Talk:Out of India theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q:I have a source that supports Out of India.
A:Does your source explicitly support Out of India?
Or does it just question an Indo-Aryan migration? (And perhaps only certain aspects or a narrowly defined version of it at that.)
Disputing a migration into India is not the same thing as demonstrating a migration out of it.

Q:Out of India is supported by "scholars" like Koenraad Elst and Shrikant Talageri.
A:Scholarly recognition is demonstrated by peer-reviewed publication, not by press releases.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / History / Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Mid-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was last assessed in May 2012.
WikiProject Human Genetic History  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 

=The Indo-Aryan Controversy, 2000s academic book[edit]

This needs to be reviewed here- it includes chapters very favourable to the theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean McHugh (talkcontribs) 22:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Link please? Khazar (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection review[edit]

  • 10:03, 29 May 2008 Dbachmann protected Out of India theory ‎ (anon edit warring [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was nearly 18 months ago. I'd like to discuss this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors I've contacted Dbachmann, the protecting admin. --TS 01:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There are multiple banned users who have been known to target this article. This is one protection I think should stay. Moreschi (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's what it looks like to me.
The visible article history, and the almost empty log for the article, seem to speak of a rather placid article that often isn't edited from one week to the next. Edits immediately prior to semiprotection show a rather languid edit war involving a total of 8 edits by 3 separate IPs probably representing 2 individuals with opposing opinions. 2 of those 8 edits are reverts. There is also 1 revert by a non-IP--dbachmann--in this entire sequence which comprised 7 weeks of editing. Editing for the three months prior to that was partly by IPs and apparently was wholly unproblematic. On the face of it, there's nothing here that needs permanent semiprotection.
Can you say any more about these banned users? --TS 04:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Tony Sidaway, in my opinion you are wasting your time with this bureaucratic approach. If for some reason you feel moved to unprotect, be bold and do it. If it turns out that unprotection didn't benefit the article, we'll re-protect. As long as you don't unprotect immediately after re-protection, it isn't wheel-warring. The full bureaucratic investigation of the case can still be tackled once a wheel-war does loom. I will also say that I consider your approach of considering permanent semiprotection a wiki-wide problem misguided, to be addressed from the armchair admin's armchair rather than by editors who are actually involved in the article, but this is not a discussion I wish to have here. --dab (𒁳) 12:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
We have had such problems as Bharatveer (talk · contribs), Watch844 (talk · contribs), Hkelkar (talk · contribs), amidst others of the Hindutva brigade. The article is in fairly good nick for such a controversial topic and is stable. Under such circumstances we can do without a flood of anons and SPAs coming off the Hindutva forums yet again. Moreschi (talk) 12:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It's bad enough as it is, even with semiprotection[1]. I am glad the internet is free and every ideology, no matter how lunatic, chauvinistic or plain self-deluded gets their own fora where they can enjoy like-minded company, but Wikipedia is not for that. --dab (𒁳) 17:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable proponent "was"...[edit]

A notable proponent was Friedrich Schlegel.

This implies to readers that the theory is "dead", though Elst, Frawley, Kak, Lal, Rajaram, and Agarwal are all notable contemporary proponents. My attempt to replace this with contemporary proponents was promptly reverted. Why is it that mentioning that the theory is still supported with some measure of scientifically sound interpretations of the evidence not allowed? In any case, it seems that undue weight is being given to Witzel's opinions, someone who has deliberately mistranslated a passage of Baudhayana Srautasutra to suit the AIT. GSMR (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Schlegel was the most notable early proponent. The modern proponents are mentioned at the end of the intro. I re-added Lal, as he is of course a legitimate scholar, but the others are notable in this context only for for being nationalist ideologues. We don't list every amateur who has expressed an opinion. Witzel is a Harvard scholar and one of the world's top experts on Vedic. His views are, by Wikipedia's standards, far more reliable and notable than those of amateurs with axes to grind. See WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

read the article. Elst, Frawley, Kak, and Rajaram are politically motivated chauvinists, and if they are at all notable, it is as such. Lal's position may be worth mentioning apart from the Hindutva circus, but that only goes so far. The theory is, as you put it, dead indeed. --dab (𒁳) 10:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3[edit]

The genetic argument is contradicted by more recent genetic studies such as Underhill: 2009 and Sharma: 2009, both of which confirm that there was no prehistoric European gene flow into India. GSMR (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetics is pretty much a red herring. There's no need to posit a large influx of genes from "Europe" - or indeed any influx from Europe, since the maistream view does not even place IE origins in Europe, and language change does not require large population change. However feel free to add relevant material. Paul B (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, another round of this stuff? Sigh. rudra (talk) 02:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
"Sigh?" Then take it out of the FAQ on this talk page, seeing as it is dated and deprecated! I would but then I'd be another fanatic hindutva who desperately wishes his own country's history belongs to his own people and not to whites. GSMR (talk) 02:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Update I have done so myself. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Out_of_India_theory/FAQ&action=historysubmit&diff=337722110&oldid=296282809


This is the problem isn't it - the irrational belief that the migration theory somehow denies that "his own country's history belongs to his own people and not to whites". Has it occurred to you that all European countries are in exactly the same position? The migrants migrated into Greece, Italy, France, Britain etc etc. Do the people of these countries deperately resent the idea that their languages originated in Central Asia? I don't think so. Do the French and Spanish want to deny the immediate origins of their language in Italy because they "deperately want their country's history to to belong to their own people and not to Italians"? And what does "belong to the whites" mean? The notion that there is a group called 'the whites' who are, in some sense different from 'Indians' is also largely meaningless. Human diversity is complex. Are Afghans or Iranians 'the whites'? Where do 'the whites" begin? Proto-Indo European "belongs" to no-one. It is not your country's history, it's the pre-history of all IE peoples. If you somehow want to claim it as "yours" you are the one who is appropriating a common history and common experience for national pride, something which no other nation since the 1930s has felt a need to do. Paul B (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Whatever the case, I have removed the genetic argument from the FAQ, as even you agree that it is irrelevant. GSMR (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

it is irrelevant, but it is still a FAQ and it will be useful to point out that it is irrelevant to avoid having to address it over and over again, as you made us do just now. --dab (𒁳) 10:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

