Talk:Out of India theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Out of India theory article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1]. 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 ^{[citation needed]} 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)

[edit] Dab's edits

[edit] Indo Iranian and Avesta

Dab, in the section you inserted "Talageri (chapter 6) (...)the east." instead of "Talageri states (...)that the Saptasindhu or Hapta-HAndu was a homeland of the Iranians." Talageris statement from Chapter 6 is

2. The Rigveda and the Avesta, as we saw, are united in testifying to the fact that the Punjab (Saptasindhu or Hapta-HAndu) was not a homeland of the Vedic Aryans, but was a homeland of the Iranians.

Please verify [[2]].

While what you quoted is also statement from chapter 6, it is not accurate representation of Talageri's position. So I am changing it back. You should not misrepresent authors position.Sbhushan 01:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philology

Dab, your edit "The date at which it was composed, in the mainstream view the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan), is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India.[16]" is implying that mainstream date is a fact WP:NPOV. I am suggesting this should be worded as

The date at which it was composed is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India. In the mainstream view it was composed the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan) and OIT proponent propose a pre-Harappan date.

This will be more balanced wording. This change I have not made, as at some point you have suggested few different dates Renfrew (very early), Propola (2 waves), Witzel (1900) and standard date of 1500-1200. So pick one, I am OK with any. OIT is proposing date of composition pre-Harappan, please see details in the Saraswati and Item not in RV. You have right to disagree, but this is OIT position.Sbhushan 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, second edit "Note that the OIT is not (......)Early Harappan date.[citation needed]". I don't know what you mean by that. Date of RV is critical component of OIT, Bryant also acknowledges this. So I don't know where are you getting this idea from. Please provide ref. Again this change I have not made yet. I will wait to see if you have any ref to support this.Sbhushan 01:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

so what's Elst's date for the RV? Elst has a 5th millennium emigration from India. If OIT takes place in the 5th millennium, how is it relevant if the RV dates to the 2nd, 3rd, or even 4th millennium? It will be irrelevant to OIT either way. Now a 2nd millennium date is accepted as practically certain for the early RV. It is really just painfully obvious. You can stretch things and argue for a surprisingly early date, in the late or mid 3rd millennium (Mature Harappan). That is a shaky argument, but with a lot of hand-waving, you can at least build a shaky case. A 4th millennium date for the RV, however, is simply completely beyond any rational debate, and firmly within the realm of "magic space Aryans". It will do this article no good, as I have argued many times, to conflate raving nonsense by people who don't know the first thing about ancient literature, the Bronze Age or philology, with reasonable if far-fetched pro-OIT arguments. You can cite Knapp, Frawley, Tilak and their like, arguing for a Rigveda composed by paleolithic cyborg Aryans on the North pole, but please do not mix this up with a rational debate on OIT. I am only interested in the latter. Do take Aryan mysticism to some other article, thankyou. dab (ᛏ) 09:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you forgot to provide a ref to published docuement for your opinion. I will only address your comment if they have a link for published work. For OIT dating of pre-IVC please read all the referenced material provided in the article. Also read Bryant (2001) re: your "practically certain" comment, please also see story behind mainstream date for RV in that book. Bryant thinks that dating of RV is very important for OIT case. On what basis do think you know better than Bryant?Sbhushan 01:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edit in place name section

Dab, your edits are showing your ignorance about the subject matter. Please read Bryant (2001, chapter 9 page 157 - 1 million mile = 1.7 million Kilometer), Asko Parpola - Study of the Indus Script[3], S.R. Rao (1991:1), Kazanas (2000:12). If you want to contribute to the article, please read published material from good sources. Every word that I have written in the docuemt in properly referenced. If you doubt something, please put ^{[citation needed]} and I will address your questions. I am trying to work with you to resolve the issues in a reasonable manner, but there is only so much that I can do alone. Making arbitary deletes are not helping the matters. Your edit are not WP:NPOV. All of your edits are controversial in nature, please get consensus before making the edits.Sbhushan 01:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I have removed the text and every word that I have quoted is well referenced. If you have doubts about any section, please check the ref. If you can't find them, please leave a ^{[citation needed]} tag and I will address it. Thanks.Sbhushan 01:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sbhushan, I am growing tired of you accusing me because you cannot cite your sources properly (sidenote, I am removing WIN's parrotting as white noise). Let us not even address the blatant bias you are trying to sell us as "edited for npov", it would be enough if we didn't have to double-check each of your references because you are unable to cite even OIT proponents accurately and reliably. Alleging that "Aryan civilization" was "spread over 1.5 million km" doesn't show ignorance, it shows complete and utter cluelessness on any topic common knowledge whatsoever. I assume your sources are talking of square kilometers. A square kilometer is not the same as a kilometer. It is fair enough to omit the 'square' by mistake, but to then come arguing with me instead of just silently correcting your mistake is simply hilarious. If Aryans were spread over "1.5 million km", they were settling far beyond the moon (probably in svargaloka or what?) I wouldn't be surprised if WIN or you thought there were ancient Aryan colonies on the moon, but I have serious doubts Kazanas would go so far. dab (ᛏ) 11:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I should have caught the "square" error as we are talking about area. It is honest mistake. But how does this justify all the edits you have done unilaterally. Where I disagree with your statement, I am trying to have a discussion with you on talk page and have put ^{[citation needed]} tag without deleting your irrelevant biased statements. I am not getting any response back at all regarding the statements I have identified, but you can write a large paragraph insinuating all kind of negative things for a small mistake. Please do look at WP policies. Sbhushan 15:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Place Names and Hydronomy

I have left some ^{[citation needed]} tags in the article. The first 2 show disagreement with Witzel's statement. The last one is interesting since you are saying that IA renamed a river Saraswati that had disappeared about 2000 years before entry of IA because of religious feelings. Think of the logic of this statement.Sbhushan 01:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

how about you read a statement before you think of its "logic". Why should we consider the logic of your strawmen instead of that of the actual arguments? I am afraid that if you do not wisen up and begin editing honestly, you will have no joy here. dab (ᛏ) 11:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, can you please provide academic references for the statements. The Saraswati river was in its prime in 4th to 3rd millinium time period (Bryant 2001, p. 167), long before IA came to India as per mainstream (1900 to 1500 BC). Sbhushan 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, are you planning to add ref for the cites or should those statement be removed. You also removed one ^{[citation needed]} tag without providing any ref. Please do not remove tags.Sbhushan 15:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you removed the statement "OIT proponents argue that this suggest that Indo-Europeans are indigenous to India." Can you please clarify your reason for removal of this. This is OIT argument based on preservation of River names. You have right to disagree and provide counter argument based on published documents. Please do not forget to provide proper ref.Sbhushan 15:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dab, are you OK with adding the above statement back?Sbhushan 15:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dravidian substratum influences in Rigvedic Sanskrit

This section is POV and does not present OIT argument at all. OIT is saying that the Substrata argument is inconclusive.

