Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

please

• Hindu Wisdom - Aryan Invasion Theory.

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

Dab, I am quoting an section from Kazanas (A new date for Rigveda page 5) who is quoting T Burrow (1973) a pro AIT scholar

"Burrow says, “Vedic is a language which in most respects is more archaic and less altered from original Indo-European than any other member of the family” (34: emphasis added); he also states that root nouns, “very much in decline in the earliest recorded Indo-European languages”, are preserved better in Sanskrit, and later adds, “Chiefly owing to its antiquity the Sanskrit language is more readily analysable, and its roots more easily separable from accretionary elements than … any other IE language” (123, 289). This being the case, Vedic is much older than Hittite"

Second quote is from Kazanas article (Addendum to AIT and Schorship page 7) quoting H. Hock (1999 ‘Out of India? The linguistic evidence’ in Bronkhorst J & Deshpande M(eds) Aryan & Non-Aryan in South Asia... HOS Opera Minora vol 3, Camb Mass.) to effect that on linguistic ground Hock has no objection to OIT.

"On p 14 he gives Fig 1, the genetic table of the IE branches, which is generally accepted. On p 15 is Fig 2, the isoglosses - an area full of quick-sand uncertainties. On p 16 he states that if the model in Fig 1 is accepted, then the hypothesis of an Out-of-India migration would be "relatively easy to maintain"."

Both these quotes show that leading linguistic experts in current time frame don't object to OIT on linguistic groundsSbhushan 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

you will note that the "This being the case, Vedic is much older than Hittite" is from Kazanas, not Burrow. Now I don't know who you're calling a "leading linguistic expert" here. You can quote Kazanas for whatever he is worth, but the proposition that "Vedic is much older than Hittite" is so patently ridiculous that you will have a hard time alleging that he is an expert of anything. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Does being a yoga teacher automatically discredit someone? This is response to dab's edit summary.Bakaman _Bakatalk 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

no, it suggests someone is particularly competent in questions regarding Yoga. My comment referred to the description of Kazanas as a "Sanskrit professor", while I have found no evidence that he is an academic. This is the same sort of thing as perpetually referring to whoever supports your pet view as "eminent scholar" and the like. dab (ᛏ) 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I note from his article that Kazanas published a few articles in JIES. It is of course perfectly fair to quote and discuss those: I didn't remove the link to his article, I corrected the description of Kazanas as a "Sanskrit professor". It will be a relief if we can reach a level where we discuss stuff published in JIES in comparison to Frawley and friends. dab (ᛏ) 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab leading linguistic I refer to are T Burrow (Sanskrit being archaic comment) and HH Hock (linguistic assessment of OIT). Both of these are quoted by AIT supporters and I gave the publication and page #'s. Can you demonstarate that these statements are inaccurate or misquoted? If you cannot, then your initial issue being quote from 1780 is considered addressed and the quote should be included in article.Sbhushan 18:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

‘Out of India? The linguistic evidence in Bronkhorst J & Deshpande M(eds) Aryan & Non-Aryan in South Asia...’ is finally a serious reference! thank you Sbhushan! By all means do quote from that, no need to take the detour via Kazanas. I will look it up, and I suggest that since we finally have a reasonable source, we jettison Frawley's stuff from the article, since it only distracts from serious discussion of the idea. "Sanskrit is archaic" is a truism that is irrelevant here (so are Greek and Hittite), but your Hock reference looks promising indeed. My comment above, it goes without saying, refers to the current "linguistics" section (Mishra...), not Hock. Let's see what Hock has to say then, I am glad we finally found an academic source even recognizing there is an OIT. dab (ᛏ) 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab Burrows comment is that "Vedic is more archaic and less altered from original Indo-European than any other member of the family” is comparison to other IE languages (including Greek and Hittite). So this places Vedic closer to original IE. How can a language that is more archaic and better preserved be from latter period and be farthest from the original? I would appreciate if you can show me linguistic reference that counters Kazanas conclusion. I have been told that this article is same as the one published in JIES ((2001b). "Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda". Journal of Indo-European Studies 29: 257-93.)Sbhushan 22:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

These commeents from Burrows must stand on his own account - I don't believe they reflect the consensus of indoeuropeanists (have you seen any reconstructions of PIE words? They do not look especially vedic I can tell you), most indoeuropeanists look for ancient traits in Hittite and Baltic languages (lithuanian especially). the phrase "Better preserved" is a comment about the quantity of the material we have about sanskrit- we don't have nearly as much materiial from early hittite or any other early indoeuropean languages.Maunus 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, please see Kazanas article (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html “A new date for Rigveda, page 5, 6 and 8, and “Sanskrit and Proto-Indo-European”) for (relevance of T Burrow's comments) discussion about preservation of root nouns and comparison with other IE languages. A very interesting example (RV, page 8) is the Salvic stem for horse being “Kunji” and not the standard IE stem. This area is considered homeland for PIE by lots of “mainstream linguistic scholars”, so how is this anomaly explained?Sbhushan 01:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing disruptive sermons by WIN

I have removed WIN's attempt to turn this talk page into his platform for presenting nonsensical evidence for and against different theories. I have issued him a warning for Disruptive behavior.Maunus 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

well done. dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

ad [1], as you have been told many times now, WIN, Wikipedia is not a webhost or a discussion forum. You are, as always, welcome to cite academic sources. We are not obliged to address fishy things you drag in from somewhere on the internet, but we are obliged to address academic articles you might bring up. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobleeagle isn't "supporting the OIT", he is writing an article about it, I daresay rather on the sympathetic side, but cheers to him. He isn't spamming us with incoherent nonsense like you are, WIN, so don't try to imply that you are in any way in "his team". I am in Nobleeagle's team as long as he keeps honestly building this article. dab (ᛏ) 15:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Structure of the Article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Criticism section.

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

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

I noticed someone deleted my comments from "Please" section. I also noticed comments made by Maunus regarding linguistic details (good background on linguistic aspect) in POV section. Regarding linguistic assesment, I am quoteing section from Kazanas article (Addendum to AIT and Schorship page 7) quoting H. Hock (1999 ‘Out of India? The linguistic evidence’ in Bronkhorst J & Deshpande M(eds) Aryan & Non-Aryan in South Asia... HOS Opera Minora vol 3, Camb Mass.) to effect that on linguistic ground Hock has no objection to OIT.

"On p 14 he gives Fig 1, the genetic table of the IE branches, which is generally accepted. On p 15 is Fig 2, the isoglosses - an area full of quick-sand uncertainties. On p 16 he states that if the model in Fig 1 is accepted, then the hypothesis of an Out-of-India migration would be "relatively easy to maintain"."

This quote from leading linguistic expert in current time frame show no objection to OIT on linguistic grounds, but still insist that IA presence in India is about 1500 BC. This does not make any logical sense.Sbhushan 15:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"N. Kazanas, Shrikant G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst, D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, Edmund Leach, Jim Shaffer, Diane Lichtenstein, S.R. Rao, B. B. Lal, S. C. Kak, N. Achar to name a few" — these aren't all 'scholars'. Who is a "leading linguistic expert" here? Elst has a master's degree, I think. Frawley is a raving crackpot. Kak is a kook. Kazanas is lunatic fringe. You listed a dozen names, which is a good start, but as your list stands, it is a frightful hodge-podge of fringy academics and outright cranks, mixed with selectively-quoted bona fide scholars (and we haven't established that they all "support IA as continues culture from 5th millennium BC to 500BC in India"). OIT proposes PIE culture in 5th millennium (or whenever, with Frawley, it's more likely the Paleolithic), it doesn't propose 5th millennium Indo-Aryans (that is, an Iranian vs. Indo-Aryan split before 4000 BC), that is patent nonsense; even in the OIT scenario, that split dates to about 1900 BC. As for "Essentially the page should show what the theory is (details of theory)": there is no single OIT, the names of your list do not agree on any single theory but present a wider spectrum than found within "anti-OIT" mainstream. Elst's scenario is the only half-reasonable attempt to suggest an Indian Urheimat we have seen so far. Most other names on your list stand for completely loopy alternative views, incompatible with Elst, that do nothing but add a flavour of ridicule to the idea. If you want to discuss a second scenario, besides Elst's, you can do that, but take care to keep the authors separate, so that incompatible "OITs" don't get mixed up. dab (ᛏ) 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

seeing all this debate, i have a suggestion (which may or may not be helpful). i feel lets leave this article alone as it is somewhat compatible with the mainstream academia. Lets start a new article with Frawleys and others views, tag it as pseudoscience/propoganda or whatever, and see where it goes.nids(♂) 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

that's an excellent idea. Since we do now have a handful of references that are undoubtably academic, we can dedicate this article to their discussion. There will of course be a grey area between 'academic' and 'propaganda/pseudoscience' (I would say Talageri is sitting squat on the fence), but we do have to find a way to let the obvious nonsense distract from the valid suggestions. dab (ᛏ) 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab Please follow Wikipedia policy regarding refereing to people. Let me try to address some of the comments. Kazanas has published article in JIES and his histroy on Wikipedia shows him as Indologist and Sanskritist. If you want to quote the reference of establish scholars to back your comment please quote it, else when you write a book and publish it please get back to me. Talageri's book has been reviewed by M Witzel and the exchange between them is very visible to all. Only thing that exchange proves is that the writer is not an obscure person. When I read W's comments I am surprised by level of "Scholarship" of a Harvard proffessor.

Second question regarding "linguistic Experts", if you can demonstrate that language can exist without people and culture, please provide the link. Othewise my comment stand that language is one of the studies and all other specialities carry equal weight. It is not only about movement of language, but also movement of culture and people. It is a sad fact that over 200 years of research by linguistic studies, they can not prove their theories with factual evidence, infact hard evidence is against the theories. I am still waiting for the link to archelogical evidence.

The writers (Elst, Kazanas and Talageri) I quoted all agree that IA were present in Indian region prior to IVC. RigVeda was composed prior to IVC. Also agree that IVC is IA. Show agreement regarding Indo-Iranins being offshoot from IA in india. This can be presented in a better structure.

I have no issue with making a statement that OIT is not accepted by mainstream linguist. But OIT should be presented from OIT point of view and not as OIT is wrong and if you read this you must be evil Hindu fanatic. Nids that is the concern I have about present structure of article.Sbhushan 19:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure if any of the writers you have quoted above has agreed that IVC was IA. (I would love to know that, if its true) --nids(♂) 19:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbhushan, OIT should not be "presented from OIT point of view", it should be presented from the WP:NPOV, as documented in WP:RS. You are most welcome to discuss published publications. I hope you appreciate that we had to put up with people on this very page who would not even grasp as much as that. But, I do hope you realize that "out of India" refers to a theory of the location of the Proto-Indo-European Urheimat, and is as such inherently a linguistic theory, so you are completely mistaken that "all disciplines carry equal weight". What came "out of India" in this scenario were the Proto-Indo-Europeans, not Indo-Aryans. Indo-Aryans and Vedic texts etc. didn't evolve in PIE times, but after the split of Proto-Indo-Iranian, which happened around 2000 BC even in an OIT framework. I don't know why your post has "RigVeda was composed prior to IVC" since that is pure nonsense while you make good sense otherwise. dab (ᛏ) 19:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Nids, pleae see K Elst "5.5. The Evidence from Comparative Religion section - 5.5.3 Harappan and Vedic fire cult" (http://www.voi.org/books/ait/ch55.htm#112a) in addition to other evidence, a key comment is:

“the famous Harappan seal depicting the so-called Pashupati (Shiva as Lord of Beasts), long considered proof that the Shiva cult is indigenous and non-Aryan. It is found to have a neat counterpart, to the detail, in the horned god Cernunnos surrounded by animals (largely similar ones and in the same order as on the Pashupati seal) on the Celtic Gundestrup cauldron made in central Europe sometime in the last centuries BC. “

I am trying to compile data from Elst, Kazanas, and Talageri together for common case and will provide more details later. If you are interested to do some research look up these writers. They provide data in a balanced non-religious manner with good research and backup information.Sbhushan 01:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Two small points. The link you provided does not say IVC was IA. Infact, Shiva is not an Aryan god per AMT but just a dravidian god.

secondly, on an unrelated note, the biggest hurdle that you will face for proposing OIT is Horses, As horses are not indigeneous to India. (Probably a 3000 BC chariot found in IVC sites would change that). Also remeber that horses were important for vedic aryans but have not been found on IVC seals. (though there are unicorns).nids(♂) 11:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nids, your are exactly right, As pre AMT, Shiva/Pashupati is not IA entity. So how is the presence of same entity explained in Celtic branch of family? That shows that AMT assumption has to be wrong. On Second point about horses and chariot, Kazanas (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html AIT and scholarship page 4) “S Bokonyi, who actually does accept that horse-remains were found at Surkotada” In another link the dating of horse bones by Bokonyi is about 2400 BC well before mainstream date of 1500 BC. (SR Rao who is a famous Indian archeologist has also provided archeological evidence for horse remains in IVC sites, but it seems that does not count). The horse issue based on all presented facts should be dead by now, but it still exists somehow. In same document from Kazanas on same page “the assumption that Ratha in Rigveda is same as Chariot of later 2000 BC model is discussed and shown to be wrong assumption by AMT. In another Kazanas document (I am trying to find links) is shown that the ratha in Rigveda is mostly used by gods and has only once 2 wheels mostly 4, 3 or 1.

