Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Parpola's Gandhara claim

Since you claim to have read Parpola's article, why don't you provide the page number where this particular claim is made. This claim was challenged around Dec 2006 (see above "Urheimat section: Gandhara comment"). Dab first provide Parpola 2005 as reference. I checked that and there is no mention of this. Then he suggested [Indo-Iranian], then he changed to Parpola (1999). I have asked for page number since that time, no response yet. I have waited since Dec for correct reference, I can wait couple of more days.Sbhushan 17:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's take this slowly, okay? First, Swat is in Gandhara. Yes, I know, that's shocking, but it's true. Nothing we can do about that, so let's move on. Next, on the basis of what the word urheimat means, "Rigvedic Urheimat" means where the speakers of Proto-Rigvedic, i.e. the immediate precursor, were, when the Rgvedic language evolved. Are you with us, so far? Good. Now, Parpola(1999) identifies the Swat Culture with Proto-Rigvedic. From that, it should be clear to everyone, including my sainted grandmother, that in Parpola's reconstruction, the Rgvedic language emerged in Gandhara. Oh, you mean you were looking for Parpola to have said exactly "Gandhara is the Rigvedic Urheimat". otherwise you're going to slap an {{OR}} tag right smack there? Gee, go ahead. rudra 19:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

your combination of saintly patience and hilarity cracks me up every time :) dab (𒁳) 20:31, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You guys amaze me. You just confirmed that Parpola has NOT said "Gandhara is the Rigvedic Urheimat" and then you try to sell a whole lot of original research. Take a look at WP:ATT, WP:NOR and WP:ENC. The key statement is Original research includes [...] any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position.

You have also confirmed that since Dec 2006 Dab tried to push his POV and now we have a new defender to follow in Dab's footstep. How do you propose to protect integrity of Wikipedia by publishing original research???Sbhushan 11:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudra after all your cliams to subject matter expertise and knowledge, is this Gandhara claim the best you can come up with? As requested last time [[1]], can you demostrate your knowledge by adding good verifiable content on this and the related topic. Original reserach only shows your ignorance of topic.Sbhushan 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sbhushan, the paragraph summarizes exactly the gist of Parpola's suggestion (not "claim"). If you are unable to follow the argument, you can hardly blame that on us. Maybe you should find a topic more fitted to your cognitive faculties instead. We cannot be expected to dumb this down to simple: level just because one reader found it too difficult. Summarizing the content of a paper is not the same as misrepresenting it, which is what the policy you quote at us refers to. You should know all about misrepresentation, as Rudra points out with angelic patience above re your doctored "citations" of Bryant. The crucial difference between Rudra and you? Rudra is aware of the pertaining literature, and wants to reflect the content of that literature in the article, no self: good for Wikipedia. You have your opinion, which you picked up god knows where, probably on the internet, and you are scavenging the literature for anything that sounds as if it would support what you decided you want the article to say: bad for Wikipedia. Unless you wisen up and realize what Wikipedia is about, you will have little joy here. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

If you make an accusation, be ready to back it up. The history of you providing multiple citation for this one comment are: parpola 2005, Indo-Iranian, Parpola 1999 and now Rudra confirming that Parpola has not made that statement in any of these documents. This is only one sentence here, I can provide a history of both of you doing same thing on multiple articles. BTW, Gandhara was part of RV geography, so Parpola's comment are actual supporting Out of India argument of no migration/homeland out side of known geography. The current international boundaries were not known to Rigvedic Aryans.Sbhushan 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

since I have personally drawn this map, I trust you will believe you tell me nothing new when you say "Gandhara was part of RV geography". Tell you what, maybe Parpola's suggestion "Swat=Proto-RV" is somehow related to or influenced by this well known fact?

another violation of the very policy you just quoted: [2] while the isolated fact "Parpola said Proto-Rigvedic was spoken in Gandhara" would neither contradict nor "support" the OIT, the paper of course derives Swat < Alakul-Fedorovo < Petrovka-Sintashta . You have either not even looked at the article, in which case you are idly wasting our time, or you have looked at it and chose to consciously misrepresent it, in which case you are trolling, or you have looked at it, but not understood a single word, in which case I repeat that you might better invest your energies elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarify your comments, are you now arguing that Gandhara was not known to Rigvedic Aryan. In "Memories of an Urheimat" OIT arguement is that Rigvedic Aryan's don't retain any memory of migration from region outside of geographic region known to them.Sbhushan 15:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

my comments are perfectly plain. You are once again trying to muddy the issue by non-sequiturs. This is not a debate. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for verification of quote

Michael Witzel<ref name=witzel>Published volume (1995) of the papers presented during a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto on 4th-6th October 1991</ref> has stated that “in Northern India, rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on. In Europe river-names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 BC (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe). This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus civilization, where one would have expected the survival of earlier names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East."