1: This statement, made by Bryant, has been removed from the section. Why? As you all have mentioned quite some time Bryant is not a supporter of OIT, so his view can be taken as objective neutral statement.

2. By adding all kind of arguments you are already displaying the inconclusive nature of the discussion.

3. Witzel's comments are stated as evidence, those are his speculation. Please note that He is using the same 1991 Kuiper’s list that has been rejected by P. Thieme and Rahul Peter Das in (1994). Witzel also agrees that these are not Dravidian words, but might be Proto-Munda or Language X.

4. Witzel also states that Dravidian came to scene after IA were already settled in IVC area for some time. He is implying that IVC was not Dravidian.

5. Bryant wrote in 1996 and 2001 and was aware of Thomason & Kaufman 1988, but choose to disregard their input regarding this issue.

So we need to take it back to the discussion we had earlier, since already the inconclusive nature of the substrata is clear. Also, if PIE left India about 1000 years before RV, how is small amount of substrata that could have been introduced by trading or other contact with other language be relevent to OIT discussion? Bryant and Witzel discuss the nature of substrata words and these are mostly loan words (plant names, etc) that could have been introduced by trading or small contact.Sbhushan 02:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV and it does present the OIT argument in the frst secton it says that Hock, Bryant and other linguists find the evidence for any contaact induced changes in INdic languages to be inconclusive. The quote by Bryant is also still there but it is in a note because it is not particularly interesting (it only says what is alread said in the text - that evidence is inconclusive). We can change the statement about evidence for proto munda into saying that witzel argues that there may havee been early influence from munda.

I don't know why you meention that Bryant disregarded Thomason and Kaufman - it can only be because he is not a very strong linguist. Any way his argumeent is simply wrong the evidence it not inconclusive it is in fact very much in favour of contact induced change, but some scholars (such as Hock) have a reflex of arguing against proposals of contact change (this is my POV of course). Also substrate influence cannot come through trading - loanwords may come through trading and eeveryone agrees that there are practically no dravidian loans in early indic. Substrate influence of the kind found in early indic comes from shift.Maunus 09:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, let us try address one thing at a time, Do you believe that Substrata has been conclusively proven? Relate this to discussion about Place names also. You are saying that Vedic had extensive substrata from existing languages (absorbed number of syntactical and morphological features, plant names, etc.) but at same time changed place name and river name (something which they should have adopted). Again the argument is not coherent or logical. Bryant spends 31 pages of his book discussing this issue and list all kind of scholars who have had input for this discussion spread over 150 years. Sbhushan 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as proof - but I do believe that it has been shown to be probable beyond reasonable doubt that early Indic was influenced by Dravidian and or Munda. As for the placenames your way of weighing the logics is faulty. Thomason and Kaufman finds evidence that looks like the result of a process of language shift - that is that a large groups of Dravidians switched to Indic but retained their Dravidian accent, they did not bring (m)any loans from dravidian into Indic - in this context it doesn't seem weird at all that the Dravidian speakers also started using Indic placenames, or that the Indic placeenamees which were incorporateed into the religion that thee dravidians also adopted pushed out earlier placenames in the long run.

If Bryant spends 31 pages discussing it theen it is all the more a sign that he is not well informed if he leaves out about the only linguists who have researched language contact phenomena systematically - it tells me that he is severely out of touch with linguistics. But it is true that not all scholars believe that contact with Dravidian is shown to be probable the section as it is now says so, and it says that there are alternative explanations such as the phenomena being the results of internal developments such as Hock states. Maunus 19:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, OIT argument is that ‘evidence’ of a linguistic substratum in Indo-Aryan is inconclusive based on a paper by Edwin F. Bryant, Linguistic Substrata and the Indigenous Aryan Debate (1996) and Bryant (2001), where he is studying the claims by linguistic related to this topic. Also that this should not have any impact on homeland discussion as PIE left India at least 1,000 years before Vedic. During that 1,000 years Vedic could have been in contact with other language source. Would you have any concern with starting the section with this argument? We can provide claims and counter claims by each linguist. As counter argument, you can quote Thomason and Kaufman. So OIT provides argument and mainstream provides counter argument. Would this structure be accpetable?Sbhushan 19:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It would. When Hock says that the phenomena might be the result of internal development, that is the same as saying that the evidence for external influence is inconclusive - it just explans why said authors find it inconclusive: because there are other ways of explaning those changes in indic than contact wth dravidian namely. It is a good idea mentioning the OIT idea of chornology even if it looks counterntuitive - it makes one more mgration necessary - a migration of a huge group of dravidians moving into contact with indic after the other pie branches left india (to explain why they don't have influence from dravidian). Bascally with every step towards arguing for OIT there comes more questions to be answered, such as where were the dravidians before and why didn't they leave any traces of migrations, why don't the Vedas mention a horde of dravdians moving into indic territory?Maunus 10:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, Does "it would" mean that the OIT argument can be added to the top of the section. Sbhushan 14:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes is does. Please add the arguments and I'll look at the wording afterwards.Maunus 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, Hock states "Swedish and Norwegian, have developed the feature completely independent of any substratum" (Bryant 2001 p81). Also, Hamp (1996) "series of sound changes from purely inherited Indo-European material that arrive “by perfectly orderly Lautgesetze” to the distinctive feature of retroflexion (721; see also Vine 1987)." (Bryant's words)In other words, retroflexion can be explained purely as the result of spontaneous linguistic sound processes inherent in Indo-Aryan itself: it need not be seen as the result of a linguistic imposition from a foreign language. (Bryant 2001, p 81-82). Bryant also mentions that the exchange could be adstratum, substratum or superstratum. Witzel is arguing that the Dravidian came in the area already populated by IA. And the borrowing might be from IA to Dravidian. How can we even conclusively say who was influencing whom, if we don’t even know which language as in IVC (candidates are Dravidian, Munda, Language X as per mainstream or IA as per OIT). So this whole discussion is getting more complex and it might be too early to draw any conclusions. Again from point of view of OIT page, we can identify the ongoing debate and provide ref for readers to do more research.Sbhushan 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand Hocks argument but I don't find it to be convincing - the fact that it can be explained by internal development doesn't mean that this is the most likely conclusion. The same argument is used by linguistis all over the place to argue against all kinds of contact influence phenomena. The borrowing cannot be the other way round - proto dravidian and proto munda are both reconstructed with retroflexes - proto indic is not. But all of this is beside the point. Maunus 22:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Retroflex can be found in Russian and Polish which are IE languages. See Russian Phonology and Polish phonology. WIN 05:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cotton was or was not mentioned in Rigveda