Also, horse bones have not been found extensively in either BMAC or Hastinapur, but some how that does not bother AMT. Earliest chariots found in Indian region are around 300 BC, so what were IA using from 1500 BC till then?Sbhushan 14:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I am providing verifiable references for all my suggestions, I would expect same from you. We are not here to solve the issue. Our role is to provide details of theory based on published document including criticism. If you have objection to linguistic data, provide linguistic valid reference. If you have objection to archeological data, provide archeological reference. I agree that all material on the page should be from published publication. No original research. This applies to both sides of argument.

I am still waiting for references for how language can exist in absence of people and culture (So archeology, anthropology, and population genetics can not be ignored). I am also waiting for references for archeological support for AIT/AMT/migration.

In any scientific research, a theory is proposed and then it is validated with facts and evidence. If theory can not explain facts, then the theory is changed. We do NOT ignore facts. Now IVC is a fact, which can be dated with lots of confidence. AIT/AMT/migration theory does not explain this fact or chronology. OIT proponents have presented a list of facts and instead of mainstream addressing those facts, it chooses to call OIT supporter as Hindu fanatic. Most scholars involved are specialist from their field. Einstein’s theory is challenged on regular basis and always the challenger is answered with factual data and not name calling. You seem to have strong opinion about AIT/AMT/migration, why are you having hard time providing references to published documents that address the concerns.

Great that you bring up Date of Rigveda 1500 BC as proposed by AIT/AMT/migration. Do you have an academic reference as to why “RigVeda was composed prior to IVC is pure nonsense" OR is it your opinion. How do you know the mainstream date and chronology is correct? Is this date a fact and not guess by mainstream linguistic? In addition to other sources, please see M. Witzel’s Autochthonous Aryans? Page 4 and 5 (http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf). The basis of dating is guess work.

OIT proponent date the same document based on geographical and cultural references not religious data, I can provide full detail with page numbers. It AIT is strong then it should be able to demonstrate that the date is 1500 and not prior to IVC. So far I have not found any detail of mainstream addressing this gap.

We have already agreed that OIT does not agree with mainstream linguistic. So using dating from mainstream to counter OIT dating does not hold any value. If you want to have this issue in BOLD and CAPS on top of page I don't have any objections.

If you believe in latest migration/elitist theory of language propagation, the chronological problem becomes bigger.Sbhushan 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a reason "mainstream" linguistics is mainstream. It is because it is the kind of linguistics that convince most linguists. To use linguistic arguments that are not mainstream linguistical is using arguments that are not accepted by the general linguistic community, because they are not supported by convincing evidence. Using arguments from outside of "mainstream linguistics" does not hold any value - at least not iin an encyclopedia which has as its aim to present the most wideley accepted arguments not the arguments that almost no scholars in the field believe.

Also: Chronology is really completely irrelevant for the factuality of OIT or AIM - because which ever way you turn around there facts there is no way whatsoever that sound linguistic arguments can support the idea that the Veda where composed untill after the major Proto-Indo-European branches had split - at what time in history this happened is really besides the point. Proto-Sanskrit is derived from proto-indoeuropean and not the other way round - this is not contradictable by the m ethods of historical linguistics.

Also the theory held by "mainstream" scholars is not the "Aryan Invasion Theory" - because we don't have any evidence for "a military invasion" and we know that there were highly developed cultures in the indian subcontinent before the IE languages arrived. What "mainstream scholarship" says is that the indoeuropean languages originated somewhere northwest of india and spread into india - we don't say anything about how they spread. We don't say that civilization came to india with the Proto-indoeuropeans - there were high civilization in india before (probably dravidians). And we certainly don't say the Veda were written outside of India, nor that Sanskrit came into existence outside of india. the indoeuropeans who arrived in india didn't speak sanskrit they spoke proto-Indo-Iranian which later developed into sanskrit etc.

Mainstream linguistics also do not say that it is not possible that speakers of protoindoeuropean lived in northern India. They might have. But it is not likely because what the reconstruction of the Proto-Indo european language tells us about the culture and geographic area that they inhabited does not fit with northern india - but with a colder place. Also It tells us that the culture of the proto-indoeuropeans was not a highly civilized culture like the ones found in india but a culture of nomads, pastoralists and horsebackriding warriors. Now if PIE originated as a highly civilized culture in india then necessarily they must have later changed into a nomadic pastoralist culture without writing, architecture, that spread into the entire european continent in very short time. This is counterintuitive to the normal notion that cultures develop to a more highly civilised stage and not vice versa. This suggests to "mainstream" scholars that Nomadic indoeuropeans came into contact with highly civilized dravidians and developed the known Indic high cultures as a synthesis of the two - thus going from a less "civilized" stage to a more civilized stage and not vice versa. Maunus 10:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, you presentation is fair and raises good issues and let me address the issue raised.

1. My point is that mainstream linguistic theories have to be supported by archeological and anthropological evidence. PIE is not only a language but people and culture. I have no problem with a statement that OIT is NOT supported by mainstream linguistic. But I disagree with the statement that mainstream linguist are only scholars. Scholars from other specialties (especially archeology, anthropology, population genetic) have equal say in the decision of movement of people and culture (and language as they move with people).

2. You have hit the nail on head with chronology. Linguistic can not decide the chronology especially of a document that is orally transmitted for some generations. So Linguistic should not present 1500 BC as a FACT. Somehow an assumption is conveyed as a FACT, see you comment about "short time". Other specialties have to provide input in the exact date for the document. OIT does NOT present Sanskrit as mother of all PIE. OIT is saying that Sanskrit is closer to PIE as compared to others. HH Hock (a recogonized linguistic) has no objection to OIT on linguistic grounds (see earlier note with publication and page reference).

3. You mean “mainstream linguist scholars” and not “mainstream scholars” as anthropologist, archeologist and population genetics do not agree with even migration. All concerned agree Sanskrit and Veda are inside India. Point of disagreement is WHEN. Mainstream linguist project date of after IVC, this creates a problem that if there was migration with exchange of ideas, how did IA loose all the knowledge for few centuries but the knowledge came back in later vedic text (see Kazanas, AIT and scholarship, page 24; see paradox http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html).

OIT projects pastoral IA before IVC. OIT proposes Veda before IVC (prior that 3100 – pastrol/nomadic society developing into urban culture). Split of Sanskrit from PIE earlier than development of Veda/IVC which would leave sufficient time for languages to spread to far end of Europe. This theory is not fully developed, but similar problem exist with Kurgan hypothesis. Where movement to Europe from Kurgan can be attested in 3000 BC, but is not fully explained for movement to Indian region (Elst Update on AIT 5.3.11. Comparison with archaeological reconstruction in Europe).

Time constraint that you mention in your post is because of assumption that IA was 1500 BC in Indian region. This is an assumption and not a FACT.

My point is that OIT is a valid theory and not creation of Hindu fanatics. It should be presented as that. It can be clearly tagged with "NOT ACCEPTED BY MAINSTREAM LINGUIST". I disagree with statement that no serious scholars support it or that it is Hindu propogandaSbhushan 14:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I forgot to address you point regarding cold environemnt. My understading was that linguistic plaleontology has been abandoned. But anyway Indian North region is very cold and has Salmon and beaver. So this does not remove India from list of possbilities.Sbhushan 14:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How would you deal with Indus script?? would it be related to PIE or not. Or is it just irrelevant.nids(♂) 15:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't. For all we know it could be written in Burushaski.Maunus 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Archeology and genetics can only tell us about material culture it cannot tell us which language a certain culture spoke, only linguitic evidence can allow us to guess at this. Archeeeologists, anthropoloigusts and geneticists can tell about populations, material culture but language moves independently of those - because any person on earth can learn any language that they might come into contact with. This is why linguistics must bee the core discipline used to make statements about the history of language. Then afterwards we can try to attach the linguistic data to the material data uncovered by archeologists and geneticists in order to make a theory - but it cannot go the other way round. If we were to find out that the people of the harappan culture worshipped shiva, rode chariots and were light skinned and blue eyed we still wouldn't be closer to know what language they spoke - religion, technology and genes are independent from language.

Sanskrit is not seen by most indoeuropeanists as being the "most conservative" indo european language or closest to PIE (most scholars agree that Lithuanian and other Baltic languages are more conservative)- Sanskrit is only the language from which we have the earliest written records (save Hittite).

As for the dating all I have read is that the earliest parts of Vedas are composed at "least as early as 1500 BC" - this is not a statement of absolute dating but rather a statement that it cannot be later than that time. Placing it significantly earlier than that is not supportable by any other disciplines than "religious feeling".

Paleolinguistics has not been "abandoned" it has becom clear however that Paleolinguistics cannot provide us with all the information that we would like it to.

OIT is a valid theory - any theory is valid - but it is not probable considered the evideencee at hand, and it is not widely accepted: the article should say so. It IS mostly supported by Hindutva propagandists and they are open about this, while this doesn't detract from its probability - it should lead to careful consideration of arguments proposed: the article should say so. Hock is not a supporter of OIT - he just doesn't find it to disproved. I don't know of any other serious scholars that can be said to support OIT and none have been mentioned so far: the article should say so.

I agree that northern India can be mentioned as a possible if not likely homeland to the PIE people and that this article should present it in this way. It should however also give a balanced view taking into account and criticizing the theory and presenting the reasons why it is not widely believed. We have come a short way towards this - when I arrived at this article it was stating OIT almost as having truth value. It is still far from being NPOV (at present it is a mixture of different non-neutral POV's) Let's try to make this article truly encyclopedic.Maunus 16:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nids, my research shows that Indus script is so far not deciphered. The question is even raised that the script discovered so far might be a tip of iceberg. Once the script is deciphered it will put an end to either OIT or AMT. Each camp tries to interpret the cultural evidence in their favor, but it is not conclusive yet. At this time it is still open question. My point that both AMT and OIT at this stage are ONLY THEORIES and should be presented as such. There is enough scholarly discussion to support/discredit both theories. So till issue is resolved, things should NOT be presented as FACTS. People who are contributing here seems to think that our debate is going to give resolve this complex issue. We are here only to present relevant academic data from properly sourced document.Sbhushan 16:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely Sbhushan.Maunus 16:40, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, is the agreement only regarding Indus Script OR do we have an agreement regarding presenting both theories as theories with a big bold qualification for OIT “not accepted by mainstream linguistic scholars”.Sbhushan 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the entire statement.Maunus 02:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, you mentioned in a earlier note "OIT is a valid theory - any theory is valid - but it is not probable considered the evideencee at hand", Can you provide a link for the academic reference to this "evidence". I am looking for non-linguistic evidence. I did not say Hock supported OIT. For another question that you raised I am going to open a new tab, because I find it bit disturbing.Sbhushan 20:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have argued up until now I don't believe there is any evidence that is "non-linguistic" which can be decisive in linguistic matters, and the origins of the indo-eeuropean languages is a linguistic matter. As for the statements on the dating of the Veda I am currently away from my literature on these subjects and I cannot provide solid referencees at present, I will partake in the further discussion when I can.Maunus 21:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I am not doing any original reserach, but just raising a point for discussion to see if OIT can be represented as balanced article. liguist see this as only linguistic issue. As long as it stays only liguistic research, other specialities should not quesiton it. But moment they make a prediction which impacts other specialities. Then other specialities have right to question the research and see how it fits with other specialities data. From the point of view of writing OIT article, how can we handle this issue? Any suggestions?Sbhushan 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Who is right ?

I asked twice and got no replies then I was erased ... I guess I should be pissed by now, but I still believe I will get a reply, even if it's "I don't know" or "buzz off !".

So who is right ?