Please see Michael Witzel, Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics, in: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995. [[3]]. The Hydronomy section starts at page 133. The 3 quotes are from page 133—134, 135 and 139. I have addressed your question, so please insert the text back in the article. Surprisingly, you did not question the quote from Krahe which is dated and incorrect, and is in conflict with Witzel (1995) and Theo Vennemann (1994). How about you remove that now?Sbhushan 23:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The pages you gave me do not contain the Witzel quotes in question. In fact, that chapter is not written by Witzel at all. JFD 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Try again, but look at the page numbers at the top of the page rather than the page number of the PDF file. On the PDF file, it's page number 49. If you go to page number 49 of the PDF file, you'll see the section that begins with Hydronomy, and the number 133 at the top, indicating the page number of the original text. The following page is numbered 134 at the top of the page and also says Michael Witzel at the top of that page, which is page number 50 of the PDF file. If you still can't find it, I'll copy and paste it here. Or you can use the search function in Adobe Acrobat and find the quotes that way. ॐ Priyanath talk 03:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

PDF? I'm consulting an actual copy of the book. JFD 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the link that Sbhushan provided above, which is a digital copy of the book. I believe that also qualifies as an 'actual' copy in this day and age of the electronic encyclopedia (Wikipedia). You might like to click on that link and read it for yourself. That way you can compare the PDF (digital) copy and the 'actual' copy and see what the discrepancy is. Perhaps they are different editions. Considering that the link provided by Sbhushan to the digital copy of the book is on Witzel's own section of the Harvard University website, it surely is reliable. Once you look at the digital version, turn to page 104-106 in your version of the book. I think you might find that the 'digital' version is the same as the 'actual' version, except for the page numbering, which is common in different editions of books. ॐ Priyanath talk 04:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the correct pages.
I took the opportunity to read the chapter myself.

Two points:

1. It is Talageri, not Witzel, who uses hydronomy in support of the Out of India theory, and it is both misleading and inaccurate to attribute those inferences to Witzel, especially given that the two of them draw such radically different conclusions.

2. Citations must be accurate.

A vague description like "Published volume (1995) of the papers presented during a conference on Archaeological and Linguistic Approaches to Ethnicity in Ancient South Asia, held in Toronto on 4th-6th October 1991" is, as a citation, useless and unacceptable.
At the very least, a citation ought to contain the title.

Talageri draws not on "Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics," as Sbhushan states above, but "Early Indian history: Linguistic and textual parametres," which brings us to my next point: a citation ought to contain the correct title.

Lastly, a word of advice.
I have had the good fortune to receive advance review copies of books from time to time.
These are uncorrected galleys sent to book reviewers ahead of the official publication date so that book reviews can be written in time to appear in newspapers and magazines at the same time that a book comes out.
Advance copies of non-fiction books typically contain a warning that they are not to be cited academically. For one thing, corrections are sometimes made between the printing of an uncorrected galley and the official publication date. For another, changes in layout often render page number references inaccurate.

So I would hesitate before assuming that a digital copy of "2 uncorrected files" (as the PDF says at the top of the very first page) qualifies as an "actual copy".