The article Cotton#History says there are several references to cotton in Rigveda ; where as details at Items_not_in_the_Rigveda this article says no mention of cotton in Rigveda.This difference needs to be explained in both the articles. Mahitgar 10:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

no explanation is necessary, the statement on the Cotton article was simply mistaken, and I have removed it as unreferenced. dab (ᛏ) 11:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linguistics

I would like to add some details regarding Proto-Bangani, that shows presence of Kentum language in India, thus supporting India homeland scenario. The text (Elst section 2.2 [4]) I would like to add is:

OIT proponent argue that the discovery of a small and extinct kentum language inside India (Proto‑Bangani, with koto as its word for "hundred"), surviving as a sizable substratum in the Himalayan language Bangani, tends to support the hypothesis that the older kentum form was originally present in India as well. This discovery was made by the German linguist Claus Peter Zoller (1987, 1988, 1989, 1993). The attempt by George van Driem and Suhnu R. Sharma (1996) to discredit Zoller has been overruled by the findings made on the spot by Anvita Abbi (1998). She has almost entirely confirmed Zoller's list of kentum substratum words in Bangani. This issue is still being debated, please see the details at Bangani

Please let me know if you have any objections or suggestions for improvement. Does this fit in Linguistics top section or Comparative linguistics? Sbhushan 15:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

another one of your hacks. Sbhushan, you pretended to be interested in evolving this article, but now you have shown that you have no interest but to heap up rhetorics in favour of OIT no matter how far-fetched or shaky. This is not good faith editing. If you were editing in good faith, you would bother to look up argument and counter-argument yourself, not present some broken representation and leave it to us to restore the actual argument. As such, unless you begin editing in good faith, I am not prepared to let you disfigure this article any further. If you can get Maunus to fix your points and introduce them, that's fine, but I am not prepare to clean up after you any more. To anybody prepared to fix this: the Bangani-Centum claim is completely discredited. Those (fringy few) who do claim centum elements wouldn't dream of postulating that it has anything to do with OIT, but rather suggest Indo-Greek remnants. This is a non-issue that isn't even relevant to this topic. dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bangani or Garhwali is spoken in Garhwal region of that Himalaya where Greek invasion never reached. WIN 06:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

please see Bangani, to check who has been discredited. The statement clearly states that the claim is being debated and provides ref for readers to check for themselves. So do you have ref for your POV.Sbhushan 17:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also see Hock's statement on same page Bangani, I am quoting Hock from his statement

A related question is the nature of the western centum influence. Words like _gOsti_ seem to rule out Greek influence (and thus the possibility that we are dealing with linguistic echoes of Alexander's army); _lOktO_ would eliminate Germanic and Celtic; and _kOtrO_ would eliminate Greek and Latin. That is, no known western centum language could be the source for all of the relevant words. At the same time, the fact that *a and *o exhibit the same outcome (O, no doubt via *a, see below) suggests possible affiliation with the Balto-Slavo-Germanic group (or possibly with Antalolian?).

Again Dab do you have any reference for your POV.Sbhushan 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You are twisting the arguments Sbushan, I tend to agree with dabs statement above - I don't have the time to dig up the counter arguments for all of your twisted arguments anymore - you are definitely trying to give this article the spin you like best and you don't care if it represents the consensus of the scholarly community. I also have about stretched my assumptions of good faith as long as I can go. Either you start working to improve the article so it reflects thee actual scholarly consensus instead of making it reflect good on the theory or I give up trying to work on this article. How can we keep finding references for obscure arguments that nobody has argued against because they are obviously non sequiturs? The standard view point is that thee theory is not probable and this is what th article should say - it is not supposed to say that mainstearm scholarship are a bunch of morons that got it all backwards.Maunus 17:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, Witzel, Hock or Bryant all say that this issue is controversial and debate is not settled yet. The link provided is based on Witzel's Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Rgvedic, Middle and Late Vedic) EJVS VOL. 5 (1999), ISSUE 1 page 47. I saw the claim in Elst article about a month back, but could not find anything against it so I did not bring it up. Now based on Witzel article I found a website that is keeping up with the debate, if anyone is aware of any other argument against this please provide. The words are exact copy from Elst article. Also please note that I am not adding the text in the section, but trying to get a consensus.Sbhushan 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The link provided is on University of Michigan-Dearborn, MI USA website and it also has Kevin Tuite collection of responses in addition to comments by HH Hock related to this controversy.Sbhushan 18:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

These are Bryants words (2001 page 142)

At the time of writing, there is still no consensus on proto-Bangani, which Zoller has claimed to be an Indo-European language in India itself that contains very archaic Proto-Indo-European features that would significantly demarcate it from Indo-Aryan.

Sbhushan 18:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, Proto Bangani is not an obscure argument; mainstream scholars have been talking about this since 1987; also mainstream scholars are creating more confusion;

Hock argues against OIT as it “border on the improbable and certainly would violate basic principles of simplicity” (Bryant 2001 p145-146), then he says this for Bangani [5], which would be very supportive of OIT.