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Out_of_India_Theory

"Recent studies in genetics have also been in support of the Out of India theory. The University of Massachusetts has not only found that modern Indian people trace their origin to nowhere other than the Indian subcontinent, but also determined that a movement of people out of India towards Europe is a more likely model."

or

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Haplogroup_R_%28Y-DNA%29

"R1a likely originated in the Eurasian Steppes, and is associated with the Kurgan culture and Proto-Indo-European expansion. It is primarily found in Central and Western Asia, India, and the Slavic peoples of Eastern Europe, as well as among some populations of Mongolia and southern Siberia"

TIA

Dharma 14:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this is helpfull. As in all data related to this field, no clear answer yet. Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Genetics_and_Archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia for more details. I find it amazing that how much contradictory conclusions can be drawn from the same set of data. Good luck with your research.Sbhushan 20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your reply, i'll check your link out.

Dharma

Date for Rigveda and Hindutva propaganda???????

A comment was made that "dating RigVeda earlier than 1500 BC is Hindutva propaganda". I have provided reference to all published article to support the dating of Rigveda earlier than IVC. I have not seen any academic reference to counter this. I will provide references again. Can you provide academic reference to counter these facts?

Update On The AIT by Koenraad Elst(http://www.voi.org/books/ait/index.htm), A new date for RigVeda and postscript by N. Kazanas (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html), “The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis by Shrikant G. Talageri (http://voi.org/books/rig/).

Each of these authors is serious scholar. In all these documents you will not find religious sermon any where. These are well thought, well researched, and properly referenced articles. First 2 authors are not even Hindu. Talageri’s work on Rigveda is very well presented book. M Witzel (W) has reviewed the book and the exchange between Witzel/Talageri is available for all to read. Every reader can judge level of scholarship of each author (bottom of this link http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shrikant_Talageri).

The reason for dating of Rigveda before IVC is not "religious feeling". But based on hard facts. I will summarize the facts from all articles.

Geographical data: Rigveda was composed when Saraswati River was Main River in the region. Kazanas article provides reference for each verse which can be confirmed by Griffith’s translation at http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/index.htm. I did confirm the translation before I accepted his views. All the praise is in present tense. The details of Saraswati are verifiable. W conveniently ignores all references and picks on the 10th book reference, which is the last book.

Material culture of IVC: Rigveda does not know of material culture of IVC which includes, Rice (very important in Vedic ceremonies), cotton (I found W’s counter very strange), brick, Nakshatra, and all other knowledge required for urban society like geometry (required to make planned cities and structures). Mysteriously this knowledge makes appearance in later dated Vedic documents like Brahmans and Sutras (see Kazanas, AIT and scholarship, page 24; see paradox http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html.)

Rigveda does not know of Silver metal, although metal are known. Silver can be date to about 4th millennium BC. Also does not know of bronze sword (available in BMAC).

This would imply that Rigveda is prior to IVC and that creates a problem because as per AMT IA were not present in India before 1500 BC.

All of this is fact and not propaganda. AMT side has known all these facts for last 20 years. Can any one provide how these facts have been countered? AMT based 1500 BC date on guess work. please see M. Witzel’s Autochthonous Aryans? Page 4 and 5 (http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf).

I make up my mind after reading both sides of argument. I support OIT because I see more evidence for it. If you can provide me better evidence for AMT case, I will gladly change side. If you can not provide academic reference then keep your opinion to yourself, when you write a book and have it published get back to this page.Sbhushan 21:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing is that the geographical area has gone through extensive archeology. Going as far back as 3000BC, so far they have not found any stone forts (Pur) of Dasa's destroyed by IA. It is amazing as stone is more durable then bones of horses and wood of chariots.Sbhushan 21:30, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Disregard any user who is so obstinate as to suggest things that dont fit the framework of the pseudoscience called Indology is a Hindutva lie. The point of this discussion page is not to please people. Since we now have "reliable sources" we still dont have to disregard Frawley. In fact, if Doniger or Kripal is cited on anything Hinduism related, we probably need 10 Frawley quotes to balance their patent nonsense.Bakaman _Bakatalk 21:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspected this is what you are here for, countering nonsense by more nonsense. See WP:ENC. Sbhushan, you are free to believe whatever you like, but you are selectively basing your opinion on a few fringe authors, and putting the evidence on its head. "the Rigveda doesn't know rice, therefore it must date to the 4th millennium"? How silly is that? Chariots? Horses? Metal weapons? Stone forts? The culture of the RV is 2nd millennium, plain as day to anybody with any background in ancient history. You don't have to believe this personally, but I invite you to read some of our articles on the topic. There is, in any case, no way at all you can present your fringe views on Wikipedia as fact. dab (ᛏ) 11:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab thanks for making my point. It would make discussion more fruitful, if you would practise reading before writing. I provided verifiable references for each comment. It clearly states “I am summarizing from each article”. If you wish to check each article for content, I have given links for verification.

I did not see any link/published article for your opinion. YOU ARE in conflict with Wikipedia policy that you quoted. I see you have strong OPINION against OIT. Why don’t you support YOUR OPINION with some published article.

This is fourth time I am asking you to provide verifiable sources. After this I will only respond if I see published article for your opinion.

I see your link in the next section about Kazanas, JIES. It would have helped your case if you had read the review before presenting it. That review is so much in weird land that it is funny. I will provide page by page content in that section to show how much against mainstream (both AMT and OIT ) that view is. That is the kind of “scholar” who should NOT be quoted anywhere. I am also amazed that JIES published that.

In present form the OIT article has a strong AMT bias. I will give some more time for you to provide some published material to support the bias. If not I will start removing the “biased” content in about a weeks time. This is as per Wikipedia policy.

I am presenting Kazanas, Elst and Talageri’s views in their words and not mine. This conforms to Wikipedia policy. You have right to disagree with the view and provide published document to counter their arguments.Sbhushan 15:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, there is no harm in writing an article per Sbhushan's references. We wont be presenting them as facts but just an alternate theory put forward by the named authors. Infact, we have agreed to write in bold on top of the article that this theory is not accepted by mainstream scholars.(i.e. with 5000BCE origin for PIE). That is why i suggested to break this article into two. One with 2000 BCE PIE so that it is compatible with mainstream linguistic genetics and could be presented as such and other with 5000 BCE, which is supported only by editors like me and so could be tagged as not supported by mainstream linguistics on top in bold.nids(♂) 18:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that all the IT/MT (including OIT) stuff is nonsense. Paleolithic Contoinuity is the way to go. THE AIT/AMT is backed by Indology, a pseudoscience based on a cabal of Biblical literalists and Macaulayist suck-ups patting ewach other on the back. When someone cites anything remotely vilifying the Hindu legends (note legends are by defintion based on fact), they're called "Fringe". Anyway all of them are "Theories" meaning none of them have/can/will be proven yet. It doesnt matter what linguists think, they are merely one part of the equation, which by the Hindutva definition may include (gasp!) actual scientists/astronomers/archaeologists.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman please make your suggestion for Paleolithic Continutiy on the relavent Wiki page and please follow established WP policies for discussion. Your points are not helpful to improve content of OIT page.Sbhushan 00:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My concern is portray of OIT as "hidutva propaganda" in the article. I have provided references for scholarly content. "Hindutva propoganda" is a biased comment and unless can be established on basis of good publication it should be removed from article to comply with WP:NPOVSbhushan 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, AIT has been discarded by Witzel himself see

“ Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory. ”

[2]. [3].Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It has been stated earlier that the mainstream view is not the "arian invasion theory" - that theory has been all but abandoned the last 40 years. People like Talageri and Kazanas are arguing against it as a strawman instead of arguing against the current research. (Witzel states this in his first revieew of Talageri)Maunus 08:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kazanas comments are (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html )(AIT and Scholarship, page 2) “The intruders would have been able to rename the rivers only if they were conquerors with the power to impose this. And, of course, the same is true of their Vedic language: since no people would bother of their own free will to learn a difficult, inflected foreign language, unless they had much to gain by this, and since the Aryan immigrants had adopted the “material culture and lifestyle” of the Harappans (Allchins 1997: 223; also Witzel 1995: 113) and consequently had little or nothing to offer to the natives, the latter would have adopted the new language only under pressure. Thus here again we discover that the substratum thinking is invasion and conquest.”

(Reply to prof. Witzel' page 7)Aryans who, W repeatedly tells us, did not intentionally invade NW India, but entered in waves or “trickling” and the like. W insists on not seeing that such a mode of entry could not possibly produce results that could only follow from an invasion, that is imposing names of rivers etc and the language and culture generally of the “immigrants”Sbhushan 16:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The point Sbhusan is that AIT/AMT/OIT/PCT are all really competing for the same goal. Discussing one is comparable to discussing the inverse of the others, so the discussions are all interrelated.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Kazanas, JIES

I am glad we can cite reasonable sources now. Elst and Kazanas did advance variants of OIT in academic fora, so it is their versions that should be discussed. Also, we must clearly state that they managed to convince no-one, Kazanas' suggestions were literally torn apart by all sorts of JIES noteworthies (no, not just Witzel). This article should follow the debate in JIES it it is to have any credibility. The journal has closed the debate in 2003 and invited further contributions to [4]. dab (ᛏ) 11:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, your edit in the document is in conflict with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Please keep comments neutral and do not present your views/judgements. Before making any edit in the document (especially controversial), let us first get a consensus (WP recommendation). For your opinions, please provide verifiable sources WP:V. Also in general your comments so far on talk page are conflicting with WP: working with others policy. Please try to change your approach. We are getting very close to consensus.Sbhushan 20:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the link that you presented is not related to issue at all. The document is provoked by Edmund Leach’s paper entitled ‘Aryan invasions over four millennia’ (page 1 first line). The author does not provide any references for the opinion that he/she is presenting (unless you count reference to their own published work). Also the article presents Rigveda as not Aryan document (Page 7), Atharvaveda written prior to Rigveda (page 6), defines Sanskrit as descending from Sumero-Akkadin (page 11), implies no need to look for PIE (page 11), Sanskrit also descending from Harrappan language (page 8, I was not aware that Harrappan language was established), also Jhukar culture discovered on Harrappan floor as Aryan (page 8). Presents Aryans as “highly skilled civil engineers who built fortresses and fortified settlements. They used baked bricks, sundried bricks, timber and stone as building materials. They were acquainted with metal-gold, silver, copper or bronze.” (page 10, no reference to any published work/source and conflict with most). This is called “putting the evidence on its head”. AMT, OIT, Vedic studies, archaeology - all would have problem with this document.

So I don’t know what point you were trying to make with this link, please clarify.Sbhushan 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab simply linked to the JIEC discussion page, which happens to have now put up this very idiosycratic article for discussion. I don't think he intended to refer to the article in question, but instead to the issue of the JIEC in which Kazanas's views are discussed. Unfortunately the sheer cr*ppiness of the JIEC webpage maskes it very difficult to locate the relevant discussion, which is in fact here [5], or at least I hope it is. Paul B 20:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the words "harsh criticism" can only be used if these words have been published in JIES. If not then this is your bias and can not be used in this article as this is against WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Please provide academic reference or use approptiate words.Sbhushan 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"Harsh criticism" is not an unfair description of the no less than five articles by recognized specialists refuting Kazanas ideas. It is not NPOV but sismply a description of the "mainstream" reaction to his article. Talageri also met "Hard criticism".Maunus 08:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I am OK with the latest wording of “Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory”. Although there should be an addition that "In the latter issue of JIES, Kazanas wrote ‘Final Reply’ (JIES, vol. 31, No.1-2: pp. 187-240, 2003) to all his reviewers.” Any comments?Sbhushan 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

you didn't pay attention. I suggest you review JIES vols 29-31. The link I provided is where JIES says that further contributions would be published 'after vetting'. No further contributions seem to have come forward. Witzel's criticism of Kazanas, entitled Ein Fremdling im Rigveda, also in vol. 31, is scathing as usual with Witzel, but drives home the point that Kazanas has no clue what he is talking about. JIES cut short the debate because it wasn't fruitful. Kazanas' final reply is mostly agnosticism along the lines "we cannot prove beyond the shadow of a doubt it wasn't so", which is unhelpful, because nothing in this field can be so proven. It is all a question of plausibility or likelihood. PIE origins in India may be more likely than in Indonesia or the Easter Island, but that doesn't make them "likely" by any stretch. dab (ᛏ) 15:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, please feel free to quote exact words of reviewer with the proper references to published document as per WP policies without introducing your views/conclusions. WP:NPOV states “The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.”