There's only one problem with what you just did - that information is wrong. More recent, more thorough (and peer-reviewed) studies contradict this conclusion. http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/abs/jhg20082a.html and Underhill's http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2009194a.html (the latter is the most thorough study to date). Next you'll be telling me that the Journal of Human Genetics is run by Hindutva cultists too. I really don't think you should moderate this article in isolation of conclusions on related articles like Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) (M17 is R1a). GSMR (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: I suppose you thought that genetics would correspond neatly with an "everything India has came from outside" scenario, right? You are deliberately misleading users with outdated conclusions. I'm afraid that the the Aryan Invasion Theory is universally and uncontroversially regarded as false even by Witzel & co. GSMR (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, everything in India has come from outside. I think you'll find that everything in England and America has also come from outside. I name those particular countries simply because we happen to be on English Wikipedia. And yet strangely, the English and the Americans don't seem to be distressed by this. I wonder why? Again, it does not seem to occur to you that this applies to almost every country in the world. If you go far back enough in history you will find that it was immigrants from "outside" who entered the America and who populated Europe. Do you know that the Afro-Asiatic languages, which include Arabic and Hebrew, probably originated in Ethiopia. Does that mean that Jews and Arabs have to accept that their "own country's history" belongs not to their "own people" and that it was the invention of "blacks"? Can you not see how absurd this argument is? Your statement that "the Aryan Invasion Theory is universally and uncontroversially regarded as false even by Witzel & co"s simply shows that you do not know that the theory actually is. There never was an Aryan Invasion Theory. There was a theory about the origin and expansion of languages. This theory, for a brief period, came, in some versions to include models of race and military conquests, but that was never central or essential to the theory. To claim that it was is to misrepresent the evidence. Paul B (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
*Sigh*. You are ignoring the substantial part of my comment. Dab readded FAQ #3, though it is in fact now attested (see the links I posted above) that invariably every genetic marker once used to show that there were prehistoric European migrations into India are in fact indigenous to India. Forget the part about "outside" and have a look at http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/abs/jhg20082a.html and Underhill's http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ejhg2009194a.html? (The latter is the most thorough study to date). My complaint is regarding question 3 on the FAQ page.
So, simply put, the statement that "Q:Clearly, the Indo-Aryan Migration Theory is only possibly supported by linguistics and definitely not by archeology or genetics" is TRUE and does not merit a place in this FAQ seeing as the counterargument given has been disproven by numerous studies which are more recent and thorough, and, if I may quote the FAQ as well, both sources I have given are peer-reviewed and not merely press releases like Wells: 2002. GSMR (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Sigh*. I'm ignoring it because it is irrelevant. The theory is not based on race but on language. I don't give a flying fig about the garbled disputes over genetic markers, a topic that is so filled with confusion that frankly I have great difficulty crediting what anyone says on the subject. Paul B (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
The complaint wasn't even directed at you. I removed something which is irrelevant and incorrect from the FAQ. It was re-added. Wells' reply has been long since disproven and does not merit being a reason to counter the TRUE claim that "there is no genetic or archaeological evidence of foreign incursions". GSMR (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it was directed at me. If you inset a comment below another then it is directed to that person. Since you referred to "dab" in the third person, you clearly were not directing it at him. Genetics often tells us very little about migration/cultural conversion or "military invasion" (concepts that are barely distinct in the Bronze age). Paul B (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The amount of hypocrisy on this page is astounding. First, the FAQ says that press releases don't hold water to peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. Then, it cites a[n outdated] PRESS RELEASE whose claims are proven wrong by more thorough and more recent peer-reviewed articles including: [2] [3] [4]. If you want to say that genetic evidence is irrelevant to the topic then WRITE THAT instead of citing long-debunked garbage which contradicts not only the scientifically sound, peer-reviewed, academically credible studies I linked to but the belief stated here that genetics is not an important factor in this debate. GSMR (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

look, your sources can be as peer-reviewed as they like, as long as they do not address the article topic they are irrelevant. This article is not about genetics. You cite perfectly acceptable peer-reviewed sources, i.e. primary research papers on genetics. "Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a". This is interesting, but it is completely irrelevant to the "Out of India theory", which is about the Indo-European expansion and not about post-glacial (deep pre-PIE) co-ancestry. Take it to genetic history of South Asia. Thank you. --dab (𒁳) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is fair to say that these articles do explicitly address the issue raised by the Wells quotation, certainly the Nature article does. It is making specific claims about the correlation of R1a to IE expansions. However it makes no claims concerning the history of language. Paul B (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But genetics COULD have some relation to language, obviously (right?). Why exactly is the genetic factor to language expansion of the IE language being discounted? When "Indo-European expansion" is referred to, the history of the language is what is apparently being discussed, right? Or is it some mix of language+material culture (ie can it be proven based on physical archaeology or is the only argument against Out of India based on theoretical linguistic constructs like the linguistic center of gravity principle - which obviously can't really go back in history beyond the invention of writing)? I challenge anyone to post evidence on this page that the Indo-European language family only experienced expansion in the last 10,000+- years, rather than at some earlier point up to 30,000 years ago. The former seems to be an implicit assumption in the preceding arguments. My reasoning is simply this: Clearly, at the origins of M17, that human population (most likely in North India) from which the haplogroup subsequently spread across the world, spoke SOME language... is there any particular reason to NOT think that the original human population from which M17 arose spoke an Indo-European language (obviously I haven't presented any evidence that they DID, I just challenge the lack of evidence on the other side)? I don't think that it is right that the people on this page get to make the opposing assertion with literally no evidence except the linguistic center of gravity (Really?! A linguistic theory is all that is used to back up this entire argument?). Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) Dravidian

Hi again[edit]

First off, sorry about being so thickheaded in my previous edits here. I think I can be more productive and neutral than I have been in the past, but I have some questions and comments first:

  • is there a reliable source which substantiates Elst (1999) [5] claims about the "so called Lateral Theory"? Before reading his work I was not even aware that such a theory even existed and there doesn't appear to be any article indexed by the University of Calgary's research engine (the only article index I have access to) which details this.
  • should the page [6] be considered a reliable source, given that the author himself is credible, but this one page of his is an SPS?
  • the criticism regarding non-IE influence on Indo Aryan has been contested by OIT proponents by saying that contact with Dravidian and Munda did not predate IE excursions from India (an argument Witzel has acknowledged in EJVS 7-3 and countered with Occam's razor). Should this be expanded on?

GSMR (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

a) Don't know about the name, but similar ideas are treated in Ch. 15 of Hock's Principles of Historical Linguistics.
b) The SPS rules imply that Witzel can self-publish in his area of expertise. So the page, and others like it, are WP:RS for statements on things like Sanskrit and Philology but not on things like the weather or software. But as usual, SPS sources are "last resort", not to be used routinely. WP:UCS.
c) Do you have a reliable source? rudra (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
a) b) Understood
c) I remember reading that somewhere in the conglomerate of discussions in Bryant 1999 as well as EJVS 7.3. I'll find a direct quote when I have time to look at them again. GSMR (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
That would be Chapter 5 of Bryant, I think. Browsing, it looks like p.102ff may have usable material. Go for it. rudra (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Obey rules of English capitalization - capitalize the first letter of article names and proper nouns, including names of languages and names of ethnic groups:

Change:

The Out of India theory builds on the idea that [[Indigenous Aryans|Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent]]<ref>Trautmann, The Aryan Debate p. xiii (2005) "the indigenous aryan view is not a recent invention, and there have always been some scholars who supported it."</ref>

To:

The Out of India theory builds on the idea that [[Indigenous Aryans|Aryans are indigenous to the Indian subcontinent]]<ref>Trautmann, The Aryan Debate p. xiii (2005) "The indigenous Aryan view is not a recent invention, and there have always been some scholars who supported it."</ref> 189.189.255.82 (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done -Oxguy3 (logged in as Oxguy the 3rd) talk 15:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} Is the Rigveda animate? If not, use standard modern English verbs to describe texts. If these usages of "to know" are intended to be quotes of poetic usage, indicate the source text and explain the implicit intended meaning. If it is an idiosyncratic feature of Indian English, please consider that speakers of other dialects of English may be confused by this usage.