Witzel is most vocal against OIT, then he says “The intriguing question of Bangani has not been entirely resolved.” (page 47 [6]

Bryant says he supports AMT, but the arguments in his book are supportive of OIT.

Before I came to this discussion, everyone was complaining how “crackpots arguments” are being presented for OIT. Now I provide scholarly material, with ref to mainstream scholars opinion and then again everyone is complaining. Mainstream scholars themselves have provided most evidence in favour of OIT, but still call it marginal.Sbhushan 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Maunus, would this wording be OK

OIT proponent argue that the discovery of a small and extinct kentum language inside India (Proto‑Bangani, with koto as its word for "hundred"), surviving as a sizable substratum in the Himalayan language Bangani, tends to support the hypothesis that the older kentum form was originally present in India as well. This discovery was made by the German linguist Claus Peter Zoller (1987, 1988, 1989, 1993). This was challenged by George van Driem and Suhnu R. Sharma (1996). Anvita Abbi (1998) supported Zoller's claim. This issue is still being debated, please see the details at Bangani

Sbhushan 17:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not add this text to the section right now. It is time to take a step back and for all to cool down.Sbhushan 20:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Bangani debate has been stale for eight years now. Zoller stuck by his claim, nobody believed him, that's where it's at. I am interested in the case, and I invite you to contribute to Bangani, but this has really zilch to do with "OIT". The notable discovery of Zoller's would be a linguistic remnant of Indo-Greek or Kushan influence, persisting for almost 2,000 years, this has nothing to do with "original presence" at all. For this reason, I would have no motivation to downplay the credibility of Bangani-centum, even if I was out to deconstruct "OIT": I would happily embrace Bangani-centum (if there was any real evidence) without the slightest implication that this has anything to do with even a BCE presence of centum elements, not to mention 3,000 BCE. dab (𒁳) 11:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, few points regarding relevance to OIT discussion:

Hock specifically excludes Indo-Greek influence and few more, he states "suggests possible affiliation with the Balto-Slavo-Germanic group (or possibly with Antalolian?). Bangani"
if (a big one) this language is related to the above mentioned groups, you can appreciate the support it provides to OIT scenario. But the discussion is not conclusive yet and that is the mainstream argument.
Zoller’s claim was substantiated by a second independent field study by Anvita Abbi (1998), this field work was reviewed by Hock and his comments are on the website (same website)
lot of data is presented against Driem and Sharma challenge. There are statements of their host to show that they never even went in the area and also how they invented some of the evidence
Witzel, Bryant, Hock agree that there is no scholarly consensus regarding this claim, but agree on the importance of this evidence.
I am trying to contact Zoller himself to see if more recent work is available regarding this issue. Will provide update on response.Sbhushan 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Abbi's article mentioned something about V2 PIE language. What is V2 language?Sbhushan 17:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I heard back from Dr. Zoller. The last article was published by him on this topic In search of excellence in the Himalayas. In: Studien zur Indologie und Iranistik, 22, 1999: 251-310. Atleast 2 more articles are going to be published soon (might be by some other authors). The other relevent material is

in favor

Zoller, Claus Peter. 1988. Bericht Uber bsondere Archaismen im Bangani, einer Western Pahari-Sprache. Munchener S'tudien zur Sprachwissenschaft. 49 Pp 173-200.

Zoller, Claus Peter, 1989. Bericht Uber grammatische Archaismen im Bangani Muchener ,S'tudien , zur ,Sprachwissenschaft.. 50. Pp 159-218.

Zoller, Claus Peter. 1993. A Note on Bangani . Indian Linguistics. Col. 54, Nos 1-4. Pp 112-14.

Patyal, Hukum Chand 1995. Archaic Words in Some Western Pahari Dialects A Historical Perspective. Indian Linguistics. Vol. 56, Nos. 1 -4. Pp 129-34.

Abbi, Anvita 1997. Redundancies and Restructuring in Bangani Syntax: A Case of Language Contact in Western Himalaya Paper read in the 7hird Himalayan language Conterence, Santa Barbara. USA .

Against

Beekes, Robert S P. 1990. Indo European, Linguistics.

Driem, George van and Suhnu R. Sharma. 1996 In Search of Indo-Europeans in Himalayas Indogermanische Forschungen 10 l. Pp 107.-46.

So this issue is not stale, but is still inconclusive. If proven this would provide strong support to OIT scenario. Please see Hock's comment earlier regarding this being one of the older child of PIE.Sbhushan 17:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahui language in Baluchistan which is thought to be remnant of formal widespread Dravidian languages in North India. But now its presence has now been explained by a late immigration that took place within this millennium (Elfenbein 1987). Even this point in Linguistics section should find some mention. This is confirmed by Witzel in his Feb. 2000 paper `The Languages of Harappa' Page 1. WIN 06:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comparision to PCT

Dab, OIT is not same as "Proto Vedic Continuity" theory (PVC) or PCT. PVC is related to PCT. OIT is not comparable to PCT. OIT is not supported by, but being discussed by Hock or Bryant. Same can not be said for PCT or PVC. So to compare OIT to marginal PCT is your POV and I strongly disagree with it. For all controversial additions, please talk first before adding text. I have been very patient and have tried to discuss things with you before making any changes, but I am finding that you are not reciprocating. Please, please, please be reasonable.Sbhushan 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If OIT and PVC is not the same thing why does the latter redirect to the former?Maunus 17:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I had identified the same issue earlier, when we started changing the article. The redirect should be changed. OIT is not PVC.Sbhushan 17:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I never even mentioned "PVC". The redirect is here for historical reasons, I don't think I've seen any quotable source even addressing "PVC", and I have no opinion whether it is worth discussing. PCT otoh is simply the Eurocentric version of OIT: assuming a pre-6000 BC Urheimat in Europe, and later expansion to India, just like OIT (Elst's) assumes pre-6000 BC PIE at the Indus and later expansion to Europe. The scenarios are mirror-images of one another, and the arguments of why it is "impossible" that IE should be intrusive to either Europe or India are very similar. dab (𒁳) 11:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, both PVC and PCT reject linguistic evidence, OIT doesn't. OIT doesn't claim that Sanskrit is PIE. It accepts PIE was before Sanskrit, but places PIE in India (please see history section). Antolian hypothesis is more comparable to PCT as it is proposing 9000 BC date. PCT and PVC take the dates to before last ice age (15,000BC??). OIT proposed date is closer to scholarly consensus regarding PIE date. The disagreement is re: where the homeland is. The redirect should be changed.Sbhushan 14:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, please don't add back controversial comments, where clearly there is strong disagreement.Sbhushan 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I strongly agree with Sbhushan here. It's enough to say that it is not mainstream...you don't need to brand it Indocentric in comparison with the idea of a Nordic Urheimat, especially since this opinion is your POV and thus does not belong in this article. It is especially bad to mention this in the lead. At best, you could find a source and say that Portions of the linguistic community compare this theory as the Indocentric version of the Eurocentric PCT. I can't help but feel you are POV pushing. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