JFD 13:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The first line in linguistic section states OIT proponents have used the arguments presented by linguistic scholars to show that either the linguistic evidence is inconclusive or supports OIT hypothesis. To give you brief history of why it was presented this way, an objection was raised earlier that Elst, Talageri, Kazanas are not linguistic scholars. They have never claimed to be linguistic scholars; they have provided arguments presented by linguistic scholars to show that the mainstream scholars contradict themselves. Nothing wrong with that approach, Witzel quotes Hock, Parpola etc. all the time. Witzel is most vocal AMT proponent and it is funny how many times he contradicts himself. Witzel reviewed Talageri's book [4] and did not object to him quoting Witzel. Witzel has been quoted by Bryant, Elst, Kazanas etc. Are you saying that these quotes are incorrect and Witzel never said this? Witzel's same paper has been published in number of publications under different names. So page number depends on which document/revision you are looking at. It is a fact that river names are Indo-Aryan and a fact that the area in question was heavily populated. Witzel agrees that the change in river name in spite of the well-known conservatism of river names is especially surprising (page 139 as above). Witzel assumed that river names changed because of his bias; there is no evidence to show that river names changed. Are you OK with putting the quotes back?

If you are intellectually honest, look at discussion above regarding Parpola's Gandhara comment and edit warring that Rudra engaged in. Parpola did not make that statement, but Dab/Rudra are edit warring to keep it in. Would you like to remove that? I can provide you with lots more examples in this page of Dab's original research; would you help to remove those to improve quality of the project?Sbhushan 14:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So, you finally cast your eyeballs on something other than Bryant? Wonders never cease. If you actually comprehended something, we can only hope that you work out to read Parpola before babbling about "edit warring" and whatnot. rudra 04:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changes. Do you have any objection to quoting "Indo-Aryan languages are the oldest source of place and river names in northern India - which can be seen as an argument in favor of seeing Indo-Aryan as the oldest documented population of that area." after Talageri's statement. This clearly states the argument. Also, any objection to quoting Witzel's words? It makes it easy to know what part is being cited.Sbhushan 14:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

the river names are certainly a good point, but your conclusion depends on what you consider "documented". I mean, Homo erectus is "documented", as are Neolithic and Bronze Age cultures. The pre-Indo-European population has also left its imprint linguistically, as a substrate. All we can say is that we are mildly surprised that they should not also have left more of an impression on hydronymy. That's a point, but a point weak enough that with your cavalier attitude to preconceived bias you would sweep it away with a shrug if it did not happen to fit your agenda. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Witzel is not mildly surprised; his exact words are:

This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus Civilization where one would have expected the survival of older names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East.

River names are considered very conservative (also Witzel's words). Changing river name with a gradual trickling of immigrant is unknown. There is not a single example of this happening in history anywhere.Sbhushan 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Biased presentation of material on Hinduism and India on Wikipedia

The concern I have is that the academic content is not presented properly; a theory is presented as a proven fact. As an example, in academic literature, Indo-Aryan migration is called a Theory, but Dab threatens edit warring if theory is added to the name to reflect academic literature. [5]. Also when it says “mainstream scholars” it fails to mention that it is mostly “linguistic” scholars. Most archaeologists dealing with South East Asia can not find any evidence of Indo-Aryan Migration – Jim Shaffer is the most vocal. But this is not reflected in the article when we use “mainstream scholars”. This weasel wording needs to be fixed.Sbhushan 17:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

So cite those archaeologists instead of crackpots like Kazanas for whom peer review has to be waived. JFD 21:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

JFD, it appears you misunderstood my point. When it says mainstream scholars it should say mainstream linguistic scholars. Are you conceding that the name of Indo-Aryan migration should be changed to include Theory? For name used in mainstream publications check Witzel, Bryant etc.Sbhushan 12:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If in support of your POV you can cite mainstream scholarship—no matter the field, linguistics or not—then by all means do so.

But don't try to pass something off as peer-reviewed when it's not.

JFD 16:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The following two Reliable Sources are not crackpots, JFD. One is the leading Indus Valley Civilisation archaeologist, the other is the conclusion of the most recent peer-reviewed genetic study. Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics. That barely qualifies it even as a theory, and is a sad remnant of people, "present" and past, who's POV includes promoting the superiority of the Aryan race. ॐ Priyanath talk 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath,
Here's what Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," had to say to National Geographic in an interview about the paper:

Priyanath, I would be wary of assuming that those who question "the Indo-Aryan migration" necessarily support "Out of India".