Regarding bias it states “NPOV requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases. A bias is a prejudice in a general or specific sense, usually in the sense of having a predilection for one particular point of view or ideology. One is said to be biased if one is influenced by one's biases. A bias could, for example, lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas.”Sbhushan 16:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Idea for a change in structure

I would like to see this article include a section of arguments used for and against the theory, along with references to the places where these arguments are used and by whom. This would be a very fair way to let the readers make their own mind up as to which theory thy find most convincing without engaging in POV. Below I present some of the most important arguments against the OIT, could I ask you to make a list of the best arguments for OIT with references to be included in the article? (Also feel free to add arguments)

• Postulating the PIE homeland in northern India requires positing a larger number of migrations over longer distances than it would do if it were postulated to be near the center of linguistic diversity within the family. That is: A homeland in central asia is the simpler theory (as per Occams razor)(Dyen 1965, p. 15 cited in Bryant 2001, p. 142)Mallory (1989)
• The distribution of linguistic isoglosses within the PIE family does not support northern india as the center of expansion (the archaic shared features are centered in central asia)
• Indic PIE languages show influence from contact with Dravidian and Munda - if PIE were spoken close to Dravidian and Munda all PIE languages would show these features. That is the contact between Indic and Dravidian/Munda must have occurred after the split of PIE meaning that proto-Indic speakers would have moved into contact with Dravidians and Mundans(Parpola 2005).. (Mallory 1989).
• To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars in order to make a deep enough period of migration to allow for the longest migrations to be completed.(Mallory 1989)

• Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press
• Dyen, Isidore (1965), "A Lexostatistical Classification of the Austronesian Languages", International Journal of American Linguistics (suppl.), 31: 1–64
• Mallory, JP. 1998. A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia. In: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washingion DC: Institue for the Study of Man.
• Parpola, Asko (1998), "Aryan Languages, Archaeological Cultures, and Sinkiang: Where Did Proto-Iranian Come into Being and How Did It Spread?", in Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia, Washington, D.C.: Institute for the Study of Man

Excellent suggestion. All the words quoted should be from referenced article without bias (WP content policies are not negotiable). Regarding adding arguments, we can start with the list and add argument as sources acceptable to WP:V policy becomes available. So all pro-OIT crowd, please look for good sources. Religious arguments reduce credibility of good scholars and do not help the discussion or the theory. Nothing is gained by debating positions, better people then we are arguing for a long time. Let us just present theories from verifiable sources and not as established facts.

Maunus, can you provide more details of the Vedic scholars referenced by Mallory (1989). Kazanas article (a new date for RV page 1-3) has few scholars who argue for 1500 BC date. M Witzel has provide some details re 1500 BC in article Autochthonous Aryans? Page 4 and 5 (http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf).Sbhushan 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

There iis a good use of the argument strategy in the article on Origin of Romanians where the mainstream Roessler theory is presented side by side with the less accepted Daco-Romanian continuity theory.Maunus 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Although argument strategy is a good way to present this, would it be better from readers point of view to see the point made by proponent countered in the same paragraph by opponent. e.g. K prospose that Rigveda has no knowledge of silver and silver was available since 4 millinium BC, so Rigveda should be dated before that time. Mainstream scholars have responded that Rigveda is "e silentio". There are certain criticism, that are overall of the theory. E.g. Dravidian connection. What do you think. The argument strategy would be very good for the AMT/OIT controversy page.Sbhushan 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal for Consensus

The goal is to present NPOV scholarly theory proposed by serious scholars. Only statements made by referenced authors to be included (without editors’ bias). Clearly mention ongoing debate (provide reference/links to other theories). Source of data will conform with WP:V policy. Clearly make statement that this is a minority point of view that is not accepted by “mainstream linguistic scholars”.

No religious propaganda by OIT supporters and no claim of OIT being a Hindu propaganda by AMT supporter. This is a scholarly discussion, for religious/fundamentalist discussions go somewhere else. All bias to be removed (both for and against), if mentioned scholars did not say it, it does not count. No irrelevant details. All pro/con discussion referred to Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) page.

Wikipedia policies (NPOV, NOR, V) are not negotiable. All supporting data to be properly referenced to each specialist. Scholarly criticism of published article to be included in original form with references. No personal attacks allowed by anyone.

A well referenced criticism section as proposed by Maunus. WP policies still apply, no propaganda of any kind. Since articles being mentioned have been reviewed by mainstream scholars, good source for criticism is easily available. Ideally link criticism to claim.

For all controversial material, all editors to try to get consensus via talk page before making changes.

What does everyone think? Please add suggestion for improvement.Sbhushan 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

this is what I suggested above. If you really mean this, we can have a satisfactory, clean article in no time. All references to Frawley, Mishra etc. should be removed, then we can begin talking about "this is a scholarly discussion". It is not me who insists on keeping the crackpots on this page. I insist that as long as we discuss the crackpots, they should be declared for what they are. If we want to keep this scholarly, we can keep Elst and Kazanas, who did propose the theory in scholarly fashion, no debate about that, and will state, as you suggest, that the idea found little or no favour in mainstream scholarship. The easiest would be to just follow the JIES debate, listing arguments and counter-arguments. I do suggest you begin by removing the Frawley and Mishra parts. The "quotes" section should also go, it's just cherry-picking. The "philology" section should be reworked to be on-topic, at present it simply reiterates the points already beaten to death on other articles. No amount of glossing or cherry-picking will change the simple situation that (a) this theory has been discussed in recent scholarly literature, and (b) is rejected by the vast majority of specialists, for good reasons. Stating that it is rejected, but then discussing just the point of view of the proponents as if it was plain factual leads to the implication that Wikipedia knows better than academia (this is Bakaman's outlook: "Indology rejects it. I believe in it. Therefore Indology is pseudoscience"). The simple task of Wikipedia is to report on scholarly debate, portraying both sides, and making evident the reasons behind this or that tendency of mainstream. dab (ᛏ) 09:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, all theories at this stage are only theories and should be presented as such (no conclusion yet). There is enough scholarly discussion to support/discredit both theories. So till issue is resolved, neither should be presented as facts. All kind of bias should be kept out. I hope we can make this page similar to Anatolian hypothesis (one champion, not accepted by mainstream linguistic scholars, but a scholarly opinion presented and criticized in scholarly manner).Sbhushan 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Witzel discusses Misra and Frawley and argues against them, so can we. If we present the good arguments which exist against their conclusions in thorough enough way then the reader will be able to see for himself who among them are crackpots - we don't need to label them - their own arguments should label them as such. Maunus 23:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

At this stage of the article, removing Frawley and Knapp doesn't mean much. I took a (very) brief look at the reference list and found that the two were only sourced in the David Frawley scenario area. Since even I (who wrote that section) care what Frawley thinks when Elst's model is just above. I suggest removal. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we have a consensus. Before making any addition to the page, I am suggesting we remove irrelevant details and religion related comments. Elst and Kazanas are not Hindu and are not making any religious statements. I will start removing tomorrow if no objections. All comments related to AMT/OIT controversy moved to a new section at the bottom of the page (temporary movement). After discussion, we can move them to the AMT/OIT controversy wiki page. On the OIT page we can say that there is a controversy and provide link for reader to check details on the other page. The comment section I believe can fit into other sections better (e.g. archaeological comments as part of archaeological discussion with proper references). Frawley’s scenario section can be removed. Could someone create archive of this page and leave “consensus” section. I believe all question raised in other sections have been addressed. I don’t know how to do this (technically challenged). I am also new to Wiki, so if I am doing something incorrectly please let me know.Sbhushan 15:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Just hold on the archive until all discussion is over and a new topic of discussion takes the spotlight. We haven't had WIN and Bakaman's views yet anyway...but I don't think they will object. Creating an archive is simple: Wikipedia:Archiving. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Frawley should get a passing mention in the article. What of Talageri, Lal and Indian historians? Why arent any of them cited? Sbhusan, does being a Hindu automatically disqualify one from being citable? But for right now, keep Elst and Kazanas as the main focus, since anti-Hindu bigots will stop at nothing to defame Frawley.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead but don't forget to give step by step points as previously mentioned by SBhushan. And, in OIT, philology should be mentioned with proper numbering as no other hypothesis like AM or Anatolian have scriptures to their support like OIT. So, we should not forget it's importance. If you tell that no religious points should be made then Rig-Veda is also a religious scripture whose different interpretation was basis for AIT ! WIN 04:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don’t have a problem with quoting specific Frawley’s book where it is common with OIT position. His writing about the AMT/OIT controversy would be better placed on the controversy page and PVC on PVC page (in my opinion). This article is about OIT and all strong OIT writers should be mentioned (irrespective of religion/nationality) WP:NPOV, with a clear statement that their position is not yet accepted by “mainstream linguistic scholars” (MLS). Include a section to show why MLS rejects the theory and let readers decide what they choose to accept.

OIT doesn’t present Sanskrit as PIE OIT is not religious discussion, so religious discussion is better suited on religion discussion related pages. The scholars have presented a very strong case for OIT, mixing religion with this will only discredit good scholars and their position, and not help any religious position (again my opinion).

Rigveda is a book used by both AMT and OIT (see M Witzel Autochthonous Aryans? - § 2. Texts on page 4). Both sides use this document for linguistic, geographical and cultural data and NOT religious content. Earliest evidence of Sanskrit as language is from Rigveda. And the correct wording would be “Vedic text” and not “Hindu text”.

Talageri’s book is acceptable by WP:V and should get a strong mention. His position is very much in line with E and K (Chapter 7: The Indo-European Homeland). In fact his analysis is most in depth (chapter 4 and 6) and not religious sermon. We can make a clear statement that his book was “harshly criticized” by Erdosy and Witzel. Mention ongoing debate and provide link so readers can read all material and decide.Sbhushan 15:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Vedic = Hindu.

1. Witzel hardly even looked at Talageri's book, he was too absorbed in his own racist and narcissistic, monologue
2. Witael mistranslated Rgveda for his own ends.
3. I know perfectly well PIE != Sanskrit. Bakaman _Bakatalk 18:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman, OIT will quote Talageri’s book and his assertion and Witzel’s criticism of those assertions WP:Criticism. Other irrelevant statements will be kept out. If you haven’t read Talageri’s book, then I suggest you read it (especially Ch. 4, 6, and 7). We have to provide facts from proponents of theory, criticism of those facts by people against it and let readers decide.

PIE = Sanskrit = Proto Vedic continuity NOT EQUAL OIT, so take that discussion on PVC page. This has no place on OIT page except a link to PVC page. I am glad you have a position, but take a step back and look at bigger picture, you are hurting your own case and the case of OIT. I have tried to addressed this issue number of time. This is not a place for discussion/debate. Unless you bring a published work with references related to OIT, I will not be able to address your comments.Sbhushan 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply - Exactly. Witzel never took the time to actually read Talageri's book. I read the "discussion" between Talageri and Witzel (infact I think it was Witzel himself who gave me the link). I dont have access to all the college stuff anyways. Also look at Mishra, N.S. Rajaram, and Vishal Agarwal.Bakaman _Bakatalk 19:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of V Agarwal's work (he has also published in JIES). I can find Rajaram's work. Can you provide me with links to Mishra's work(if available online). I will look it up. ThanksSbhushan 20:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbhusan, go ahead with your work. Let us first make OIT page proper. Include all JIES writers points step by step. I agree that we should present this case in neutral tone and then let readers deduce who is right. WIN 04:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I will start with the clean up work first. I will record my rational for change in Edit Summary. If you disagree, let us discuss on talk page. For sections that I feel should be moved elsewhere, I will create a temporary section at bottom of page and again let us discuss on talk page. After clean up I will start rewording of article. The whole process might take couple of weeks (I can't ignore my day job), but I feel we can have a article soon that we will all be proud of. Thanks.Sbhushan 11:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed some of the stuff on the page relates to "Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory" and PVC page is redirected to OIT. I am going to move PVC related things in the clean up area. So whoever wants to use it, can copy it to PVC. I also saved a copy of the original page, so if I deleted anything that needs to be restored I can bring it back. Let me know.Sbhushan 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: Where does Witzel say that he hasn't read Talageris book? In his review and especially in his "autochtonous aryans" piece it is quite obvious that he has read it. It is also not common practice to review books that one hasn't read. Maunus 12:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This "book reading" issue is tedious and almost completely irrelevant to this article. Witzel listed Talageri's book in a footnote, possibly without having read it through. That's what people do all the time. I've done it myself. So do other academic writers. It's normal. You don't have to have read a book through to include it in a footnote the function of which is simply to list a body of literature on a particular topic, or putting forward a particular point of view. When he reviewed the book and commented on it in detail, he read it through. Paul B 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Talageri says Witzel has not read his book. Kazanas also comments that W might have just glanced at T’s book as criticism is often off mark. K also brings a similar charge against W (W is commenting on K’s publications that he has not reviewed, in fact one publication that W “reviewed” was not even published).