Also, eliminate redundancy and avoid abbreviations without explicit antecedents. It is not necessary to link to the Rigveda Wikipedia page at its every mention.

Change:

*The [[Rig-Veda]] knows no [[silver]]. It knows ''ayas'' ([[metal]] or [[copper]]/[[bronze]]) and ''candra'' or ''hiran-ya'' ([[gold]]) but not silver. Silver is denoted by ''rajatám híran-yam'' literally ‘white gold’ and appears in post-Rigvedic texts. There is a generally accepted demarcation line for the use of [[Silver#History|silver at around 4000 BC]] and this metal is archaeologically attested in the Harappan Civilization<ref name="A new date for the Rgveda"/><ref>Allchins 1969: 285</ref><ref>Rao 1991: 171</ref><ref>Allchins et. all cited by Kazanas 2000:1</ref>

To:

*The [[Rigveda]] does not mention [[silver]], though it does mention ''ayas'' ([[metal]] or [[copper]]/[[bronze]]) and ''candra'' or ''hiran-ya'' ([[gold]]). Silver is denoted by ''rajatám híran-yam'' literally ‘white gold’ and appears in post-Rigvedic texts. There is a generally accepted demarcation line for the use of [[Silver#History|silver at around 4000 BC]] and this metal is archaeologically attested in the Harappan Civilization<ref name="A new date for the Rgveda"/><ref>Allchins 1969: 285</ref><ref>Rao 1991: 171</ref><ref>Allchins et. all cited by Kazanas 2000:1</ref>

And change:

The Harappan culture is also unknown to the RV.

To:

The Rigveda makes no reference to the Harappan culture.

And change:

Yet, despite the importance of the rice in ritual in later times, the [[Rig Veda]] knows nothing of it.

To:

Yet, despite the importance of the rice in ritual in later times, the Rigveda makes no mention of it.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, done and done. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

Use a standardized orthography for terms from foreign languages. The name of the Vedic sacred text is spelled six different ways in this article. Unless part of a reference or quote, I propose standardizing all other mentions of the Rigveda in this article to the current Wikipedia standard spelling: "Rigveda".

Variations of "Rigveda" on this page:

  • Ṛgveda
  • Rgveda
  • Rig Veda
  • Rig-Veda
  • RV

Variations of "Rigvedic" on this page:

  • Ṛgvedic

I acknowledge this is an unacceptably formatted request, but I hope someone else will step up the the challenge.

189.189.255.82 (talk) 16:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done I didn't change the ones in the references, because those are the names of the texts. Any I missed? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 06:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 189.189.255.82, 4 October 2010[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}} (Redundant request deleted) 189.189.255.82 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Request withdrawn. --Stickee (talk) 22:13, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Linguistic Center-of-Gravity Principle[edit]

On page 142 of The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Edwin Bryant argues that the existence of the Tocharian language group would shift the linguistic center-of-gravity of IE languages eastward. He also refers to a newly-discovered language called proto-Bangani, which some scholars claim is an IE language in India that is more archaic than Indo-Aryan. Hokie Tech (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if we grant that all Asian branches of IE may have originated in situ and that "proto-Bangani" (not the best way to call a lexical substrate in an otherwise Indo-Aryan language) may be real and not spurious after all (which cannot be taken for granted at all, to put it charitably) I fail to see how this significantly damages the argument. The majority of IE branches are still in Europe: Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Albanian, Greek, not to mention various extinct branches. You can fiddle with the IE tree as much as you want, trying to reduce the number of European and multiply the number of Asian branches, but there is no way to shift the centre of gravity of IE to anywhere near India. To me, the Balkans (in a wider sense including the Danubian plain as well) seem the most likely centre of gravity (although clearly not the centre from which IE spread out, only an early secondary centre for the spread of the European branches in particular), possibly (depending on the branching of the IE tree) other areas close to the Black Sea, but Central or even South Asia are clearly ruled out. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted to research the linguistic center of gravity principle and I have a question: Aren't there other factors to the diversity of language besides the length of time the language has been spoken in a region? Such as greater relative isolation of the communities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.48.53 (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


The center of gravity is located on the Balkan Peninsula, but only because it is located halfway between Anatolia and the Italian peninsula. Each peninsula had dozens of different Indo-European languages​​. Often very different from each other. The differentiation should have been very ancient. Maybe post-glacial, for example there is no substantial discontinuity in the archaeological sites at the foot of the Alps but only a slow evolution from Mesolitich until Roman era. --Andriolo (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of first sections?[edit]

From the first few sections, I get the idea that Out of India Theory is pretty much debunked and dead, or at least only being defended badly. From the rest of the article, I get the idea that it is actually being debated seriously. Which is right? I'm not sure I can point to anything specific and am not at all familiar with the topic, but I think the article needs some attention. To me at least, it appears at first glance that the first few sections give a lot of emphasis to the criticisms of Out of India Theory, using quotes with a lot of charged language without much real content (e.g. "...no matter how absurd his claims are known to be..."). --Fritzophrenic (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's because most arguments in favour are either misleading, gratuitous (such as the objection to the centre of gravity argument), irrelevant or suffer from an inherent bias (or more than one of the above at the same time): Mainstream scientists rarely consider them worthy of a reply, contradiction or even debunking, so they remain unaddressed, giving the impression to the non-specialist reader that they are valid or at least sensible. Such is the nature of a lot of fringe science. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Your answer itself is very non-NPOV. Zondrah89 (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
So, it's the anthropological equivalent of Intelligent Design? There's a long-running and ongoing debate on how to best present THAT topic in a NPOV manner. I've been staying out of it but it is somewhat entertaining. —Fritzophrenic (talk) 15:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Might help[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.10.56 (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we add the following reference?[edit]

Out of India theory or the Indigenous Aryans theory gets even more weight from the emerging DNA and archeological evidence. Various studies have marked northern India as the land of origin of R1a carrying Brahmans. The highest diversity is observed in Brahmans - a marker of origin of a haplogroup- than that found in Europeans or central Asians like Iranians. "The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmans and the caste system origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1." [1]

==[edit]

Please its time we moved on from using archeolinguistics to pinpoint world events. Time to move on from Michael Witzel worshipping because he says the white guy invented Ved and Vedic civilization.

