03:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

you didn't actually pay any attention to anything I said, did you. --dab (𒁳) 11:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Kishore patnaik speaks:

This is circular. On one hand, you say scholarly recognition can not be demonstrated by press releases, yet you are discussing your point on the basis on a press release. Where are the hard facts, the research, the proof, the undisputed evidence for AIT or into the India theories? NONE. All the scholarly articles, seminars, discussions and whatever else that there may be are full of conjectures, mixed with intellectual arrogance of " I know it all, I dont need to prove it"

No doubt, out of India theories is not proved conclusively, but the so called over whelming evidence against is mere myth. There is no evidence against that either.

So far as DNA proof is concerned, just change the markers, buddy! It is no secret that you would land up with just the opposite conclusions. The markers are chosen as per the conclusions !!!!!!!!!!!!!


Kishore patnaik —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFD (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] there too?

This talk section has been moved to the article that was being discussed, i.e. 'Talk:dasa -- Fullstop 17:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neutrality comment

comment in article[10] moved here:

The neutrality of this article is debatable, since it concentrates more on "Why the Out of Inida " theory is wrong instead of What the theory actually is and based on what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.65.186.61 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 October 2007

Doldrums 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

yes. this is because there isn't in fact anything that would support the "theory" -- don't shoot the messenger. --dab (𒁳) 11:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is the worst written article. The whole article is in itself "Criticism section" with quotes and blockquotes and all. dab, your reasoning is not a reason, it is your opinion. if a messenger said, "what i am going to say is crap, it is so crap that this and that... and don't shoot me because the message has no fact in it", the messenger will be shot. Instead of quoting the proponents who propose this theory, this article quotes those who oppose it. Ideally it should have been in Criticism section, but you and your revert happy cabal has turned history of India section into a way to showel your original research. Don't worry I will not edit this article.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 19:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
no, but I encourage you to Afd it: the "theory", as you say, has absolutely no merit at all, and we only even have this sorry excuse for an article on it because pov-pushers insisted on discussing it. It is unnotable. It is pseudoscience. What can you say about a theory that doesn't have a single academic proponent? By rights, it should be deleted, and a short paragraph on it should be placed in the Koenraad Elst and the Hindutva articles. If you think afd still works well enough to delete an article that should be deleted in spite of ideologist trolling, feel free to list it and see what happens. dab (𒁳) 10:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
in fact, it should not be deleted. It should be redirected to Koenraad Elst in order to preserve the editing history. If you like, you can propose that. It would be difficult to oppose that suggestion, because there is really nothing to see here. dab (𒁳) 11:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann you are a POV-pusher whose attitude personally disgusts me. As I look through the history of this article there were plenty of contributors who added information from various authors, not just Elst and always attributed it to these authors. It was balanced, but you seem to have scared these authors away and now you and your biased opinion is suggesting that a valid page be AFD'd simply because you do not agree with it. You seem to be respected amongst the wikicommunity so I'm considering that your attitude on this article is simply a blemish on a good record. Please act like the reasonable person you can be. Darrowen (talk) 04:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC) I think there are numerous pages in the history of the page which better represent the theory than Dab's whitewashing. Please look through the history to pages around December-January 2006-2007. Like this version had loads of information which was rejected because apparently it was written by authors that don't deserve a mention. But the OIT is a fringe theory and fringe authors are the only ones who have anything good to say about it, so surely their say should be considered in an encyclopaedia. Darrowen (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am emphatically an anti-pov-pusher. See also Wikipedia:Sword-skeleton theory. The section you link to is a valid discussion of speculations as to the origins of the Avesta and ancient Iranian peoples: this is entirely an Iron Age topic (not even Bronze Age, let alone PIE), and has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic of "out of India". The argument linking Iron Age Iran with "OIT" is Talageri's. Who remains named as a proponent. The upshot is, Voice-of-India style "OIT" is a "theory" endorsed by a Flemish crypto-fascist freelance pamphleteer (Elst, who, to be fair, does not "endorse" it, he merely "considers the possibility" in great detail, tongue firmly in cheek), a Bombay autodidact (Talageri) and a Greek Yoga teacher (Kazanas). And, of course, a tag-team of fanatical Hindu nationalists on Wikipedia. And yet Wikipedia dedicates a lengthy and contorted article to it. Enough said. dab (𒁳) 09:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Is that your response to everything? Calling everyone "fascist"? And what is this Wikipedia person you talk about? "Wikipedia" does not "dedicate" anything to anyone, editors do. Do you really have a problem with the fact that many more people edit something than those editing something else?
I have a simple view: Fringe as it may be, if it has an article, the article needs to talk about it. It should not talk solely about how much fringe it is. Right now the whole article looks like a rebuttal of the theory. If rebuttal is important, create an article for that. I am happy by having a criticism section! If Elst is a lunatic, who cares? He said something and this article is about that thing. Talking about Elst or "how much content this theory has" is nothing but POV. If Elst said, 'sun comes from east so OIT is the only truth', THIS article needs to mention it. They are the people proposing this theory, if the article about theory will not talk about it, what will? This article is not about the absolute truth, this article is about the theory, fringe or not.--æn↓þæµß¶-ŧ-¢(I prefer replying to each other's talk pages.) 03:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Anupam,
Neutral Point of View allows minority views to "receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them," such as Out of India theory;
however, Neutral Point of View also stipulates that such pages "must make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view".
In other words, Neutral Point of View requires that the article talk about how fringe the Out of India theory is.
JFD (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
That's all fine, but the first part of your comment is still not fulfilled properly. The entire page is devoted to how much rubbish is being spawned out of the mouths of yoga teachers and fanatics and doesn't even try to properly state the nature of the rubbish and the supposed evidence that is being put forward. Instead of this article showing what evidence has been put forward and then showing why this evidence is disregarded by the mainstream, some editors just delete the evidence. Darrowen (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Errors in Items Not Found in Rig-veda