The long story between T/W started when T published a book (1993), W criticized it in his usual way. T publishes second book (2000, the one used in this article) and dedicated Chapter 9 to W. W came back with "Autochtonous Aryans" and that followed with lots of articles back and forth (One fact is that they don’t end up in happy place like in fairy stories)….. Interestingly, W allegedly offered a position at Harvard to T after publication of second book (2000), which T declined.

For purpose of the OIT article, I am trying to stay away from the controversial issues from T’s book, unless that point can not be avoided. E.g. W criticized T’s use of Anukramanis. This is not really relevant to PIE/IA discussion, so I am not touching on that. Mostly I am using T where he has quoted W or other linguist to show inconsistencies like change of river names not agreeing with complex “trickling” issue, thus showing Vedic Sanskrit as not an import, but development from PIE in India. I would expect criticism to be for 2000 Book and not 1993 book. Sbhushan 15:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

De-POVization

I have started dePOVizating the article bit by bit but it is extremely tedious work. As it is now each section presents an argument in favour of the OIT, but in a very obfuscating manner making the argument look like some kind of semifact. Further more when it mentions counterarguments it does it in a way that is clearly intended to put the counter arguments in a bad light as nonsensical or unreasonable. Further more each section ends with a little coda that present the argument as the only reasonable one. Not acceptable and certainly POV.

I am trying to make it obvious in each section what is the argument, who proposes what and what counter arguments are presented by the mainstream side. Sometimes I cannot refer to a particular source but the counter argument is so obvious that I include it in my own wording - it is better that it is a little balanced and then it can be sourced later. I also remove excessive sourcing of arguments - the article is way too long and spends way too much space explaining and providing sources to things that it doesn't really explain anyway. Sometimes less is more - this is one of those times. Maunus 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewording of document

I will start rewording each section (keep original wording in clean up section till we agree). I will do the summary last. I will base this on work of E, K and T. I will try to stay away from controversial issues unless they are extremely important (in my opinion). We can discuss on talk page and reword as required to make it perfect. Since I am referencing same document at different places, I am suggesting we use the reference like e.g. (Kazanas, 2001a:4) to represent actual page number from the document. This will be make it easy for reader to locate reference instead of reading the whole document. This will create some conflict with the existing structure of the document. We can have separate sections for "Notes" and "References". Any suggestion as to best way to handle this?Sbhushan 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The italics and Clean Up Section don't really occur on Wikipedia. I have moved your edits to User:Sbhushan/OIT. I hope you don't mind. If you wish to contribute the Sbhushan's upcoming version then go to that page. I just don't want the article to be in complete disarray for a month while this happens. I explained this at User talk:Sbhushan. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No Problem, I see your point and appreciate the feedback. I will keep creating the page at the new location. I have all the data, but am not very good with formatting. If you can help me with the presentation of the article on the User:Sbhushan/OIT. I would appreciate that.

Maunus, I found some background material regarding linguistic in Talageri's book (ch 7 section III THE EVIDENCE OF LINGUISTIC ISOGLOSSES). He is not doing linguistic research, but quoting from the consensus opinion. It might be useful for reader to get a summary on what liguistic is (I found it useful). I am going to do part of section on that basis (by end of day today). Could you take a look at that to make sure nothing is misrepresented.Sbhushan 13:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

"It might be useful for reader to get a summary on what liguistic is"? We are not writing a stand-alone monography here. How about you send readers to linguistics, or historical linguistics? Explaining offtopic general knowledge is talking down to the reader. Readers who are missing such knowledge and are willing to read up on it can click on the wikilink. No amount of tangents and caveats will prevent the readers who do not want to learn (like WIN) from not learning. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I know about Linguistic very well and hence I was able to reconstruct Vedic Rishi or Apsaras names or major Indian river names in Russian people's name / surnames. Nobody is asking you about your personal opinions. I have already written this in talk pages of Indo-Aryan Migration but you ( as usual ) don't want to understand. " Just think that after going through Sanskrit it was learnt that there is some connections in words of European languages with Sanskrit. Refer this http://digilander.libero.it/toponomastica/ie-roots.html which says about IE roots. In it you can notice that for most of IE root , Sanskrit is cited first. I , myself , has notice some European language words which are exactly similar in Indo-Aryan languages but it's not exact Sanskrit word. Sanskrit daru 'wood' is Hittite taru. But same taru is word in my Indo-Aryan language mothertongue but rarely used now for mentioning tree. And, remember Hittite is very old language than present Romance languages. Welsh dol 'valley', Gothic dal 'valley' - I cite here my Indo-Aryan language Dol = bucket ( similar meaning with valley ) & dhal = human shield used during war ( it's shape is spherical ) or Dhal ( in my Indo-Aryan mothertongue ) = slope. Sanskrit dva-rah ( Eng.door )- Albanian derë . In my Indo-Aryan language door = darvaj , delë ( this delë word is used in rural vocab. ) In newer European languages such changes are wider or unrecognizable than Indo-Aryan languages. So, you should understand that how IE words are tied to IE root , same way Indo-Aryan languages are also having similar word developments. Since, Indo-Aryan languages are in Sanskrit base area ; their words changes are not such abrupt like European languages."WIN 11:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

WIN with everything you write you make it painfully clear that your ideas about what linguistics is and how to apply its methods are not the ones shared by the mainstream linguistic community after Ferdinand de Saussure (who based on his contributions to linguistics in the early twentieth century is often called the father of modern linguistics). Dab was being less than polite to refer to you in such a tone in his previous post, and I understand that you felt offended but please don't make use this pages to try and prove what you know about linguistics, currently you are contradicting 80 years of development in the science of linguistics - instead acknowledge that perhaps you too can learn from somebody, just like Dab, Sbushan and myself can.Maunus 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I haven't read neither Talageris book nor Mishras yet, but based on what Witzel says about their application of linguistic methods I wouldn't have too much confidence in their explanations of what linguistics is and isn't. I would much rather interwikilink to the pages as dab suggest. I will see what you come up with and suggest improvements and changes if they are needed.Maunus 12:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose to suggestions of Dab or Maunus and agree with current write up about linguistics. WIN 12:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

How can you oppose an interwikilink? This is Wikipedia, we build the net!Maunus 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean that keep current write-up. WikiLink can be given as usual. WIN 04:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Adding a interwikilink is a good suggestion, can help people get more details if they want to pursue it. Though the link provides good information, it does not shed any light on PIE question. Please take a look at the article at User:Sbhushan/OIT and provide constructive feedback. Most of Linguistic and Philology sections are complete. Dab WP:CIV and Win WP:NOR lets us stay on topic and not go off on tangents. I would rather finish this project quickly and move on to something else.Sbhushan 14:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

My input is completed in the document User:Sbhushan/OIT. Since I am new to Wiki, it needs to be reworded. Maunus is looking at Linguistic section to refine them, can someone look at philology sections to improve them. I have used original words from K, T and E (except Avesta). I was strugling with the part where they quote other people in their document. How can this be reflected properly? One section that I have not added so far is archeo-astronomy, any other things missing. Once the sections are complete we can work on the introduction.Sbhushan 18:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A section of astronomy would be needed to form a more scientific tone to the article, I am happy to see that VV Kashyap (and other real scientists) have been added as well.Bakaman _Bakatalk 04:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Astronomy done. Do we need to talk about horse and chariot? Any major issue raised by mainstream linguistic that has not been addressed? I think the article is at a stage where it can be copied over to the main document. Please provide your views. I will move the article on the main page in about 2 days.Sbhushan 16:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

your archaeoastronomy section has (a) nothing to do with OIT and is (b) patent nonsense. The Krttika stuff is discussed in detail and debunked here (and here), and does not need to be repeated in this article, at best place a link to the discussion. dab (ᛏ) 10:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the relevance of the section is to show that later dated Vedic text can be dated to 3000BC → implying that earlier text has to be before 3000 BC → showing presence of Aryan in India well before mainstream date (read the last sentence in the section). The source of Krttika stuff is article published in Electronic Journal of Vedic Study (Chief Editor: Witzel) - B. N. Narahari Achar, Exploring the Vedic Sky with Modern Computer Software,EJVS, VOL. 5 (1999), ISSUE 2 (December). And the debunking is your opinion. The link that you provided says:

the SB states that the Pleiades "do not swerve from the east". If this is taken as a statement accurate to the degree, it refers to a time near 2900 BC. If the statement is taken to be accurate to 1/16 of the compass (the actual accuracy for directions of the compass demonstrable for Brahmana texts), it can apply to any time between 7000 BC and AD 1000. At the generally assumed date of the composition of the Brahmanas (roughly 800 BC), it was accurate to about 1/32 of the compass.

Dr. Achar believes that it could be recorded accurately. The document publishes Dr. Achar’s opinion and not yours (since I don’t believe you have published in EJVS yet). I don't have any problem providing links in addtion to the text to show the debunking.Sbhushan 14:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

History section needs to be rewritten also. Edwin Bryant (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press page 68-75, provides details regarding how the PIE homeland moved away from India in the chapter 4 - Indo-European Comparative Linguistics, The Dethronement of Sanskrit. I will use some the stuff from that chapter like law of palatals, discovery of the laryngeals in Hittite etc. Some of the stuff in history section relates to Proto Vedic Continuity argument. OIT is not proposing that Sanskrit is PIE, it is proposing PIE homeland in India and language splits before Sanskrit.Sbhushan 14:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

i cannot figure out how to correct this spelling error.

The title to reference number nine is misspelled.

To edit the reference name, edit the section where reference is being used. You will see the text between ref>......</ref, change it there. I have fixed the reference. This page is being rewritten; please see the talk page for more details.Sbhushan 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New Version copied

Since we let readers choose what to believe and I did not receive any feedback. I choose to believe that every one liked the new version (keeping my fingers crossed). I have copied the latest version. In case you think it was a big mistake, I saved the older version at User:Sbhushan/Out_of_India. I have made effort not to introduce my bias in the text. Let us discuss if you feel I did not succeed. I am flexible about changing the words. The page is full of words, any suggestion to reduce the words while keeping message intact.Sbhushan 03:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The article now provides good information with proper points. WIN 08:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

that WIN should think so is in itself sufficient evidence that you have ruined the article :) We seemed to be making progress, and now you decide to bomb us back to naive crackpottery with a major unilateral replacement of the whole artice? Thanks, but no thanks. My favourite is the conclusion that since there is no trace of the IVC in the text, hey, it must predate the IVC :oD (metal? horses? chariots? historical linguistics? common sense?) dab (ᛏ) 14:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not being constructive dab. Refrain from ad hominem attacks, and Hindutva conspiracy theories. Perhaps you may want to read this before finding "evidence of crackpottery" when Sbhusan has obviously been objective in the reporting.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the sections that you deleted are in exact words from the referenced published material as per WP policies, for each section proper references are presented (please check them). Those same sections have been on the other page for over a week now, before copying it over I gave about 2 days notice. The feedback you gave was answered. I also mentioned that I don't have problem with changing words, but let us discuss before we make change. So you are doing unilateral action.

Please read Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press (mainstream linguistic scholar). He has few chapters dedicated to linguistic evidence and how the present knowledge is not sufficient to reject OIT (Hock also agrees with this) (Sanskrit = PIE can be rejected, but not OIT see the history section). You will see in his book (p 166 - 177) that enough evidence for horse and chariot has been provided in India. I can add a whole section regarding that.