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly — it "may be because" of contact with migrants - which makes it a theory, and only a linguistic theory at that. To be accurate, the article should be titled Indo-Aryan Language Migration Theory. As far as Out of India, I don't for a second assume that those archaeologists and geneticists who have dismissed the Aryan Migration therefore support Out of India. There's not enough evidence to conclusively prove either one—which makes them both theories. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Archeologist POV - Bryant(2001:231)-The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views. He quotes Shaffer(1995:139) "Archaeological data indicates that a shift by Indus Valley cultural groups is the only archaeologically documented west-to-east movement of human populations in South Asia before the first half of the first millennium B.C."

2)Would you ask Pope/Church to publish in peer-reviewed litrature before their intrepretation of Bible can be published on Wiki? e.g. Check Bible - Christian theology, none of material is peer-reviewed. It is from a website Believers web. I believe that is the point Hulagu is making. Sbhushan 17:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Sbhushan, I'll tell you what I told Priyanath: just because someone questions "the Indo-Aryan migration" doesn't necessarily mean they support "Out of India". In the interview I direct Priyanath to above, Vijendra Kashyap, one of the authors of "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes," argues that the people of the Indian subcontinent are indigenous to South Asia, but that Indo-European languages aren't. So by all means cite the peer-reviewed work of bona fide archaeologists who question "the Indo-Aryan migration". But don't claim that peer-reviewed scholarship supports the Out of India theory unless it does so explicitly.
2. Theological interpretation is a separate issue from the dating of the composition of the various books of the Bible. And, with regards to the latter, Yes, I would insist on peer-reviewed sources.

Best, JFD 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Priyanath response above to same -- these are linguistic theories and should be presented as theories and not proven fact. Re 2 please see response to Dab at end of this section.Sbhushan 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Priyanath & Sbhushan, Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in the relevant academic community. Does "the Indo-Aryan migration" have bona fide academic critics? Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the relevant academic community, "the Indo-Aryan migration"—though by no means the only point of view—is the predominant one, support for "Out of India" is negligible, and Wikipedia must reflect that. JFD 19:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point I'm trying to make — which is that the IAM is a theory per mainstream views. It also is a linguistic theory, based on the fact that mainstream archaeologists and the most recent genetic studies find no credible evidence of invasion or migration. These are credible, mainstream, and reliable sources which are not given due weight in the article, but are deprecated to the point of being buried, due entirely to POV and not current academic views. Cheers, ॐ Priyanath talk 21:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I respect WP:UNDUE. Indo Ayan migration is based on only linguistic arguement, but when it says in the article mainstream scholars it implies Archeologist also support it. This is not correct statement. And most of linguistic arguments don't belong on religious articles. Linguistic are minority when religious articles are being discussed.Sbhushan 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

1. "a theory is just a ... 'theory' " (paraphrasing), because the non-technical everyday meaning of the term and its use in sciences (again, both physical and social) are quite distinct; in particular in latter use the term does not mean guess or speculation as has been incorrectly stated earlier in this section;
2. No theory is every "proven" (see, Karl Popper's writings) although they can be falsified (as Baka also mentioned above). So saying "X is not proven" is not really as strong an argument against X, as a lay person would think. Rather the standard by which both academia and wikipedia work are current mainstream acceptance of an idea by qualified experts in the area, as reflected in peer-reviewed literature.

I realize that my recent comments are going somewhat off-topc, but I am speaking up only because I noticed some well-known and widely rejected straw-man arguments being raised repeatedly in this section by well-meaning editors. Regards. Abecedare 03:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I should have been more clear with 'a theory is just a theory'. I'm assuming others here are using the scientific definition of the term. It's not a loaded term for me, meaning 'nonsensical', etc. It just means 'theory'. Speaking scientifically and encyclopedically, AIM is a theory, and the title should say that.ॐ Priyanath talk 15:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

AIM/OIT

Indo-Aryan Migration should be titled Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. So far I have not understood what is objection to adding "theory" to the name.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The related theories are named as Kurgan hypothesis, Anatolian hypothesis, Out of India Theory and Armenian hypothesis. In mainstream scholarship, e.g. Witzel, Bryant, it is also called Indo-Aryan Migration Theory. As per naming convention, name should include Theory.Sbhushan 17:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

See evolution theory.Hornplease 07:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(a) the term is capitalized because it is in common use in this form. (b) it is not "a theory", it is a field, comprising various theories. dab (𒁳) 09:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

For Hornplease: Evolution example is not comparable; evolution is supported by lots of physical evidence. AMT is only linguistic theory NOT supported by other specialties like archeology. The first line of article is Indo-Aryan migration is a hypothesis, based on linguistic evidence.....