what "Nordic urheimat"? I didn't compare it to Nazi ideas, is that what you understood? I really don't see which part of the statement is problematic. I agree it doesn't need to be in the intro, but you seem to reject it outright. Why? The PCT is at least as "respectable", it was proposed by Italian archaeologist, not by a motley crew of teachers and spiritual leaders. PCT contains the exact same arguments regarding "recent arrival is impossible". What do you dispute about this? Did you even look at the PCT article? Your "Nordic" comment does not seem to indicate that. Do you dispute the PCT is Eurocentric? Or that the OIT is Indocentric? The almost total failure of this article to address any of the "out of" part of "out of India" is symptomatic for the proponent's total lack of interest in anything beyond the Hindukush. I can understand that "OIT" ideas can make sense if you look only at Indian evidence, and ignore the other branches (that's 11 12ths of the available evidence), but that is precisely what I mean by "Indocentric". dab (𒁳)

Dab, it would make it very easy, if you could supply full citations for the PCT comment. If you can supply citations, I won't have any problem with the harshest words.Sbhushan 16:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dravidians immigrating to Punjab in Mid-Vedic time - a speculation of Witzel

Witzel speculates about Dravidians immigrating to Punjab via Baluchistan from outside ancient India in Notes 17 of main article. No where in Dravidian history , scripts or legends such a immigration from central asia via baluchistan to punjab is noted or remembered. Even Aryans or Dravidians or their supposed central asian homeland have no traces of such `powerful' brothers & sisters. Infact Dravidian legends says that they immigrated from more southernly land of current India which was once a unified land mass. And, what happended to their more darker shade and Indus Dravidian scenario ? That's why I tell that Indo-Europeanists are good in fabricating some stories ( like AIT - based on their favourable interpretation ). This is like some joke for them to cook some stories whenever some contradictive scenario appears. If Rig-Vedic people are told to adopt some Dravidian influences then how they could replace language `X' of IVC people ? Sometimes Dravidians are nomadic aboriginal type people , then after IVC findings they become highly civilized and now they all together immigrate to India via baluchistan and meet Rig-Vedic Aryans in Punjab during Mid Rig-Vedic time !!! It seems that all Indo-Europeanists ( upto Witzel ) are good `cook' ! That means all allegories of Witzel telling IVC as Dravidian were wrong. So, why he should be considered `scholar' ?

Read Talageri's book which is more cohesive with all datas available. I am now sure that after 10-15 years Witzel will again jump to new `conclusion' and his `scholarly' work during those years will be `wasted' ! WIN 08:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again. This is the page for discussion of what to include in the page. Your opinions and personal taste in scholarship is of no relevance.Maunus 09:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, is there any scientific data to support his speculation of Dravidian Immigration in ancient India ? If yes, then present to me. WIN 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the topic of this article. Discontinue your ramblings.Maunus 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not ? This is mentioned in main article's Dravidian substratum ... section. Retroflex is not limited to Dravidian languages and is found in IE Russian and Polish languages also. If Sanskrit's Retroflex is due to Dravidian influences then explain for Ruusian & Polish.Witzel is involving those points which requires proof of other scientific fields. And, without which IT IS just ramblings. WIN 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Witzel s not the only one who supposes dravidian influence in Indic. This has been suggested since EMenau and the foremost scholars of contact linguistics agree. Even the linguists who believe that other explanations are preferrable acknowledge that it is a possibility. And you were rambling about dravidian migrations which are of no consequence to either argument. The retroflexes of Swedish, norwegian american english are not at all comparable to what is found in indic their development is well understood - the developments in Indic aren't. The retroflexes in polish and russian are only phonetically retroflex and only found in sibilants as a consequene of palatalizations - also not comparable. Indic languages are the only IE languages that have a full series of phonemically contrasted retroflexes - and the only language group to be in contact with several languages that have retroflex series reonstructed all the way back to the proto level - a fair basis for assuming a contact origin. You should either sit down and learn something about linguistics or stop acting as if you know anything about it.Maunus 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am again asking to you that do you have any scientific data for Immigration of Dravidians in Indian subcontinent? First give evidence for this. WIN 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How does 250,000,000 Dravidian speakers living in the indian subcontinent strike you as evidence? However: It is irrelevant!!! Maunus 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

`Inventing' language X for IVC defies any logical understanding. So, highly civilized & advanced IVC people adopted IA and Dravidian and all 3 forgot that adoption alongwith any immigration. It seems that it was very easy for coming aryans & dravidians to impose their language on IVC people.

As said by Witzel in that paper, Rig-Veda is source for this speculation then why Indo-Europeanists failed to detect Dravidian immigration alongwith Aryans ? And, instead Dravidians were pictured always so different inspite `understanding' Rig-Veda for last 150 years by those linguists. WIN 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