Now could you please provide any published material for your views. You are in conflict with WP policies, so please do not start editing.Sbhushan 14:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You are not being accurate in your account of what Bryant says. As you well know, he says that he favours the AMT scenario, and yet you omit this fact. You also continually mix up the separate questions of the date of the RV with OIT. No-one is saying that the origin of IE in India is impossible. The standard view is that it is very unlikely. One can argue that it's possible that it originated in China, or Greece or Israel. Scenarios could be created for those locations, though some would be more plausible than others. None would be likely. Bryant provides little justification for claims that the RV is a great deal more ancient than is generally stated, though he does summarise and comment on some of the arguments that have been used. Bryant also discusses the possibility that Proto-I-A speakers occupied northern India at an earlier date than is normally supposed. Again this is not "OIT", since it has no bearing on the place of origin of IE, it just states that it may have arrived in India much earlier. There are also a number of gratuitous statements here that further confuse matters. For example we learn that "Certain likenesses between the Hellenic (Greek) branch and the Indo-Iranian branch seem suggestive that Greek and Indo-Iranian shared a common homeland for awhile after the splitting of the other IE branches. Such a homeland could be northwestern India." Well, yes, it could be, but it could also be anywhere else: say, somewhere between Greece and India! Points like this that create the impression that they are adding to the OIT argument, but actually do not, should be removed. Paul B 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, my comment related to Dab's statement OIT is rejected by mainstream. Bryant says clearly that OIT is not rejected (while saying that he prefers AMT) and should have a seat on the table for this discussion. His wording (p309) is The implications of the Indigenous Aryan critique for the entire area study of South Asia are far too immense to be ignored or taken lightly. He also shows that based on linguistic OIT can not be rejected (and states that Hock agrees it is more difficult to reject OIT) (Nichols model and implications). As I said in consensus that any mainstream criticism of the statement is valid and I don't have any problem with that (but reviewers words without Dab's bias). Rewording also I don't have any problem with. Unilateral action by Dab, I do have problem with.Sbhushan 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by "rejected". If it means "most don't believe it to be true" then it's accurate. If it means "most say it's absolutely impossible" then it isn't. Given that all ancient history is imprecise, I think we can take it that the former meaniong is assumed to be the case. What Bryant says is that it can't be ruled out - that is disproven. No-one would disagree, as I said above. Likewise we can't rule out the once-popular Nordicist theory that it originated in Scandanavia. Bryant's words would apply equally to that theory. Your quotation simply states that Bryant thinks that the theory shouldn't be ignored. The central issue concerning the current text is the continual confusion between the issue of an early bronze-age RV and the issue of the geographical origin of PIE. Paul B 16:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "common sense", mainstream scholars say "Aryan immigrants had adopted the “material culture and lifestyle” of the Harappans (Allchins 1997: 223; also Witzel 1995: 113)", so explain to me how are they missing all the items identified?Sbhushan 14:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainstreanm scholars do not say that I-As became Harappans, but that they merged with its remaining culture/population. There may be many reasons why things are not mentioned in the RV - sheer chance being one. It's not a dictionary. Other reasons may be cultural. Omissions have to be seen in the context of what is included. Paul B 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, this can be added as mainstream's response (silver, brick, Nakshatra are relevent to Rigvedic material). Although Bryant also mentions another study where the impacts of IA (complete replacement of language and culture) could only be accomplished by a drastic change (I am trying to find the page number).

Finding page numbers in Bryant is almost as difficult as locating PIE itself. The structure of the book is so convoluted it's difficult to guess where any actual agument is placed. Paul B 17:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

so, you cook up your own version in your user space and then impose it on article space, and now you cry policy violation as it is edited? It would have been easier to just revert your major edit. Since you it did include some improvement, I took the trouble to clean it up instead. Even you agree that mainstream rejects OIT. It is thus, per policy, the job of this article to explain what is proposed and why it is rejected. Just saying "it is rejected" and then go cherry-picking arguments of proponents in WP's voice is ridiculous. What you do in your userspace is your own business, as long as you don't abuse WP as your personal webhost. If you want to see your own articel online, get a homepage somewhere. Regarding your question, aren't you aware of anything mainstream? Or do you only scan "pro-OIT" arguments on principle? The mainstream view is, of course, that this "adoption of culture and lifestyle" occurred in late and post-Rigvedic times, or around 1200 BC. Needless to say, Epic Sanskrit literature does mention rice, tigers, elephants and anything else you like. dab (ᛏ) 14:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am by no means trying to tilt the article the other way. I am trying to cut the crap and get to the core of the handful of reasonable arguments. Such as hydronomy, I am fully prepared to give that a fair hearing. The sad fact is that this field is teeming with raving lunatics and chaotic dilletants, and unless we are strict, it will just degenerate into a befuddled "Aryans were magic space aliens in 50,000 BC" type of writeup again. I argue I am doing OIT proponents a favour by weeding out the nonsense and keeping the reasonable parts, so they do not end up looking like fools collectively. I accept that Elst, and to a lesser degree Kazanas, have some resemblance to informed discourse, and their views may be summarized (not: elaborated upon in WP's voice) for whatever they are worth. dab (ᛏ) 14:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, please see WP:NPOV and WP:CIV, the article is based on published material (check ref). I have no problem with editing (infact I asked for words to be reduced), but provide support for your edit. You can not remove the sections that have proper references, just because you don't like them. Again please read (mainstream) Bryant, Edwin (2001), The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford University Press - conclusion (page 298 - 310). Bryant disagrees with your opinion regarding OIT being rejected. It is not proven yet, but neither is it rejected. Please also see his sections about IVC and Rigveda dating. Again can you provide any published material for your statements.

Witzels latest time of entry of IA in India is 1900, to overlap with IVC. None of the items identified are in Rigveda either early or late.Sbhushan 15:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did spend time arguing with people adamant that the Rigveda does contain references to elephants and rice, and it seems arguable that the late books do. This is inconsequential. Of course I am entitled to remove naive, biased, rambling, essay-ish or offtopic material, even if you do slap some reference on it. I do think we can find common ground here. We can establish what Elst and Kazanas have argued, without any of the spin, and then juxtapose it to the mainstream view. Nothing else is acceptable here. I cannot but note that this is still about early IA presence in India, and still not about expansion from India as per the article's title. Even in the Anatolian hypothesis, the Indo-Aryan might have reached India in 2600 BC, for crying out loud, so even (even) if you could make plausible that Mature Harappan was Indo-Aryan (which I consider at least a remote possibility), you have still gone nowhere towards showing that the other branches originated in India, which claim is what this article is supposed to be about. If we could push back Proto-Indo-Iranian to 3000 BC (as Renfrew does), I can easily accomodate an Indo-Aryan Mature IVC, with Rigvedic IAs arriving as a second wave of immigration. I am saying that most of your material isn't even on-topic here, even ignoring issues of spin. What statements of mine do you want sourced? Use {{fact}}, but make sure to use it bona fide, and after checking our Rigveda article. The fact that OIT is rejected by mainstream scholarship was in your own version, for heaven's sake, and I was hoping we could at least take that for granted. Otherwise take a glance at JIES. dab (ᛏ) 15:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The main points are Silver, IVC culture, Nakshatra, metal working knowledge etc. Elephant is not even mentioned anywhere in article (although RigVeda does include – domesticated also). Please also see consensus policy of WP for making controversial edits. Also read the full article about where OIT proponent propose to use Johanna Nichols model. Rigveda before IVC and IA having record of emigration out of India before Rigveda. Please again read Bryant 2001, he has good words for Talageri’s analysis even-though he disagrees with the conclusions. If Bryant accepts it, I don’t see how you can object. As per WP:V Talageri’s book is acceptable. Please also see Bryant's book regarding how much time is spent on same issues.

For your edit regarding Sindh (Witzel exact words from the article are “In total, there are some 40 “Indian” words transmitted to ancient Mesopotamia, some of which may have been coined by Dilmun (Bahrain) traders. They include: Sindh wood sinda” | Witzel EJVS VOL. 5 (1999), ISSUE 1 (September) page 24. So again I am providing reference for my comments, I expect same from you. I will be reverting it back, if you fail to provide references.

OIT is not about how YOU think they could be in India before IVC. Write a book, get it published and I will be glad to add that to appropriate page.Sbhushan 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your comments about Nichols are the epitome of your tendency to make argumernts that appear to be supportive of OIT but are actually contentless. Thus you say that "OIT proponents propose to use the language dispersal model proposed by Johanna Nichols in the paper The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread". In fact you say that twice! So how do they "propose to use it"? What is the actual argument? You slip in the fact that Nichols takes the AMT view while repeatedly suggesting that Nichols's arguments in some unspecified way actually support the opposite of what she in fact says. Paul B 16:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, Talageri mentions Nicholas model to show that East to West movement is possible and suggest changing the location to India instead of BMAC. Bryant also says that it is possible to use this model even though he says he is not best qualified to critique it or further it.Sbhushan 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the strategy appears to be to present a long-winded piece about basic truisms of the fields involved to set up a "scholarly" ambience, interspersed with sudden non sequiturs and outrageous claims. Just that this will only work with people unfamiliar with the subject, no luck here, sorry Sbhushan. dab (ᛏ) 16:29, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I can only argue with you if you can keep a minimum of coherence. Witzel mentions 40 "Indian" ("Meluhhian") words, including a word for some kind of wood. How on earth do you contrive this to mean that Witzel accepts that 3rd millennium Meluhha was known by its Indo-Aryan name Sindh-? This is typical for many of your claims, you cite some source and attribute to it some wild claim loosely inspired by some point mentioned there. If you want to somehow suggest that sinda "wood" is related to sindhu "stream", Witzel certainly doesn't make that connection. And wth do the Nakshatra have to do with anything? Everybody agrees they are post-Rigvedic, so why even bother mentioning them? Re, "write a book", this is truly hilarious (and strains AGF), you seem to just parrot our concerns back at us. Why should I "write a book" if my entire concern is to give a balanced presentation of mainstream? It is you who are pushing borderline and confused claims. dab (ᛏ) 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, Please read the reference provide to know releveance to Nakshatra to dating of Rigveda. I will respond to further messages later as I have to do my day job also.Sbhushan 16:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

All discussing please see WP:PNOV it states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

It doesn't matter what each of us think is right or wrong, this is the view presented by OIT proponets. Any valid criticism of the view is accptable and should be included. We are not here to solve the problem. Before arguing, please do read the referenced publications. We did discuss this in before and the article was rewritten based on that. I have been asking for feedback all during the process.Sbhushan 17:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware of policy. the crucial points for you are undue weight and asserted as being the truth; you are guilty on both counts. As for "not just the most popular one", if we did that, this article wouldn't even exist. I have uncovered bias upon ridiculous bias in your version, just review my edits. you may bring back the Nakshatras stuff if you manage to cast it to comply with the policy you have just cited yourself. I have done more than would have been required by not simply reverting you. dab (ᛏ) 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I took a look at all your edits and what you have removed are the exact words said by the authors in the published material. If the choice is between the author’s words and yours, then WP policy states that author’s words should be quoted. For relevance of material also, if author’s think that that material is relevant, I fail to see how you can challenge that. If these statements have been criticized by other authors, please quote the exact criticism from published material without introducing your bias. So I will revert these back individually and each statement has the details regarding where they have been quoted. Please verify the source before commenting on them. Second question was to why date of Rigveda is so important to OIT case, I am quoting from Bryant (2001, p238)

Everything hinges on the date of the Vedas. Indispensable support for the Indigenous position would result if the possibility of a much greater antiquity for the Vedic corpus could be convincingly demonstrated. Indeed, as I have noted in previous chapters, the Indigenous case actually loses plausibility unless such antiquity can be demonstrated.