Voltaire and Kant early Indo-Europeanists?[edit]

A side issue, but I couldn't help wondering about the historical section: Eh, doesn't it sound curious to anyone else to call Voltaire and Kant "early Indo-Europeanists"? Even calling Schlegel, who is routinely mentioned in overviews of the history of linguistics due to his studies of Sanskrit, an Indo-Europeanist is bold, but to name Voltaire and Kant even as linguists or philologists in general is really stretching it for all I know about them. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree.--·Maunus·ƛ· 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Too modified article![edit]

The article instead of describing the "Out of India" model, is mostly written to do some sort of bashing. What Hindus has to to with the article and why should a model be branded as fanatic outlook of some religion. Look at other such article like "Kurgan hypothesis", does it say any thing like that. Also the content is written or modified in a way as to make it confusing for starters. Too many pros and cons are given than the original subject matter. This should be rewritten to say more on the topic than personal opinions. Thank you. 110.225.247.58 (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Old references need to be updated[edit]

Considering the amount of scholarship in this field over the last 10 years, it seems silly that many of the references used to "counter" the modern assertions of pro-OIT scholars are books from the 1980s and 1990s, or earlier. Witzel is obviously hostile to the entire concept, as can be seen with his "legendary" arguments with Elst, but there is an awful lot of weight being put primarily on his linguistic theories as criticism against archaeological theories. I tried to edit the statement in the lead section, as it was obviously stated from a partisan, pro-AIT viewpoint...but I think more work needs to be done. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The idea that the Indo-Euopean languages as a whole originated in India has very little to do with archaeology, which does not dig up languages. The statement that you edited referred to the fact that early linguists soon rejected the idea as linguistics itself became more sophisticated. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

ANI 40,000 years old[edit]

Ancestral north indians are present here from 40,000ybp. Link: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-09-25/india/28107253_1_incidence-of-genetic-diseases-indians-tribes Nirjhara (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hindutva opposition to the Indo-Aryan migration theory[edit]

What is it with Hindutvadis trying to push their views and personal agenda by passing off one-sided wiki articles as fact? Can you believe that this article actually cited the radical anti-Muslim Hindu nationalist Konraed (sp?) Elst as a respectable authority? Not to mention the fact that there is an extreme, even fanatical hostility to the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis, a fact which is not only well-substantiated by genetics, linguistics and other disciplines, but which is also considered the mainstream view by scholars. If anything, it is OIT and indigenous Aryanism which is considered the fringe view and I'm sick and tired of people, mostly Hindu nationalists passing this idea off as established fact, as if there are no competing or alternative views. I've already presented a ton of recent scholarly evidence debunking OIT and indigenous Aryanism, whereas our fellow Hindutvadis would rather trot out the same outdated studies over and over again. Anyway, I'm willing to compromise, provided the Indo-Aryan migration hypothesis is protrayed honestly for what it is: the mainstream view which is the most well-substantiated by science. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Why this type of ranting when it is just a theory. Why you are going behind hindutva. Do you have any proof which theory is right and which not. The scholars obviously are also opportunistic and support one or the other view. This or the other(AIT) is still open to debate and revisions and is by no means proven. So express proper views not terming something as fringe theory and other as proved.Thanks.223.227.200.179 (talk) 09:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As I asked you in my edit summary, why don't you edit the article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) first? Currently it states that "R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia, most likely in the area from Eastern Europe to South Asia. The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin." In this article you try to state the opposite. Who is POV-pusher than? Gaura79 (talk) 16:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, particularly not when you misrepresent what it says. The article currently says "There is no simple consensus concerning the places in Eurasia where R1, R1a or R1b evolved."·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And in any case, the origin of a haplogroup tells us next to nothing about the origin of a language group. Paul B (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Gaura79 has a point, but let me explain: the R1a article has been through fire and is strongly sourced. Geneticists have basically given up for now, at least in their publications, with connecting R1a and IE languages. R1a seems to be older and, according to several very strongly authored papers, most likely South Asian in origin, at least for the time being. That does indeed not tell us about what happened with Indoeuropean. So whatever we say about R1a should be tentative concerning its place of origin, but favoring South Asia. Concerning any link between R1a and languages, bets are off for the time being and all we can say is that there were some proposals around but now there is uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

All I stated was that the most recent research (that of Stepanov et al., published in 2011) indicated that R1a1 was of eastern European origin. I don't see what the big deal is here. Secondly, the studies arguing for a south Asian origin of R1a1 (such as Sharma et al. and Sengupta et al.) are based on a possibly scientifically flawed methodology, which is why we should give the more recent research more weight than the older studies. So it looks like you're the one pushing the POV, Guara. I'm not arguing that there is any consensus here, but the Indo-Aryan migration is based on more than just R1a1 (such as autosomal polymorphisms) and there is a broad scientific consensus supporting it. Any attempt to ignore this fact is just more pandering to Hindu nationalism. Oh, and maybe I will edit that article, Guara. Thanks. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not based on "more" than R1a1; it isn't based on it at all. R1a1 had never even been heard of throughout almost all of the history of the theory. At most it can be used to support it, but it has very little real evidentiary value. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It is one line of evidence and the fact that recent research does support its eastern European origin reinforces the credibility of earlier investigators. Anyway, as I said before, the great bulk of the genetic evidence supports an Indo-Aryan migration/invasion and R1a1 is just a small piece of the larger puzzle, which was already pretty much figured out over a hundred years ago anyway, ironically enough. Bodhidharma7 (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Bodhidharma, R1a has been considered as a possible piece of evidence in the genetics field for many years, but the field has become less and less certain that it is relevant to language. If I understand your argument, when you talk about "the most recent research" you are talking about one new online abstract? An abstract is not a strong source, and strong sources should be used for strong conclusions. See WP:REDFLAG. Furthermore, one single article, even if/when it gets published, can not be used to state that all the most recent publications agree on something when they clearly do not. It will be interesting to see what new information comes in new articles, sure, but the following two articles are the most recent on this subject that actually made it through peer review, and their author list is like a who's who for this field. Both of them express doubt that R1a can be used yet to explain PIE, and both say that the place of origin is uncertain but more likely near India than near eastern Europe. By the way, can I ask you to use to talk page on all the articles you have been editing and not just this one. You are proposing fairly major changes, and such things should be discussed and not rushed. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Mirabal, Sheyla; Regueiro, M; Cadenas, AM; Cavalli-Sforza, LL; Underhill, PA; Verbenko, DA; Limborska, SA; Herrera, RJ (2009), "Y-Chromosome distribution within the geo-linguistic landscape of northwestern Russia", European Journal of Human Genetics 17 (10): 1260–1273, doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.6, PMC 2986641, PMID 19259129 
  • Underhill, Peter A; Myres, Natalie M; Rootsi, Siiri; Metspalu, Mait; Zhivotovsky, Lev A; King, Roy J; Lin, Alice A; Chow, Cheryl-Emiliane T et al. (2009), "Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes within haplogroup R1a", European Journal of Human Genetics 18 (4): 479, doi:10.1038/ejhg.2009.194, PMC 2987245, PMID 19888303 

You know, in all honesty, I didn't realize this issue was such a sacred cow with you guys. And I used more than just an abstract to prove my point. There are recent studies such as the 2009 Keyser study and the 2009 Ayub study, in addition to the legions of earlier studies saying that R1a1 is of Eastern European origin. And I'm sorry, but in so much as an abstract represents recent evidence, it should be made public. Abstracts are used all the time on wiki, even in the article you just protected. You're only pointing out that it's an abstract because it contradicts the standard party line and your precious political correctness. At least I represented both views, unlike you guys, who narrow-mindedly prefer only one line of investigation and view everything else as religious heresy, even though the view I presented is mainstream and accepted by most scholars. And thanks for protecting the article. It's nice to know that some views are unacceptable even though they're supported by legions of scientific papers and the majority of scientists.