There are two major errors in the section entitled Items Not Found in the Rig Veda: The first is that the nakshatras are in the Rig-veda, and the second is that rice is also mentioned in the Rig-veda. Nakshatras

The Rig-veda describes the moon’s path as divided into 27 equal parts, although the moon takes about 27 1/3 days to complete it. Each of these parts was called a nakshatra. Specific stars or asterisms were also termed nakshatras, and they are mentioned in the Rig-veda and Taittirıya Samhita, the latter specifically saying that they are linked to the moon’s path. The Rig-vedic reference to 34 lights apparently means the sun, the moon, the five planets, and the 27 nakshatras. In later literature the list of nakshatras was increased to 28. Constellations other than the nakshatras were also known; these include the Riksias (the Bears), the two divine Dogs (Canis Major and Canis Minor), and the Boat (Argo Navis). Rice With regard to the rice, the Rigveda clearly refers to certain culinary preparations made from rice: apUpa and puroLNS (varieties of rice-cakes) and odana (rice-gruel).

These are referred to in the following verses:

ApUpa: III. 52.1, 7; VIII. 91.2; X. 45.9. PuroLAS: I. 162.3; III. 28.1-6; 41.3; 52.2-6, 8; IV. 24.5; 32.16; VI. 23.7; VII. 18.6;

Odana: VIII. 69.14; 77.6, 10. Gill (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Gill HarleyGill (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

apUpa is a bread or honeycomb; puroDAs is a cake; odana is a gruel. All are made from grain. odana was later associated with rice (mainly due to grhya rituals) but that it means a rice preparation in the Rgveda is not clear. (But yes, Griffith took it to be such.) rudra (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The word nakshatra occurs in the Rgveda, with a meaning divided between "star" and "constellation". The so-called "lunar mansions" do not occur in the Rgveda. This is well known, and random breezy speculations on the number 34 by known kooks should not be confused with facts. rudra (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About a Bibliographic Reference

The paper on Indian genome variation was turned down for publication by Nature Genetics. From http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Apr262008/scroll2008042664769.asp?section=updatenews "But despite being a “historic project”, the findings were reported in the Journal of Genetics published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, instead of high-profile international journals. Nature Genetics rejected the paper after three rounds of anonymous peer-review.

The editors argued that the findings did not bring any “conceptual advance” in knowledge, said Samir K Brahmachari, project coordinator and director general of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research. The Indian journal accepted the findings within seven days of submission while for other papers published, it varies between a few months and a couple of years." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.96.226.84 (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voltaire, eh

[11] so the list of eminent advocates of OIT includes Voltaire, Einstein and Elst we learn. The Kurgan model is, of course, "now defunct", and was proposed was "racist views by western academics" in the first place (apparently a racist Ukrainian nationalist conspiracy subverting US academia).

This is so old it is moving past flogging a dead horse, to flogging an empty spot on the ground where you have been told a dead horse has once been found. Although Einstein and Voltaire are new to this, I think. It would have been difficult for Voltaire to hold any opinion on Indo-European origins except posthumously, via a spiritist medium, Jones' observation of the relation of Sanskrit and Greek having not been published before several years after his death. I am not aware Einstein has ever dabbled in historical linguistics, but I'll be happy to include a reference to his views, if any.

Please review the history of this talkpage. dab (𒁳) 10:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)