So again I don’t under stand how do you feel more qualified than these authors?Sbhushan 22:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbhushan dab is not saying that the quotes aren't legitimate. He is talking about the way they work in the article. I agree with him that they don't work very well - the quotes are handpicked out of context in ways that make it look as if the OIT is standiing stronger than it actually is. People are quoted in ways that twist their words as to give support for something they are arguing against. Contrary arguments are not presented or presented in a manner as to appear insignificant or even disproved. I gave you a thorough criticism of the linguistics section and I think an even deeper criticism could have been applied to the rest of the sections had I had the time. But the most basic problem is what is supposed to be the function of this article. It is not to present a theory in a waya so as to make it appear plausible or implausible - it is to tell people 1. that there is a theory, 2. which kinds of arguments are used to defend it 3. which are used against it, and 4. what its current scientific standing is. That is all. The article as it is now doesn't achieve the three latter points in any meaningful way. It is a mess of quotes passed of as facts or arguments in favour the OIT. and it doesn't show clearly what are the arguments for and against - and it definitely gives the impression that all arguments against the theory are mistaken and that the theorys lack of recognition relies peoples refusal to listen to the arguments in favour of the OIT. When what it should say is that the theory is seen as being an less probable scenario than other scenarios for a number of reasons. Maunus 22:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see what your issue with it is. The four sections are well sourced (though more work may be needed on Archaeology & Astronomy) . It should note that people refusing to listen to OIT, are followers of the pseudo-scientific cult called Indology . The page isnt called "Criticism of OIT' its called OIT. The article merely cites what evidence has been made to back it up.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"pseudo-scientific cult called Indology", uh-huh, thank you Baka. This is the sort of thing I am talking about, Sbhushan: we have to sort out such attitudes and separate those points that make at least a little bit of sense. dab (ᛏ) 23:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I have no problem changing words, but let us do this after discussion. as an example Dab erased the complete section Memories of Urheimat. I had provided ref for the section and those are Elst's words not mine. How is this section irrelevent to the OIT discussion and how have I introduced any bias into this. He should atleast check the words in the source and if he doesn't like it talk before taking such a action. Every argument presented is from the published material in author's words, if you want to add mainstream criticim please add them in same way. Taking unilateral action does not solve anything.Sbhushan 00:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have restored edits with comments in the summary. These are Authors words and their assertions, I have not added any thing to these. Please add mainstream response to these based on published material with ref. Some other I did not restore, eventhough I could, they are just not worth the effort. For every material I am adding I am providing ref and please make sure you do that too. For whold week I have been asking for feedback and very limited response, now suddenly everyone wakes up.Sbhushan 01:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, let us try to address your concern regarding how the quotes work in the article. Pick one section at a time and let us reword it to make it more coherent and balanced. I have no problem adding arguments against the theory, so far I have not found any compelling argument against it that other liguistic have not countered. I clearly state that OIT is using arguments proposed by linguistic community. In the first paragraph I state twice that mainstream do not favor this theory. In linguistic section, I clearly state that mainstream do not accept the assertion. For Philology, no problem with adding mainstream response, but it has to based on published work. Sbhushan 01:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Memories of Urheimat

fine, let us look at that section. Since you make statements in Wikipedia's voice, let's look at them for what they are, claims:

It has been pointed out that the Vedas present no direct mention of a Urheimat, unlike other ancient texts such as the Torah.

the Torah presents "mention of an Urheimat"? What blooming nonsense. The earliest mention of an "Urheimat" in the Torah is the garden of Eden. After that Ur of the Chaldeans. These are myths or legends that have nothing to do with "memories of a Semitic Urheimat". You seem to fail to understand that "Urheimat" is a linguistic term. What is the "Urheimat" of the Jews, Egypt (Exodus), or Babylon (Captivity), or Jerusalem (Jewish diaspora)? You cannot arbitrarily call "Urheimat" any point of departure of some migration. Otherwise, of course, Gandhara would be the "Rigvedic Urheimat", because India was settled by the Rigvedic people starting form the extreme NW. The Caspian steppe is the Indo-Iranian Urheimat, not the Proto-Indo-European one, and not necessarily the Indo-Aryan one.

To have forgotten a homeland which they may have left a few centuries ago (based on Aryan migration models) is incoherent with what has been seen in other parts of the world in Ancient History. Other branches of IE have a clear migration history, even if no literary record has been preserved.

how is this incoherent? You state yourself that there are no literary records of any Urheimat, in any branches. Generally accepted "migration histories" of other branches are on precisely the same footing as the generally accepted migration history of the Indo-Iranians from Central Asia. The Greeks, case in point, have no indication of any immigration whatsoever, and the time-span separating supposed immigration to Greece and earliest sources is directly comparable to the Indo-Aryan case.

It is commonly accepted that the Celtic and Italic peoples were invaders into their classical habitats.

just as it is commonly accepted that the Indo-Iranians settled in Central Asia. This article is about dissent against such mainstream scenarios. If you can dissent with Indo-Aryan migration, you can also dissent with Celtic migration, same game, there just aren't quite as many Celtic mysticists pestering Wikipedia, thank goodness.

The Celts’ itinerary can be archaeologically traced back to Slovakia and Hungary, and Germany still preserves some Celtic place-names. In France, Spain, and the British Isles, a large pre-IE population existed, comprising at least two distinct language families.

can it now? are you an expert on Celts, suddenly? This corresponds to the greatest historical expansion of the Celts, not to some sort of 'itinerary'.

The Iranians are fairly clear about their history of immigration from Hapta-Hendu and Airyanam Vaejo, two of sixteen Iranian lands mentioned in the Zoroastrian scripture Vendidad. (see below).(Elst 1999: Ch 4.6)[2]

"fairly clear"? These are, indeed, two of sixteen "Aryan" lands mentioned in the Vendidad, that is, probably around 600 BC or so. All this proves (arguably) is that the Iranians were aware of the existence of the Punjab. It tells us nothing about any sort of "migration memories".

Some branches of the IE family have no memory of any migration, some have vague memories of their own immigration into their historical habitat, the Iranian branch has a distinct memory of migration from India to Iran, and only the Indian branch has a record of emigration of others from its own habitat. However, if the Indian subcontinent, the site of the composition of the Vedas, was the Urheimat of the Vedic people, this problem would not be present.(Elst 1999: Ch 4.6)[2]

claiming that "the Iranian branch has a distinct memory of migration from India to Iran" is pure bollocks. So is "only the Indian branch has a record of emigration of others from its own habitat": the Gutasaga has memories of an exodus from Scandinavia to Greece, for example. The Graeco-Roman historiographers record all sorts of migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes. Records of population movements in Indian sources are on exactly the same footing as these and have nothing whatsoever to do with any Proto-Indo-European migrations.

If Elst really makes such arguments, his case is much weaker than I thought. We can still state that Elst speculates, or asserts this or that strange non sequitur. It is out of the question that you should present Elst's flawed argument in Wikipedia's voice. Just about every sentence above flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge. If you think you are within NPOV policy with this paragraph, you haven't even begun to understand either the issue or Wikipedia rules. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, everything in that section is from Elst article (please check the electronic link). You could provide a good critique to Elst. Your argument is with Elst and not me. I am OK with Maunus edit.Sbhushan 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

my argument is with you because you keep presenting Elst as fact instead of as idiosyncracy. I have no issue with Elst any more than with Tilak, people are free to write anything they like in their own books. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There is, in fact, a "Rigvedic Urheimat", and it is Gandhara. This isn't "dead certain", but likely from the highest frequency of Rigvedic river names being from that area. There is no problem with stating that the Rigvedic "Urheimat" is in India, this is acceptable to everybody. It is shoddy scholarship to imply that Proto-Rigvedic is the same as Proto-Indo-Aryan, and that is again the same as "Proto-Aryan". Proto-Rigvedic (possibly identical to Proto-Dardic) may be in Gandhara, but Proto-Indo-Aryan predates Proto-Rigvedic, including the "Mitanni Aryan" and possibly Scythian Sindi etc. If you are content to state that "the Rigveda is Indian, Indian, and purely Indian, composed in India by Indians", you meet no opposition. But not all Indo-Aryan branches are descended from Rigvedic, not to mention the Iranian branch. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

items not in Rigveda

Dab, I see that you have reverted the section again. I explained my reasons in the summary. Both Natshatra and Swords are relevant to discussion. These are exact words from Elst (please check the link). You disagree with Elst regarding how many time "sword" is mentioned and ref to Ramayana. Now it is your words against Elst. Why should this article represent your words? Again most of these were presented in JIES article, why don't you add the critique from JIES (take the worst that you can find). Also, what is with the start of the section - those words are not sourced and completely irrelevant to the OIT discussion. I am trying to work with you to resolve this issue.Sbhushan 15:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've told you repeatedly, you can reference Elst's various opinions and speculations, but you cannot keep them in Wikipedia's voice. Why is this so difficult to understand? Griffith uses "sword" twelve time in his translation. This isn't "my word against Elst's", it is Elst's mistaken statement against Griffith's text itself, which is freely available. I have removed your words at the start of the section, implying that the absence of Harappan items in the RV can somehow be taken to assert a pre-Harappan(!!) date for the RV, which is an obvious and complete travesty of the situation. Do you even realize what you are claiming here? The patently Bronze Age context of the Rigveda is really Neolithic? Such stuff is really beneath discussion. dab (ᛏ) 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Let us try to address one item at time. What is your concern with Nakshatra statement? "Nakshtra were developed in 2400 BC, they are important in religious text and RV does not mention this, which suggest RV is before 2400 BC". The words used in document earlier were from Elst so that I don't introduce my bias. Why do you object to this addtion? If you don't like the wording, suggest something and we can discuss.Sbhushan 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

De-POVization

I have started dePOVizating the article bit by bit but it is extremely tedious work. As it is now each section presents an argument in favour of the OIT, but in a very obfuscating manner making the argument look like some kind of semifact. Further more when it mentions counterarguments it does it in a way that is clearly intended to put the counter arguments in a bad light as nonsensical or unreasonable. Further more each section ends with a little coda that present the argument as the only reasonable one. Not acceptable and certainly POV.

I am trying to make it obvious in each section what is the argument, who proposes what and what counter arguments are presented by the mainstream side. Sometimes I cannot refer to a particular source but the counter argument is so obvious that I include it in my own wording - it is better that it is a little balanced and then it can be sourced later. I also remove excessive sourcing of arguments - the article is way too long and spends way too much space explaining and providing sources to things that it doesn't really explain anyway. Sometimes less is more - this is one of those times. Maunus 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the effort you are putting in this. As I mentioned earlier, I am new to WP and my strength is research not writing. Most of the edits that you and Paul have done are definitely an improvement. I will take this as learning.Sbhushan 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And I appreciate the amount of research you have done and the effort you have put into building this new layout of the page. But most of all I appreciate your responsivee opeen minded attitude.Thanks. Maunus 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Question re: "unlikely"

It has been mentioned that PIE homeland in India is very unlikely scenario. So far I have not heard an argument (except substrata) that makes it unlikely. I would like to understand this issue, so I can research to find counter arguments. To clarify the question, OIT accepts that Sanskrit is a daughter language, but there is no link between this and PIE homeland (please see history section). The East to West spreading can be answered by Nicolas model (I know she prefers AMT, but the logic of spread can still be used). I would appreciate if you can provide me top three reasons.Sbhushan 15:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought research was a strength of yours? You can read this up in any introduction to Indo-European studies, beginning with the EIEC, and spanning all of JIES. The case against a migration out of India is overwhelming, essentially reducing "counter arguments" to agnostic arguments like "can we really be certain about anything", "can we absolutely rule out it was not so", which of course we cannot. India as a marginal territory of IE distribution, with only a small variety of IE languages, and numerous non-IE languages just is orders of magnitude less likely than a central area with great diversity of languages. Your problem is that you know in advance what you want to prove, which isn't methodically sound. India may be considerably more likely a PIE Urheimat than Polynesia or Bolivia, but it still is considerably less likely a candidate than regions central to IE variety. I suggest you just look at Kurgan hypothesis and the references there. The Kurgan scenario is completely sound wrt the whole picture, and doesn't need to take recourse to agnosticism or wild "revolutionary" re-dating sprees like OIT. In a nutshell, OIT is unlikely because there are immensely more likely candidates. dab (ᛏ) 15:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

1. it requires more and longer migrations for the PIE branches to all have left India.

2. it requires a more complex chronology in respect to the development of isoglosses and archeological and other features (such as the reinvention of the chariot etc.)(Witzels "autochtonous aryans" adress this well)

3. it requires a number of complex internal explanations of the innovations in Indic (which also must have happened in a quitee short time namely the time after the last non Indic group left and the writing of the Veda) instead of one simple explanation (substrate influence).