And BTW, the second study is co-written by Zhivotovsky whose method of haplotype dating was proven to be BS by an even more recent study. But hey, I don't want to threaten the status quo.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It is not a sacred cow to me. I agree with you about the Zhivitovsky method (but this article is not about that method), and I think that it is uncontroversial to say, as many of our articles do, that R1a has been proposed several times as a marker of Indo-European ancestry. (What is much more difficult is trying to use the whole clade, which is very old, in order to explain the geographical orgins of that language group. That will eventually require study of branches within R1a I believe, and I think that is also now the field consensus.) I think what you may have mis-judged is that there are now a lot of editors watching for edit wars about this subject because it has flared up a few times on Wikipedia. I think you'll find it much easier if you slow down, use the talk pages more, try and write in a balanced way with clear and good sourcing. Currently you are getting into edit wars, and that is really a "sacred cow". You'll notice that you have suddenly attracted a lot of attention for that. (I did not even know about this article!)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming. However, the Underhill study may not be about the method itself, but it uses the Zhivotovsky method in its analysis of microsatellite variation and haplogroup dating, a method which has been rejected by a number of recent investigators. That makes those studies (of Sengupta, Underhill etc.) complete BS. Other studies, which use for example other methodologies involving autosomal polymorphisms, have come to the conclusion that Eastern Europe is the source of R1a1. So it really is unfair to represent only one POV as the consensus when this is obviously not the case. And yes, a strong concordance between genetics and language can be used to reconstruct the linguistic and demographic history of an entire population and in numerous studies, there is often a strong concordance between the two.[2][3][4] There also exists considerable evidence that R1a1 is a marker of Indo-European expansion from the Kurgan culture, in fact more so than for the south Asian origin. However, this is not the only basis for Indo-European expansion, the most well-substantiated explanation for the genetic, cultural and linguistic replacement of the Dravidian- and Munda-speaking peoples of the subcontinent: there exist many lines of supporting evidence, unlike the position for Aryan migration denialism. And unfortunately, the fact that one position is completely ignored in support of another position which is more suitable to collective political sympathies demonstrates an incredible amount of bias on the part of certain editors.

Can you at least agree with me that these articles should at least be rewritten with both points of view in consideration, but placing greater emphasis on the Indo-Aryan hypothesis, rather than fringe theories supported by Hindu nationalists? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talkcontribs) 14:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I heartily agree that any article at all can and should be discussed and re-written and re-considered - constantly. You obviously have some ideas about weak points and ways to avoid them, but I think the way to get them put into effect is to slow down a bit next, and use the talk page. I think you can see now why you've hit some people being cautious. (i.e. It is not that WP is being run by a secret cabal of Hindu nationalists, at least as far as I know.) As mentioned, for better or worse I am not normally following this article. But I have spent a lot of time on R1a. I'll now add it to my watchlist, but keep in mind that none of us are full time Wikipedians so answer speed is always unpredictable. Now, just going through your post:-
  • Your point about Zhivitovsky is fine, but this is a tricky kind of thing on WP. Yes, there are sources that criticize the method, but not ones which discuss how that might effect R1a research. Putting different studies together is considered "WP:SYNTH" on WP, and crosses the border into original thinking. As we are writing a tertiary source, we try to avoid this. Trying to avoid SYNTH on this subject is a problem we already face over on R1a though. Have a look and you'll see how we mentioned it without giving too much original thinking.
  • OTOH, I think some of the papers you mention (not all) are a bit more refined than you might think. I think the growing consensus in the field recently is that all these methods of age estimation are close to being guesses. So Underhill et al are very careful about being conclusive at all about R1a. Using STRs to look at implied relative ages is surely something people are going to keep doing, but I think Wikipedia should avoid sounding like people are certain about ANY theory. I think Underhill et al's tone is pretty close to the one we should take of basically saying R1a may or may not one day turn out to be helpful in the study of Indo-European but for the time being it is a very blunt instrument indeed. Do you agree?
  • I can already see one way you might think you don't agree. But let me say that I do agree that R1a seems to be a marker of Steppe ancestry, at least in some places, and at least some types of R1a. Underhill et al's point is that we don't really yet have clear handles on the branching within R1a though, and they are right. One of the places where R1a probably only SOMETIMES represents steppe ancestry is the sub-continent.
  • Concerning re-writing, in your position, having hit some reverting, I would be copying bad stuff here on the talk page, and explaining what you want to do with it, bit by bit. It can be tedious but it normally works. Same on the other articles.
I want to thank you for sticking with this! I hope this works out, and I hope my advice helps.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
There can be a strong concordance with genetics and language distribution, but it is just as commonly the case that no such concordance can be found. While it is possible to match genetics to the spread of Anglo-Saxon in Britain, we can't clearly link it to the spread of Celtic, or of IE (we can't be certain what the earliest IE language in Britain was). My central point is that IE migration stands as an argument on lingusitic and historical grounds. Making the central debate one about genetrics is to distract from the real issues. Language can migrate in many ways following many patterns of human intereaction which may leave many different kinds of genetic trace. Also, making this a debate about genes just panders to the "OIT"-theorists' fantasy that "Aryan invasion" theory, as they call it, is somehow centrally about differences of race. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
I'll go one step further and say it also very difficult to link genetics with anything in Britain either, despite the enormous database now of volunteer genealogists who have, like me, had themselves tested and tried hard to develop crowd sourced databases. Progress is being made, but slowly. When it comes to Y DNA, in any case, we really need way more information about the phylogenetic tree than is currently available, even for British-descended men. But then, to go another direction, this whole field of discussing the origins of language groups is inherently speculative. Matching archaeological cultures to languages is even worse than matching Y DNA and languages, though people can get away with it more easily due to the fact that there is so little to work with that you can not criticize theories either. All of this is irrelevant to making our "tertiary source". Wikipedia aims to summarize the notable speculations, whatever they are. And when they are more certain, and a field treats them as a consensus, we can also report that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, despite the difficulty of linking genetics with language, it can be done and it has been done and there does exist recent evidence which also supports R1a1 as a marker of Indo-European migration, although it must be admitted that the literature advocating an Eastern European origin for R1a1 is much more recent than that advocating an autochthonous Indian origin for the subclade. It's simply not true to say something along the lines of: "genetic evidence has no bearing on the languages that these early groups might have spoken." That sounds purely ideologically motivated. The Indo-European hypothesis not only has tremendous linguistic and archaeological support, but is also supported by much genetic research as well. Listen, all I am asking is that both views be represented fairly, although from what I have seen, an eastern European origin of the clade seems to be most likely. And besides, these studies which argue for an autochthonous origin of the Central Asian element are all based on uniparental markers (Y chromosome) whose accuracy and reliability are affected by such issues as marker stochasticity and natural selection; it is now argued by geneticists that in order to generate a comprehensive picture of population genetic structure biparental markers must be analyzed in conjunction with an analysis of uniparentals. This leads to the most likely conclusion that there was a massive invasion of the subcontinent by Indo-Aryan migrants about 4000 ybp, as was maintained by the 2008 study of Watkins et al. and a number of other recent investigators.