For dab, please address the question instead of creating confusion. I have not objected to capitalization. And what is the point of field; if it is various theories, name it Indo-Aryan Migration Theories.

I will repeat my question: What is objection to adding theory to the name of article?Sbhushan 12:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

mainstream scholars

This should be mainstream linguistic scholars. Evidence provided above that archeologist/genetics don't agree with linguistic. To imply all mainstream agree with AIM is misrepresentation.Sbhushan 15:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is discussed in Harappans and Aryans: Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian History The History Teacher - Vol. 32, No. 1. (Nov., 1998), pp. 17-32. There has been criticism of linguistic "evidence". And dont give me this Witzelesque bullshit about qualifications. Manian has a PhD in history.Bakaman 20:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You haven't even read that article, have you? It's completely tangential to your claim. Hornplease 21:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we jumping to conclusions? Yourself, dbachmann, and others have tried to assert Frawley, Rajaram, et al. have not been discussed (or have been unanimously rejected) in academic journals. However, this paper does not reject R,R,Kak but notes that they are in sync with views held by Basham and others. In fact it is almost a vindication of many views espoused by Hindu nationalists.Bakaman 14:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's an analysis of a 'discourse', not of the scholarship itself. Please stay on-topic. Hornplease 19:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Claiming I had not read the paper, is also off-topic. If it was simply an analysis, isn't mainstream Indology supposed to regard the Kak, Frawley, Rajaram as lunatics? The paper does discuss that Rajaran (and Basham in some areas) do not agree with "mainstream" scholarship.Bakaman 01:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as is the paper you quoted. Move on. Hornplease 22:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What's really irrelevant are your useless quips in this section. The paper discusses the contradictions of many views, I would suggest you actually read it.Bakaman 22:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please don't bicker like this. I don't see the point of your mentioning the paper, which is published in a journal on pedagogy, and not history, and which in any case discusses outdated textbooks which use the word 'Invasion', rather than 'migration'. Please take this elsewhere. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Mainstream Archeologist/Genetic don't agree with migration theory. And I am not implying that they agree with OIT either. So mainstream scholar should be refered as mainstream linguitic scholars.Sbhushan 15:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is the consensus among archaeologists, cite a review article in a prominent journal stating as much and take it to the appropriate page. Otherwise this is pointless. Hornplease 23:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see Bryant 2001 page 231-232, preface by Erdosy in Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, ed. G. Erdosy, Berlin/New York (de Gruyter) 1995, Witzel's and Shaffer's papers published in same Erdosy 1995. Do you have any mainstream publication for your POV? The archeology point has been accepted by Dab/Rudra on Indo-Aryan Migration page. Even staunch supporters of AMT don't argue about archeology anymore. Using "mainstream scholar" is using weasel words to misrepresent. And we are discussing it here because this issue is common to lots of pages. Sbhushan 17:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the Erdosy preface is different. Can you provide a quote, please? And I fail to see which pages this affects other than Indo-Aryan migration. Hornplease 07:57, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I provided you with 4 publications. It says most clearly in Bryant (2001:231)

The vast majority of the professional archaeologists I interviewed in India insisted that there was no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins. This is part of a wider trend: archaeologists working outside of South Asia are voicing similar views.

Erdosy (1995)

Placed against Witzel’s contribution, the paper by J.Shaffer and D. Lichtenstein will illustrate the gulf still separating archaeology and linguistics p.xiii.......Given the debates raging on these issues within as well as between the two disciplines, a guide to the range of contemporary opinion should be particularly valuable for anyone wishing to bridge the disciplinary divide p.xi

How about you provide some references for your POV?Sbhushan 12:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, doesn't Bryant mean to imply that archaeologists now believe that they cannot answer these questions? In which case, why is it relevant? Hornplease 10:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Which part of Bryant's quote no convincing archaeological evidence whatsoever to support any claims of external Indo-Aryan origins was unclear? So far you have not provided a single reference for your POV. Unless you can provide reference, discussion is pointless. Please read some peer reviewed literature related to this topic.Sbhushan 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)