Using Nichols model like that is like when Talageri says that "the common homeland of Greek and IA could be India": it is possible - but a number of explanations needs to be done in order to account for it that we don't need to do if we suppose it to bee somewhere else. E.g. in the Kurgan people we have a people who fit the most accepted time frame, who can be seen archeologically to expand their territory over time, who have the basic cultural patterns that fit with a PIE people and who inhabited an area closer to the epicentre of linguistic diversity (a territory which also makes for faster and easier expansion). That is the reason I believe the Kurgan hypothesis over the other ones. (I do find OIT more probable than Paleolithic Continuity or Anatolian though)Maunus 16:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, as always your concise comment are much appreciated. Substrata is a key argument, I will try to understand this issue more. Also if IVC gets deciphered, it will solve this issue. Thanks.Sbhushan 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding changes in the document, Thomason and Kaufman (1988) also outlined a typology of change typically caused by the cultural pressure of a language on another—the more overpowering the influence, the more the language will transform. The kind of transformation seen in India is complete imposition of new language and culture (few nomads changing more advanced urban population). This has impact on the Substrata and place name change discussion. The exception statement in place name does not match Witzel's comments that all over Europe the place names were retained. So India is exception, more surprising as India had urbanized indigenous population. Can we change the words?Sbhushan 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomason and Kaufman outlined many kinds of scenario for language change and they discuss specfically Dravidian substrate in Indic in the pages I have referred to. Not only overpowering influence can cause language shift - and they specifically state that the kind of influences seen in Indic can only stem from large Dravidian speaking populationsanging those wordings would be misrepresenting their conclusions. As for the hydrology I suppose we ought to change it a bit - the exception part is probably my POV (sorry).Maunus 08:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I am prepared to agree that if indeed not a single non-Indo-Aryan river name can be found in all of NW India, that is really surprising, and imo the strongest claim for an early (3rd millennium) Indo-Iranian presence in India. It would be sensational enough if it would transpire that Indo-Iranian existed in 2600 BC in an area stretching from IVC to BMAC to Arkaim even without cuckoo-cloud claims about PIE, the Rigveda or the 6th millennium. dab (ᛏ) 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, it is hard to keep bias out, that is OK, we will keep each other honest. "large Dravidian speaking" population changing based on immigration of few nomads, who are technologically far inferior to existing "Dravidian". What did these nomads have to offer? Is this likely? I see lot more changes in the Substrata section. This is completely mis-representing Bryants conclusion.Sbhushan 02:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

an analogy

regarding diversity: If we had no historical information predating the 18th century AD, and we wanted to explain the presence of the horse in both the Americas and Eurasia, which would be the more likely equine Urheimat? In the Americas, we have wild horses (mustangs) and llamas. In Eurasia, we have donkeys, onagers, and a wide variety of different horse breeds. If we wanted to insist that the horse originated in the Americas, we would need to claim an extremely early "emigration". After this, the horse stayed extremely conservative in America, not evolving or diversifying, while the "migrants" in Eurasia diversified into all sorts of subspecies and species. In fact, we would have to postulate several waves of emigration, the Hipparion emigrates first, and evolves into the zebra, onager, donkey etc., and later the finished horse emigrates as well, diversifying into anything between the Caspian pony and the Frisian, while in America, the Urheimat of the Hipparion, only the mustang survives, no trace of anything else. Could we prove this wasn't what happened? No, but it would strike us as extremely, extremely unlikely, and very compelling supporting arguments would have to be presented to make it plausible. We have the same situation here (although of course this is an analogy, and can only be taken so far). In India, we have Indo-Aryan (the mustang) and Dravidian (the llama). In Eurasia, we do not only have a colourful collection of all sorts of IE branches (the various horse breeds), but also remotely related Anatolian (the Przewalski horse) and possible more remote relatives like the Tyrrhenian languages of which we cannot quite say if they are IE or not (the onager, donkey, zebra...). I am not sure if you can appreciate the analogy, but it illustrates why neutral observers will find it very difficult to favour OIT unless really overwhelming supporting arguments are shown (as which fabrications involving archaeoastronomy and the Sarasvati river certainly do not qualify). dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A very well formulateed analogy indeed. Maunus 11:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the whole problem with the PIE homeland question. It is all based on one anology supported by another anology. I would rather not spend time debating this issue, but let me ask a question. Hock (1999a) notes that “the ‘PIE-in-India’ hypothesis is not easily refuted. Bryant (2001) tries to see if India can be excluded as a possible PIE homeland and fails. Nicolas model answers diversity issue. There are few more models I could quote. Why do you think you know better than these scholars? If you do then there is lot of money to be made with publication royalties. Why waste your time publishing on Wikipedia? It doesn’t pay you any royalty, trust me there is no fame, and you also have to put up with lot of abuse from some people.

For the "unlikely scenario" answer, the next question is how likely is this scenario? Few nomads come as immigrants to an advanced, thickly populated area (estimated about a million people) spread over 1.5 million KM. There is no invasion and no mass migration (no archeological data). The existing larger, more advanced population has a complete change in language and culture, with no knowledge to previous culture is maintained. All traces of existing culture disapear. Intruder don’t mention this exceptional feet of subjugating superior people without any war, no parallel in known history (they would be Heroes in their books, these same people praise every martial accomplishment in RV). People who used to live in urban center discard their houses and start living in huts. Any knowledge of the existing culture is not mentioned in the first document produced by immigrants (eventhough Witzel says that 'material cultural' was already absorbed by intruders - intruders were almost bilingual), but it surfaces in the documents produced 1,000 years later. They are able to change place names and river names without creating any confusion. Existing population accept the change, because some small number of culturally/technologically inferior immigrants had nostalgic thoughts about a homeland that they don't mention in their documents. Places for pilgrim are always mentioned in all religious documents. Very minimum impact on language of intruders who were immigrants (it is almost pure). The same immigrants trekked over thousands of KM, must have had lots of adventure/hardships in their journey, must have met other cultures, but there is no mention of anything in the their documents. After all this journey they were able to preserve their language closet to the original PIE (No reconstruction of PIE would be possible if Sanskrit was not preserved, also there would be no Indology). Their religious mythology is the most preserved compared to other branches of the family (RV alone has all 14 of IE deities names, next is Greek with 9). They record their presence in the same region as far as they can remember and these people have exceptional method of oral transmission of knowledge seen by oral preservation of RV.

And you think that language spread from East is more unlikely than the above mentioned scenario!!! If you do, then I have the Golden Gate Bridge in a prime location that I could be forced to sell at a small premium. I would be taking a loss on the transaction.Sbhushan 03:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbushan: Hock and Bryant are not in favour of OIT - they say exactly the same as dab, OIT is possible (i.e. it can't be rejected) but unlikely( less probable than other theories). dab's analogy was intended to illustrate why the spread of isoglosses do constitute an argument against OIT.Maunus 08:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, I have never said they are they are in favour of OIT, they have said it is difficult to reject OIT. Nicolas model addresses the isoglosses issue (she puts locus in Bacteria, which is not too far from the locus proposed by OIT). But it is possible for PIE homeland to be located far from Central location. Hock himself said Isoglosses can be maintained in OIT hypothesis, he rejects it for complexity issue. Hock's complexity issue would also reject Kurgan (please see earlier comments regarding multiple migrations in opposite direction). Bryant's conclusion is that we might never solve PIE homeland puzzle.

Dab's position is NOT same as these scholars. His view is that OIT is so unlikely, that it should not even be mentioned. He states speculations and theories as established facts. Also IVC and accomplishments of IVC are a fact (all scholars agree on that), which he calls speculation. I am not sure what kind of tabloid he is reading re: his alien IA's. His arbitary edits in the document with unsourced biased opinion is wrecking everyone's hard work. I am trying very hard to work with him to address his concerns, but he just keeps editing out well ref. material and replacing with his POV statements. I have not complained against any valid criticism added to the OIT position.Sbhushan 12:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I grant you that dab often writes in an aggressive and dismissive tone, but given the acres of nonsense and the wild accusations that get thrown around about people's motivations that's not too surprising. Only yeaterday I was accused on my talk page by one editor of hating "white people" and by another of being a white supremacist! However it is palpably untrue to say that he thinks it should not be mentioned. He created the OIT page (Out of India theory). Almost simultaneously I created another one (Out of India Theory). Which came first I don't remember. The two are now merged into this one, having been greatly expanded by your efforts and those of other editors. See here [6]. Paul B 12:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I have no problem with valid criticism, but please see Dab's arbitrary edits in the document. Everyone can see the effort I am making to engage Dab in dialogue to resolve this in amicable manner. It is also obvious how much success I am having. Everything related to PIE is controversial, the best thing would be to work together to create a proper encyclopedic balanced article. If the ref is not clear in the article please put {{Fact}} tag and if the author doesn’t address it in few days time. Then remove the text. If disagreement is regarding wording, suggest something on talk page and let us make it better. I am surprised by the entrenched positions here. If we continue this, we are not going to be able to get much done. I can’t address previous history, but at this point in time, Dab is the only editor making arbitary controversial edits without talking first.Sbhushan 12:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, all theories that place PIE outside India, fail to address the "unlikely" issue of IA overlap with IVC. Mainstream scholars don't even make any effort to address this difficulty. A complete theory has to address all issue. Every single theory proposed has been rejected by other scholars. Regarding Kurgan, please see Bryant (2001). Infact there is no consensus amongst Indologist after 200 years of research. They are unsure about everything, except that it could not have been in India (only based on "unlikely"). So we can't say that anything related to PIE is a fact.Sbhushan 12:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that anything is a fact - except that it is a fact that fewer scholars are convinced by OIT than by Kurgan hypothesis or even the Anatolian one which is a favourite of archeologists. If you read past dab's agressive rhetorics he is not saying anything that is out of line with what you mention. And yes every single proposal have been rejected by some scholars - some rejections and some proposals are just better founded and better argued than others (you can still find people who argue that the world is flat also - or that cigarettes aren't harmful etc. they usuallyhave an agenda though and not very convincing arguments). But the scientifically sound way to state the problem of a PIE urheimat is by saying that "we don't know where it is but judging from the evidence at hand kurgan is among the least problematic hypotheses and OIT is not" Itis a schlars job to be unsure about everything untill evidence makes something look probable. I am certainly unsure - and I admit that India is a possibility, so does the rest of the scholarly community. Why then are you guys so sure it must be India? (my feeling is that you are so sure because you would like it to be true, whereas we couldn't care less where in the world the PIE homeland were)Maunus 12:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, for the purpose of WP - OIT page, to make it proper encyclopedic balanced article, we agreed to present OIT arguments and present criticism of those arguments by mainstream. Dab agreed to this and now he is trying to tell OIT what their arguments should be. He is not doing any favor to OIT as he claims. He is introducing his POV in the article. We have to find a solution to address this issue or we will spend rest of our lives on this one page.Sbhushan 13:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, re: why I am so sure, this is to clarify my position and not for general debate/discussion. All agree PIE was one entity a long time back. Because of India's far East position, either IA come to India or PIE left India before IA was formed. So first question is could IA have come to India. Please look at earlier discussion re: why that is unlikely. In addition to that discussion, all ref to Saraswati, which is now a archeological fact (Bryant 2001). 80% of settlements around Saraswati are dated to 4th millennium. How could people who came in 1500 BC (even if you take 1900 BC) provide most praise to a river (in present form) which was effectively gone from the area for about 2000 years. Why not praise Sindu which is the main river at that time. There is lot more I could add, but please see all arguments presented in article regarding RV dating. So this makes in very unlikely that IA came to India. So now I look at the scenario that PIE left India before IA was formed. So I look at argument against this scenario (e.g unlikely, complex migration, substrata etc). Then I find that all these arguments have been countered by other linguistic themselves and are not facts but just a theory. So on what basis should we give more weight to theory than facts?

So I find that IA coming to India is not as simple as mainstream makes it to be (infact they don't even make an effort to address this issue) and PIE going out of India is not as difficult as mainstream makes it out to be. My position for OIT is not feelings, but logical thought process and that is why I am not afraid of criticism. I could also quote Witzels statement where he doesn't care if PIE homeland was in Africa, as long as it was not in India (that I find unscholarly). But for sake of article, please see my earlier comment, let us make it proper article, our discussion are not going to solve this issue.Sbhushan 13:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, re: lack of linguistic scholars who support OIT, problem is that India doesn't have these studies. A lone Indian SS Misra is busy with PVC scenario (a lost battle in imho). Guess where most European scholars prefer PIE homeland. Look at how theoris are modified to fit facts, Invasion → Migration → complex trickling to expalin lack of archeological evidence. Also, no archeological trace of migration from Central Asia to India. So were these horses and Chariot airlifted (or StarTrek - transporter tech) to land in India (I couldn't resist poking at Dab's alien theory). So again mainstream theory might be supported by more scholars, but have serious logical flaws.Sbhushan 13:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

A well formulated analogy indeed.Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If BMAC & Arkaim were not already connected with IVC then why after 1700 BC period they declined ? Why their growth dates are in accordance with peak IVC period ? And, their decline is with IVC ? It shows that both were economically dependent with IVC. Otherwise why they should also decline with IVC ? So, if those central asian areas were economically connected & dependent on IVC then how some nomads will impose thier language ( & not culture & material - as per Witzel ). What was something that made ancient Indians to adopt foreign nomadic language without leaving any smell of that transformtion ? Western people are adopting Indian words like Yoga and spiritual words as it's totally new even for their culture. They are adopting those words becuase they don't have such words in their culture and original words represents them properly. So, why ancient Indians will adopt naming of Yoga ( which is found in IVC terracota Yoga postures ) or mathematical terms ( as IVC had planned towns ) from central asian nomads whose immigration is not attested archelogically or in ANY Indian language texts. So, central asian nomads had to device that terms for that unknown science and then ancient Indians had to forget their nomenclature and adopt foreign given terms. First solve just these puzzling questions which are not present for Bolivia or Polynesian PIE case and otherwise have some logical sense in equating Indian subcontinent PIE case with totally unknown Bolivia or Polynesian PIE. WIN 07:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)