Furthermore, there appears to be a considerable amount of distortion in the Wiki articles concerning the important 2009 study of Reich et al. For example, in the Wiki articles Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia and a number of others, it is claimed that: Ancestral North Indians were present in the indian subcontinent from 40,000-45,000 ybp. [5] And guess what the reference is? It's to Reich's 2009 study! And you know what? That figure is nowhere to be found in the study. In fact, the actual source of it is in a Times of India article. If one reads the Reich study carefully, the authors state: "It is tempting to assume that the population ancestral to ANI and CEU spoke ‘Proto-Indo-European’, which has been reconstructed as ancestral to both Sanskrit and European languages, although we cannot be certain without a date for ANI–ASI mixture." There's no trace anywhere in the paper that ANI-ASI mixture predates the Indo-Aryan migration. Also, the 2011 follow-up study by Moorjani finally grounds Reich's tentative assertion in solid empirical fact: "Our analyses suggest that major ANI-ASI mixture occurred in the ancestors of both northern and southern Indians 1,200-3,500 years ago, overlapping the time when Indo-European languages first began to be spoken in the subcontinent." These two studies provide very strong support to the Indo-Aryan migration into India, but why this isn't mentioned is beyond me. Plus the constant denial found in all these Wiki articles that the Aryan-Dravidian divide is a myth. This is utterly ridiculous, as it is well-known that northern Indians are more Caucasoid than southern Indians, who are more Australoid. Again, this is from Reich's article: "ANI ancestry is significantly higher in Indo-European than Dravidian speakers (P 5 0.013 by a one-sided test), suggesting that the ancestral ASI may have spoken a Dravidian language before mixing with the ANI. ... We compared our autosomal estimates of ANI ancestry to Y chromosome and mtDNA haplogroup frequencies. Y chromosome analysis has shown that traditionally upper caste and Indo-European speaking groups have increased frequencies of alleles that are also common in western Eurasians. However, mtDNA analysis has shown increased frequencies of haplogroups common in western Eurasians only in northwest India." So it looks as if the Aryan-Dravidian divide has some factual basis and is not a fantasy of the British colonialist imagination.

Anyway, I hope you can see why a number of these articles do need editing.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 21:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course basically all the articles on Wikipedia need editing. That is why it is always good to have new people looking at them. I think I am understanding you correctly in saying that you are "pro" arguments for strong evidence of steppe immigration into northern India, and you think some articles are biased against it. That could be, but try not to aim at pushing the balance in the other way. Anyway, I think the types of articles you should be citing about this are the autosomal studies, which you are also mentioning above. Concerning R1a, yes, you can say it gets associated with Indo European in various articles over the years, quite often in articles which are not in themselves studies of R1a (e.g. Haak), but you can't take that very far. For example I agree that we should not say "genetic evidence has no bearing on the languages that these early groups might have spoken" but I disagree that we can say there is any consensus that R1a in the sub-continent is all a result of immigration from the steppes and all arrived with Indo European languages. There is no consensus about that. Just for example, R1a quite possibly originated in the Middle East and went from there to both India and the Steppes. The deepest roots of R1a are still pretty unknown, and the youngest branches are still being investigated also. Does that all make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not interested in pushing the balance either way. I just want the R1a1 articles to represent both points of view, as there is still considerable uncertainty as to the origins of R1a1 (whether in eastern Europe or south Asia). As of now, most of these articles seem to be biased in favor of an autochthonous origin. Hence, a massive overhaul of these articles should be gotten underway, as you should be able to see yourself. All I'm asking for here is a little scientific objectivity, with all points of view given due consideration, something which has been ignored for quite some time with these articles. So what is to be done, in your opinion? I see some editing work in the future, with your collaboration, I guess and that of a few others.

Also the Indo-Aryan hypothesis and the fact of genetic differences among south Asians also needs to be revised on these articles. They are presented as racist and debunked, which is not only preposterous but a denial of the available evidence at hand. Wouldn't you agree? More on this later.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

In principle what you say sounds ok, but I am not sure what you are suggesting in concrete concerning re-writes. My memory of your edits was that you were citing one online abstract in order to say that many or most papers all agree with your preferred theory. I am afraid R1a is not yet a strong bit of evidence for any theory concerning the PIE Urheimat, or at least that's what we can read in the population genetics publications so far. The out of India theory has a lot more problems than that anyway, and focusing on R1a as a proof or disproof would essentially be synthesis because as far as I know, no R1a researcher ever wrote strongly on this very specific subject. I think this article should explain that the theory is now basically no longer believed in in most countries, but still controversially supported in India, which is basically what it does. I see no reason for a big digression on genetics in this particular article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If you had taken the time out to read my actual revisions, you would have noticed that my claim was that the latest evidence indicates that R1a1 is of eastern European origin (2011). I also cited two recent studies which indicated that R1a1 was of eastern European origin, such as this one from 2009, entitled Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people.. This is from the abstract: " Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe." The article further states: "To conclude, in this work we demonstrated that some carriers of the Kurgan culture, believed to be Indo-European speakers, were also carriers of the R1a1 haplogroup. These data lend further support to the idea that R1a1 might be a marker to the migration patterns of the early Indo- Europeans, an idea also supported by the recent article of Haak et al. (2008) in which individuals of the Corded Ware Culture, a culture commonly associated with Indo-European, bore R1a1 Y-chromosome." I also cited this 2009 paper which maintained a Central Asian origin of R1a1, Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes: "Three distinct lineages were revealed based upon 13 haplogroups. The first was a Central Asian lineage harbouring haplogroups R1 and R2. ... The results revealed that a substantial part of today’s North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants." And for shits and giggles, I could have thrown this paper from 2010 in as well, A Western Eurasian Male Is Found in 2000-Year-Old Elite Xiongnu Cemetery in Northeast Mongolia: "Historical records and archaeology attest that Kurgan nomadic groups moved across Eurasia from North of the Black sea through Central and Inner Asia, to northeast Asia in a matter of centuries (Mair, 2005). Carriers of the Kurgan culture, believed to be Indo-European speakers, were also carriers of the R1a1 haplogroup (Keyser-Tracqui et al., 2009). R1a1 has thus been considered a marker of Indo-European contribution (Zerjal et al., 1999; Kharkov et al., 2004). R1a was found in Eulau, Germany of the Corded Ware Culture (Haak et al., 2008). R1a1 was predominant in the Krasnoyarsk area in southern central Siberia with the Andronovo, the Karasuk, the Tagar, and the Tachtyk cultures (Keyser-Tracqui et al., 2009)." They also propose an alternative explanation for the recent findings of Sahoo, Sengupta and Sharma: "The haplogroup R1a1, in the recent study, might have its origin in an Indian upper caste system, Brahmins (Sharma et al., 2009). On the other hand, the high frequency of R1a lineages and haplogroup R1a1 among upper caste Brahmins may reflect an intrusion from the northwest with speakers of Indo-European languages."

As you can see, my evidence is based on more than just an abstract. I could've gone on and on, but this should be enough for the time being. There is more than enough evidence substantiating the possible eastern European origin of R1a1. So, what I fail to understand is, given your constant insistence that R1a1 is not an important aspect of the OIT theory or Indo-Aryan migration or anything connected with the Kurgan culture for that matter, why was it mentioned in the OIT and Indo-Aryan articles to begin with? This is why I get the feeling that somehow I offended the forces of political correctness. I feel as if I'm the victim of a Stalinist interrogation. But on with more pertinent considerations.