try to at least understand a hypothesis before "criticising" it. And go 'discussing' on a discussion forum, not here. dab (𒁳) 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The point being made by Win is that mainstream is creating lots of complexity to explain the evidence. Now we have potential Language X of IVC, proposed migration of Dravidian after IA in Punjab as per Witzel (he states all arguments based on Dravidian should be thrown out), Munda also thrown in the mix. RV has retroflex based on Dravidian, but loan words based on Munda and maybe Language X. IVC must have been the New York of 3 millinimum, when you go to New York, you get absorbed and you can't change New York. So when we talk about unlikely Isoglosses, this unlikely impact is also relevent to OIT discussion. What is the mainstream position regarding language of IVC?Sbhushan 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of Witzel's idea. But the crucial point is this, it is a hypothesis, forwarded as speculative, not as some mystical "knowledge" about what the IVC must have been like. Candidates for the language of the Mature IVC are Dravidian, Indo-Iranian and Munda (or, some lost phylum). In Witzel's scenario, Munda is preferred, this is all. "Middle Rigvedic" times are not in the 3rd millennium, Witzel proposes that these movements occurred around 1500-1300 BCE. And the IVC at the time was not looking "like New York", I can assure you. It looked more like Rome in 800 CE. THe reason I am sceptical of Witzel's idea is that Munda is just a far western outlier of Austro-Asiatic, and an Indian Urheimat for Austro-Asiatic is just as far-fetched as an Indian Urheimat for Indo-European. It seems also unlikely, I agree, that the IVC should have left next to no linguistic trace, and I think that Dravidian fits the expected pattern of the remnants of IVC perfectly. Parpola thinks so too, and of course Witzel is aware that this is the favoured scenario, and he doesn't try to misrepresent the case as "OIT proponents" seem to be dependent on doing. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the situation is not conclusive (that is also scholarly opinion) and re. rest we can agree to disagree. Reading Witzel's articles is a torture. All the statements are speculation of one person or other, so nothing should be quoted as facts. For the Dravidian OIT article, the inconculsive argument is clear and I don't think we can add more to it.Sbhushan 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

we can agree that nothing is known about the language of the IVC, no need to "agree to disagree" here. It should be made very clear that "Indo-Iranian IVC" is a required, but not sufficient condition for OIT. That is, "I-Ir IVC" is a weaker claim than "OIT". It is important to note this prominently, since much confusion seems to stem from the idea that the two are equivalent. "I-Ir IVC" is not compatible with the Kurgan hypothesis, but it is perfectly compatible with e.g. the Anatolian hypothesis. If an I-Ir IVC should be made to appear likely in the future, mainstream scholars would probably flock to the Anatolian hypothesis in droves. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the "agree to disagree" comment was an attempt to end this fruitless discussion. We are not here to solve this. We are just documenting OIT position and mainstream argument against them. Mainstream dates that you mentioned are also speculation and those dates are exactly what OIT is challenging. Both sides are proposing certain dates based on some analysis that they prefer. It is too early to state one position as being fact. That is something which we can agree on while disagreeing on the proposed dates. I don't want to get back to unlikely scenario discussion as I have already identified unlikely in PIE outside India.Sbhushan 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

this is strong. It was you who continually tried to "solve" things by misrepresenting motley collections of "Aryan IVC" as factual. I do not have, and never did have a problem with Elst and Kazanas advancing positions that fly in the face of mainstream scholarship. Really, it's fine. You are perfectly free to discuss any subject you like on Wikipedia, just as long as you don't misrepresent communis opinio. You, however, have been doing nothing but this, consistently, consciously, and ad nauseam. You are quite obviously not here for encyclopedic discussion of the topic, but simply for unenlightening brute and boring single-topic pov pushing. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, hold a minute. You are asked to give proper ref. of all your POV pushing words to counter writers like Bryant etc. but you are constantly failing to do so. So, you don't have any right to write bad for other who writes with proper quotes. So, find some AM supporter's proper ref. and quote them against that respective quote. WIN 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archaeo-Astronomy

I've been on wikibreak, will be back fully in some weeks. Just asking why the Archaeo-Astronomy section was mercilessly deleted? I'll get to work on this page in some weeks, looks like it is in a bit of revert warring. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Would appreciate a fresh look at the changed page. Do you thing OIT is being mis-represnted in any way?Sbhushan 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

nobleeagle, I appreciate requests for citation of specific claims, but to remove the general mainstream characterization of the Rigveda, which is detailed and referenced on Rigveda and absolutely uncontroversia does not appear as a very fair move. Also, the removal of the fact that no IE branch has "memories of an Urheimat" is similar to the removal of a statement that the moon is not made of cheese because no academic opinion saying "the moon is not made of cheese" was cited. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, Regarding Ghandhara comments, the references are from Mandala 8 and from DasRajan fight when certain group of Aryans were exiled to that area and created Gandhara. They did not come from there. Scholarly consensus is that book 8 is from later period if not one of the last. So you can not reverse the accepted chronology. You had also removed an ealier comment which showed that RV people had strong roots in the area. Parpola's speculation can not be quoted as mainstream fact. Regarding details on Rigveda, it seems that needs to be cleaned up to. Most of the information on that is dated. Some of the details are going back to period when mainstream was talking about invasion. "Nomad" is a comment left from that period. The Ten King fight is a very major fight and the reason that Witzel now has to push back date of RV. Rigvedic people were well settled in the area for as long as they can remember, fighting with each other for territory and engaged in agriculture. Please don't quote invasion related old history, you are setting up straw-man.Sbhushan 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you even talking about? the Dasharajna battle is in mandala 7, and all we know about it is from four or five verses. Don't try to tell me about "scholarly consensus", not after your history of misrepresentation of authors' positions. Ask Nobleeagle to check your facts for you before we even address them here, since you quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read before commenting, it says Mandala 8 and DasRajan. It does not say that DasRajan is in Manadala 8. You are the one misrepresenting positions, only error you ever found in my words was a missing "square" from Kilometer. Now I have had about enough of your unilateral and arbitary edits. I am chaning the PCT back and if this time you change it again without discussing it, I will be forced to conclude that you don't have any intention to talk.

I have indeed come to the conclusion that you are only here to cherry pick and push the article text as far as you can to create a dishonest illusion of academic support, and unless you act in a way to dispel that impression, I am indeed not terribly interested in further debate with you. If this was a respectable hypothesis, it wouldn't need all these propaganda tricks, you could just state it like it is, pros and cons, and be done. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, in regards to your comments above about the moon not being made out of cheese. I think you know that that analogy is out of place in the context you placed it in. I'm not sure whether my facts are wrong but I've definitely read that the Iranians mentioned an origin outside of the region in which they settled. Indeed, one of the points in favour of the OIT is that some have deduced that the Avesta mentions a Western homeland. Do none of the other IE branches (lets leave out the Iranians here) have memory that they were not always settled in their respective homelands but had arrived from other places? Maybe no IE branch can specify a specific place. I mean, it may not mention a specific location of their Urheimat but it may at least mention that they immigrated from somewhere far. Btw, what of the archaeo-astronomy section. I think astronomical references from the RigVeda can be used to help dating it, and the dating of the RigVeda is essential to the AMT argument. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The "moon is not made of cheese" bit is exactly what it feels like contributing to this article from the mainstream point of view. How can we be expected to find counter arguments to arguments that are so so obviously flawed that nobody from the mainstream camp has wasted their time arguing against them? But on the other hand if we don't find those arguments it looks like the moon is obviously made of cheese and the people who think otherwise have no case at all. The similarities between OIT and PCT and the nordic centered model are so obvious that it should of course be mentioned. Nationalist movements always advance chose to theories that gives their country a special place - and just like eurocentric models are used by european nationalists of course indian nationalists support OIT. You are being disingenious if you try to deny that, that is like denying that there exist such a thing as indian nationalism. Of course the OIT does have support outside of Hindu and indian nationalist groups, but those groups do support it for mostly religious and nationalist reasons, of course they do. But that alone doesn't discredit the theory, a theory can be right no matter whom is the advocate of it - that depends only on arguments. The indocentricness of the OIT should be mentioned as comparable to the eurocentricness of the PCT in the artcle - simply because it is.Maunus 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, why Bishop Caldwell's Dravidian race theory was not considered as religious & nationalist at that time ?

PCT don't have any scientific data to their support ( check it on WP article ) and OIT finds AMT flaws and OIT support from range of scientific or scriptual supports. That's why PCT can not be equated with OIT to degrade it. WIN 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong - PCT has an equal amount of pseudoarguments in its favor as OIT (and like OIT a few actual arguments)- the reason it doesn't look like it is that that WP article on PCT is much less biased and reflect the most widely accepted viewpoint in a way I fear this article never will.Maunus 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PCT is at least as respectable as OIT. The only difference being that the latter has hosts of uninformed young nationalists touting it on the internet, while the former is proposed by a couple of fringy but distinguished Italian archaeologists. Until we agree that the number of internet users that take pride in pushing the theory out of nationalist pride is completely irrelevant, there can be no progress. We are now getting Armenian nationalsts pushing the Armenian hypothesis, see Talk:Armenia recently, the only difference is that there are 7 million Armenians as opposed to 700 million Indo-Aryans, so that the incidence of nationalist propaganda on Indo-Aryan related articles is expected to be about 100 times higher. Which is what we indeed observe. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just nationalism. There is also the religious motivation, which is not present in Christian and Muslim countries, in which religious identity is not tied to a model of national continuity in the face of repeated intrusion from alien cultures. If your religious traditions are a product of a definite historical moment of "conversion" from outside then an objection to alien intrusion seems far less relevant. When you add to that the fact that India's experience under British domination is recent - and coincides with the rise and decline of "Aryan" theory in the west - then I think it's more powerful than just a matter of numbers. I suspect that if, say, Scandanavia, had resisted conversion to Christianity then the situation would be similar regarding the Penka/Kossinna theory of Nordic origins. Scandanavia was still "pagan" when most of Europe had converted. It's possible to imagine that it would have resisted conversion and fended off a series of crusade-like attempts to force it into the Christian fold. If so a national identity would be forged around resistance to intrusion and an immemorial religious identity which cannot have come about from any "invasion". We would have Scandanavians insulted by the "Christian fundamentalists" whose insisance that their religion came from Central Asia was part of a project to denigrate their traditions. Paul B 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

we finally need a good discussion of this, at Nationalism and archaeology, please contribute, Paul. However, I have my doubts about your interpretation. Of course nationalism and religion are closely interlocked, this is why almost all great nationalist conflicts are fought out along religions lines (hell, even the Iraqi civil war is fought between creed divisions, and the idea of nationalism itself emerged during the Reformation). Natively, Hindu culture is emphatically ahistoric. Ancient Indian sources are simply not interested in dates and events. There is no historiography in India prior to the Middle Ages, which makes it so extremely difficult to date anything with any precision. This insistence on antiquity is a product of colonialism, it appears that Indians got the idea that insisting on hoary time depths of their history is somehow a matter of nationalist pride from the British, what with British Israelism and related nonsense of the period. This is paired with the previous complete innocence of the culture of dealing with any sense of historical depth, so that the resulting claims are often not just tall but positively fantastic. To most of these "OIT proponents", it is completely irrelevant whether they can claim a "history" of five, ten, or seventy millennia, just as long as they can insist that their culture is older than anything else, and remained nailed to the spot during all this time. This is what should not be discussed in this article, but over at nationalism and archaeology and related articles. This article is for what little academic merit there is, admittedly, to the OIT. There are indeed corresponding mythologies surrounding European Christianization, virulent in Wicca concepts of "The Burning Times" and claims of "pagan continuity" (Dafo, Neo-Druidism). This is precisely the same mechanism, it's just that there we have a minor group of confused conspiracy theorists that have not developed the sheer cricital mass to have a significant effect. Another example is of course "Creation Science", here more religious than ethnic I grant you, which has indeed gathered enough momentum to have an effect at least in the USA. All this has nothing to do with ancient history, of course, but rather with sociology and human group behaviour. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who knows more about archaeoastronomy and the history of astronomy than about Indian culture, I can only comment that the attempt to date vaguely defined astronomical events on the basis of astronomical calculations is extremely treacherous. In a recent example a colleague tried to date a medieval European diagram that gave the positions of all the visible planets within 30° (a zodiacal sign). His dating turned out to be in error because he missed an equally good match some 500 years later.

Some lessons can be learned from this case for the Indian attempts at precise dating. When you add to this the fact that no discussions of this problem have appeared in peer reviewed journals in archaeoastronomy or the history of astronomy -- where they could be subjected to appropriate technical evaluation -- one must suspect the validity of these archaeoastronomical claims. They were rightfully deleted here. --SteveMcCluskey 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is the map intended to illustrate the theory or mock it?