Here, these are some concrete things that can be undertaken in order to clean up a number of these articles (not just OIT):

(1) Both points of view, the south Asian and the eastern European, should be given equal representation as equally plausible views in the article on R1a1.

(2) Stop posting statements saying that there are no genetic differences between Aryan and Dravidian populations, when such differences obviously exist.

(3) Stop the misrepresentation of the findings of certain studies, such as the 2009 Reich study (as outlined above).

(4) Quote all of the relevant research, instead of those studies which only represent a favourite POV.

(5) Stop presenting the Indo-Aryan migration as if it were debunked, racist, colonialist or controversial, when it clearly is none of those things. It is far more credible than OIT and there is a general consensus among scholars as to its historicity, its verismilitude. In other words, there is no other credible theory which explains the distribution of the Indo-European languages across such a wide geographic area other then IA theory or some modification of it.

(6) Stop treating Hindu nationalists, New Age writers etc. as respectable scholarly sources.

(7) Stop citing sources from newspaper articles, which are notorious for misreporting or exaggerating the importance of certain scientific findings.

This is all for now. Tell me what you think. It should be obvious from this as to what needs to be done.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 07:36, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I must admit though, that the 2011 Stepanov abstract does seem to complement an earlier 2007 study he co-authored, Gene Pool Differences between Northern and Southern Altaians Inferred from the Data on Y-Chromosomal Haplogroups: "Haplogroup R1a1 prevailed in both ethnic groups, accounting for about 53 and 38% of paternal lineages in Southern and Northern Altaians, respectively. This haplogroup is thought to be associated with the eastward expansion of early Indo-Europeans, and marks Caucasoid element in the gene pools of South Siberian populations. ... The most frequent variant of Y chromosome among both ethnic groups was haplogroup R1a1, which was the prevailing among Southern Altaians with the total frequency of 53%. This haplogroup is widely distributed on the territory of Eurasia. It is found in the populations of Central and Eastern Europe, Iran, Pakistan, Central Asia, and India. By contrast, in Eastern Asia haplogroup R1a1 is very rare. The appearance of haplogroup R1a1 in South Siberian ethnic groups is thought to be associated with the early stages of their ethnogeny, beginning from the Andronovo cultural association, as a result of early Indo-European movements to the east, and marks the substrate Caucasoid component of their gene pools."

This is interesting. This recent 2010 study postulates a West Eurasian origin of Y-chromosomal Haplogroup R1a1, associating it with the Indo-European migrations from the Kurgan cultures of the steppe, Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age: "Regarding the Y chromosomal DNA analyses, the seven males identified all belonged to haplogroup R1a1a. It is most frequently found in Eastern Europe, South Asia and Siberia. In contrast, it is relatively uncommon in Middle Easterners and rare in East Asian [22-24]. It is thought to be a trace of the migration events of early Indo-European [38,39]. The presence of haplogroup R1a1a in the ancient Xiaohe people implies that the parental ancestry of the Xiaohe people originated from somewhere in Siberia or Europe, which is consistent with the origin of maternal ancestry. ... Given the fact that the mtDNA haplogroup C was distributed mainly in south Siberia, and that haplogroups H, K and R1a1a already had spread eastward into south Siberia during the Bronze Age, it is possible that the initial admixture occurred somewhere in southern Siberia. Considering that the cultural characteristics of the Xiaohe cemetery are similar to those of the Andronovo or Afanasevo culture that appeared throughout the southern Russian steppe, Kazakhstan, and western Central Asia during the second millennium BC [1,46], the admixed population might have had relationship with populations settled South Siberia during the Bronze Age."

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I am looking forward to seeing what gets published from that Stepanov abstract. But it seems likely that, like your other sources about ancient DNA, it will not be a new study about R1a in India as such. That R1a in Europe is associated with Steppe cultures and/or Slavs seem pretty easy to source. That such steppe cultures are associated with Indo European is also pretty easy to source. You can mention both things. But if you go one step further and draw the non necessary conclusion that most R1a in India came with most IE language I think we have no source. Consider WP:SYNTH. Concerning lightening the claims of other editors who might also be stretching their sources a bit, maybe it would be easier to agree. I think in general we want both R1a related arguments referred to without implying any consensus in the field at this time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I think that's where you're wrong. The Stepanov abstract does say that R1a1 migrated from the steppe to Siberia and Hindustan (India) and it still counts as recent evidence, regardless of its status as an abstract or not. The 2009 Zhao et al. study clearly links R1a1 in India to Indo-European migration from the steppe and it is a very recent study of R1a1 in India. Did you even read what the article said? Here it is: "The Central Asian or west Eurasian Y-lineages are depicted in terms of presenting a similar high frequency of sibling clades of R haplogroups (R1a1 and R2) in the studied populations. A total of 256 of the 560 individuals (45.7%) in this study belonged to European Y-lineages, i.e. R1a1 (M173/M17), R1b1b2 (M173) and R2 (M124) clades. Similar results were reported in a previous study of the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). Haplogroup R reflects the impact of expansion and migration of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia, thus linking haplogroup frequency to specific historical events ... It has also been suggested that R1a might have an independent origin in the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). We have observed a low frequency of R1b1b2 (0.5%). An additional signature of the Central Asian lineage is haplogroup R2. Its frequency was 22.0% in our sample. This haplogroup is mainly found in Indian, Iranian, and Central Asian populations and has been postulated to have a Central Asian origin (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003). However, our results have shown that high incidence of R2 clade was also observed in other North Indian populations, which was similarly reported in other studies (Cordaux et al. 2004; Cavalli-Sforza 2005). Overall, we suggest that Central Asia is the most likely source of North Indian Y lineage considering the historical and genetic background of North India (Karve 1968; Balakrishnan 1978)." So in fact, there is direct evidence that R1a1 in India is associated with IE. All the other studies, while they may not be specifically concerned with R1a1 in India, do acknowledge that R1a1 is associated with IE and that insomuch as R1a1 is present in India, it is because of its close linguistic and cultural association with IE migration from the steppe. Also, probably a more cautious view is needed, such as this one found in the 2009 study Genetic variation in South Asia: assessing the influences of geography, language and ethnicity for understanding history and disease risk: "The Y haplogroup R1 (M173) is often referred to as an Indo–European marker and its associated haplogroup R1a1 is present at high frequency in many regions where Indo–European speakers live. The worldwide distribution of this haplogroup indicates frequency peaks in Eastern Europe and West and South Asia, which fits in with historical records of nomadic settlements in Europe and India. However, its presence in 15% of Dravidian speakers in India argues against a simple correlation. ... An elite dominance model of the Indo-European speakers partly explains the genetic similarities observed between the Dravidian and Indo-European groups and the seclusion of Dravidians in southern India and parts of Sri Lanka ..." Anyway, the study does acknowledge that there is some debate concerning the extent of gene flow from Central Asia to India. I'm just saying that statements to the effect that "all or even most lines of genetic research say that R1a1 originated in India" are patently false, especially when one considers the methodological difficulties associated with the Sengupta and Sharma studies. It would probably be better to rewrite the R1a1 article using a more neutral tone, which is something I would certainly agree with. Many scholars would also argue that R1a1 is associated with IE, as well as the converse. R1a1 isn't really a big deal, as autosomal studies provide the strongest support for IE expansion. I'm not really interested in pushing the balance either way in terms of being for or against R1a1 origins in India. In fact, the only way to gain a comprehensive understanding of population genetic structure is by analysis of autosomal polymorphisms (SNPs), given the obvious limitations of uniparental markers.

Also, the Reich study has been continuously misrepresented on here, especially in this article: Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. I was wondering if this article could be unprotected and then re-edited in line with what the study says, rather than some newspaper article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You are right that autosomal studies might be more relevant. Concerning R1a maybe you should start making concrete proposals on the talk page of that article. Maybe Zhou is not currently used there? I think however that the sources show no consensus on this matter you are so interested in and I have never denied that there are some articles which link R1a to steppes ancestry (although they are mostly just articles which mention it as something people in other articles have proposed).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that most, if not all, of these studies arguing for an autochthonous origin of R1a1 support the Zhiritovsky evolutionary mutation rate as a means of estimating the age of microsatellite variation. However, the method takes a beating in the 2011 Balanovsky study Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region: "Because of the controversy between “evolutionary” and “genealogical” mutation rates, we set out to reconstruct the population history of the Caucasus in two phases. The first was based solely on genetic evidence without consideration of any mutation rates, whereas the second converted genetic diversity into time using both rates and then compared them with the linguistic times. ... We found that “evolutionary” estimates of most clusters fall far outside the range of the respective linguistic dates, while “genealogical” estimates gave a good fit with the linguistic dates. At least two population events in the Caucasus are documented archaeologically, which allows additional comparison with these “historical” dates. In both cases, the historical (archaeological) date is similar to a genetic estimate based on the “genealogical” mutation rate (Supplementary Note 2)."

I mean, doesn't this sort of compromise the validity of the current studies arguing for an Indian origin of R1a1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talkcontribs) 13:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 1 November 2011[edit]

The text below should be removed as it does not specify scholarly authorship and also uses dead/false referencing. Given the authorship, title or journal is not presented i suspect it is a false reference

Text:

"Nevertheless, research published in 2011 has now determined an Eastern European origin for the R1a1 lineage, discrediting "OIT" and providing an even more solid genetic anthropological basis for the already well-substantiated hypothesis of Indo-Aryan migration: "The age of the cluster admittedly brought to Hindustan from Central Asia / Southern Siberia is 3,9 +/- 1,3 ky. Probably, the primary center of the generation of diversity and expansion of R1a1a was the territory of the Eastern European Steppe. With the spread of of R1a1 carriers, secondary centers of genetic diversity and population expansions were formed in the Southern Siberia and Hindustan."

Citation:

^ http://www.ichg2011.org/cgi-bin/ichg11s?abst=stepanov%20hindustan&sort=ptimes&sbutton=Detail&absno=

Thank You

122.107.164.91 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and removed a lot of the R1a discussion, which looked like it was written by a group of people fighting over a keyboard. The real geneticists are by no means as dogmatic and expansive upon this subject as bloggers and netizens, and so this was definitely undue weight. I suggest autosomal DNA is much more where there field is focusing anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Genetics section[edit]

The Genetics section looks more like a story than detailed Genetic explanation along with inaccuracies. For example ANI stands for ‘Ancestral North Indians’ (ANI) in source mentioned but is mentioned as Indo-European which is factually incorrect.

No wonder the page is locked. However the lock should be applied after correction and Genetic explanations not storylines.202.138.106.1 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

′== Article selectively lists only refutable evidence for OIT ==

This article is terribly biased. The 1st para claims that the OIT is mainly espoused by Elst and Talageri, but from then on does not quote a single argument from Talageri's analysis. All claims of OIT being "fringe science" and "unworthy of response by scholars" apply only to the arguments quoted, none of which are a part of Talageri's thesis.

In short, this article seems to have been written by an AIT proponent who quotes only the "evidence" he can refute. Would someone care to add Talageri's arguments to the article? Or are they hidden because they would make too strong a case for the OIT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.128.11 (talk) 18:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed written as per tribal barbaric theories of warmongering colonial times in the west or even earlier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.91.95.249 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell us what these devastating arguments are? Paul B (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
the topic falls under WP:FRINGE. It is not Wikipedia's job to defend it or to detail it, because it has no credibility. Wikipedia is not for the publication of pamphlets or original arguments, it must reflect mainstream. The topic is included for two reasons
  • it is a bona fide, but obsolete view held by some scholars in the 19th century (see Phlogiston)
  • it is a fringe view notable for its ideological impact in Hindu nationalism. This is covered not because the idea has any validity, but because it is notable (WP:TRUTH, Ley Lines).

--dab (𒁳) 07:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read Talageri's work, and I must say, it is yet to be refuted, and provides an extremely strong case for the OOI theory, based on linguistic and geographical context alone - furthermore, it is motivated by pure scholarship, not politics (which cannot exactly be said for AIT). If it would be welcomed, I would love to do a section for this page on Talageri's work, given its special reference to the topic at hand.
That's where you're wrong. The Out of India theory is not only the theory that's exclusively political, but also the one that's not accepted by any main stream researcher; whether geneticist or linguist. That nutjob Talageri is already mentioned in the article and his work has strongly been criticized by scholars and archeologists. His works didn't even support an Out of India theory, but instead, simply questioned the Aryan Invasion Theory. The latter argument was simply based on absence of evidence; not evidence of absence. Khazar (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Archaeological Evidence[edit]

The cited absence of archaeological evidence of intrusions into India itself does not necessarily exclude an intrusive language. In fact, the absence of clear archaeological evidence for a PIE invasion can be argued just about everywhere - western Europe, even the Balkans, from Sth Russia. The problem lies in the methodolgy use by scholars for over two centuries. Slovenski Volk (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

obviously. The "archaeological" and "genetic" sections are completely beside the point and should go. It is a misconception that there is any "evidence" there, based on a misunderstanding of the term "Indo-Aryan". People think that because there are remains of an advanced culture which seems to have at least partly impressed itself on later Indian tradition, it must follow that this culture was "Aryan". THis is of course completely wrong. People fail to understand that "Indo-Aryan" is a linguistic term, but it is impossible to impress this simple fact on people whose minds are clouded by nationalism, so the article has just gone in circles for ten years now. It should be said that this intellectual weakness is by no means limited to India; exactly the same sort of stupidity is going on in fringe proposals in the west, what with Paleolithic Continuity Theory and the notion of Stone Age "Celts" in Britain. --dab (𒁳) 07:41, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Haven't seen a more noodle article yet![edit]

It feels like all warring editors divided the article area and went on writing eloquent prose. --AmritasyaPutra 14:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v54/n1/full/jhg20082a.html.
  2. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982203001301
  3. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707641081
  4. ^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982206011390
  5. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia#Ancestral_North_Indians