There are so many problems with the map that I wonder whether it is supposed to mock the theory or illustrate it. First of all, the Middle East is shown to be I-E by 2000 BC. Are the Semitic languages supposed to have arrived to Arabia and the Middle East after this date? Secondly, north-eastern Europe (Finland and northern Russia) was traditionally Fenno-Ugric. The map appears to have been made without any deeper linguistic, historic and geographic insight.--Berig 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was created to illustrate Elst's assertions. Elst states (without explaining his reasons) that as "more people migrated from India to become the West-Asian Indo-Aryans... [They] pushed as far west as Palestine, making their mark for a few centuries (18th-12th century BC) in different parts of West Asia before disappearing through assimilation".[7] He may just be referring to the Philistines, in which case the inclusion of Arabia is rather OTT, but he's rather vague. But he seems to have the view that ancient Summerians were IE too[8]. Much of this stuff is like reading the finer works of Alfred Rosenberg. Paul B 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :).--Berig 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

but is Arabia actually included in "Indo-European territory"? "West Asian Indo-Aryans" are the Mitanni ruling class, and possibly some Scythian tribes, that's it. If this is really Elst's map, I must say, the more details transpire about his "emerging scenario" the more inconsequential it looks. It is symptomatic of OIT proposals that they discuss Sarasvati and Krttakas ad nauseam, but only have a very vague notion, and less interest, of anything that is actually "outside India" (viz., the very topic they are supposedly addressing). I could come up with a more convincing "OIT" map off the top of my head. That would be OR, of course. But maybe I should publish an arguable scenario for OIT somewhere? It sure would enhance my popularity among our Indian editors here. I predict that if I was to publish a coherent OIT scenario somewhere, I will be mentioned as "eminent scholar" on this page within the month :) dab (𒁳) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, i am sure that if you publish your research, you would make a much better scholar, atleast when compared to the likes of Michael Witzel. By the way, (i am just eager to know) how would you deal with IVC in your OIT scenario. would it be an isolated language which no longer exists?

<please correct me if i am wrong> Whatever i could gather about PCT is that it is a fringe linguistic theory which argues that PIE existed and got separated during the paleolithics. It is in no way concerned with the Urheimat, nor is it Euro-centric in any way. Why is there a reference to PCT in this article. PCT can sure be compared with proto-vedic continuity.nids (♂) 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saraswati river's identification is accepted by most archaeologists, for instance Kenoyer, Raymond and Bridget Allchin, G. L. Possehl or D. P. Agrawal. WIN 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

yes? even if that is the case, what does this have to do with OIT? It is also accepted that the Helmand was called "Sarasvati". All that gives us are two rivers with the same name, proving that name transfer must have been possible one way or the other. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For Saraswati and afghan Harahvaiti or modern Helmund, read http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/ReplytoWitzelJIES.pdf page 12 to 16.

Changing of indic `S' to iranian `H' is well known one but reverse is not found to occur. If you know the reverse then quote here. WIN 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do Iranians mention an external homeland in their texts?

Can anyone answer that in a straightforward way instead of talking about the inner funadementals of Indian and Armenian nationalism? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. with an odd discription of their homeland as having 10 winter months and 2 summer months. (sorry i dont have the source).nids (♂) 08:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Airyanem Vaejah. Paul B 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that's not looking at an "Iranian" homeland, but at best at an "Avestan" homeland. Avestan vs. Old Persian already shows the fundamental division between E and W Iranian. There is no memory of a Proto-Iranian homeland, let alone a Proto-Indo-Iranian one, and Airyanem Vaejah is little more than a term in extremely obscure texts that offers itself to whatever interpretation you like. The Avestan homeland has been located to anywhere between Azerbaijan and Balochistan, and Iranian peoples were indeed scattered over all that area long before our earliest texts. See also Avestan_language#Classification. dab (𒁳) 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urheimat section: Gandhara comment

Dab, I am sure you have the right reference, but it might have slipped your mind to quote the page #. I checked the Asko Parpola (2005) document Study of the Ancient Indus Script and Gandhara is only quoted in References on page 65. There is no linking it with the statement in Urheimat section. Were you referencing different document? If same document, can you please add the page #. I am on Wikibreak and am not frequently checking.Sbhushan 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

fully cited on Indo-Iranians. I am not into duplicating discussions onto pages where they are completely offtopic, and am in favour of removing the entire pointless section. The "Memories of an Urheimat" started out as rhetoric BS, we have added the reasons why it is rhetoric BS, and it now stands as a dicussion of completely irrelevant non-sequiturs. Like most of this article, I might add. If you did honest research before adding idly inconsequential non-arguments, this article could be short and to the point: OIT was suggested by Schlegel, and recently by a few authors. It never gained mainstream acceptance, for such and such reasons, period, next article. What you are doing (not to mention WIN) are continuous dishonest attempts at spinning misrepresenting the situation. It is a plain fact that the Armenian hypothesis has far better academic credentials than OIT, and is still justly classified as a widely rejected proposal. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, to raise your knowledge about Armenian hypothesis or other Urheimat hypothesis , refer paper by Prof. B.B.Lal who is Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India named `The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts' http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html. Read The Caucasus Region point for Armenian hypothesis. WIN 09:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is more directed at your level, WIN, but you should read it; Lal humbly suggests NW India is a more likely candidate than Sogdiana, and he is "well aware" that the suggestion is widely discredited, precisely the fact you have been trying to edit out of Wikipedia for months. I am not defending the Armenian hypothesis. I am merely stating the fact that it has better academic support than OIT. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WIN, let me introduce you to Ararat arev (talk • contribs), you should discuss the question of Indo-European origins with him, I'm sure you will be great friends. If you reach a conclusion, I will listen to it. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you are hiding words in that paper. Prof. B.B.Lal searches for homeland from Anatolia, Armenia, Kurgan , Sogdiana. And, gives clear picture that why that hypothesis is not possible or in accordance with overall picture. But , then he takes NW South Asia and after checking states that it is much better than Sogdiana.

Don't mis-guide by writing in English but not `able' to `read and `understand it. Since you can not refute Prof. B.B.Lal's points , you are writing about my LEVEL. But, that way you are showing your LEVEL. WIN 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/u/t/Talk%7EOut_of_India_theory_6c6e.html"

Categories: Unassessed India articles | Unassessed India articles of unknown-importance | Unknown-importance India articles | Wikipedia controversial topics