Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Inaccurate citation

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

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

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

Kazanas, Nicholas 2002 - Indigenous Indoaryans and the Rgveda - Journal of Indo-European Studies, volume 30, pages 275-334

rudra 06:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


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

A suggestion: Homer mentions Gangaridae and says that a Ganga general had fought in Georgia. Gangaridae is now supposed to be centred around South Bengal. Does this have any relevance to the haplogroup and its transmission? -- NOVO —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

OIT is proposed by some scholars

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

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

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

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

Watch844 21:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

This is what Kashyap himself has to say:

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

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

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

This is also what Kashyap himself has to say:

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

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

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

"Dr. Narahari Achar, a physicist from The University of Memphis clearly showed with astronomical analysis that the Mahabharata war in 3,067 BC, thus poking a major hole in the outside Aryan origin of Vedic people dating to 1500 BC.

Interestingly, Witzel stated, for the first time to many in the audience, that he and his colleagues no longer subscribe to Aryan invasion theory, though he continues to hold to a foreign origin for the people and civilization of India. As noted previously, he presented no data in support of his position though invited to do so by the organizers."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch844 15:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shrikant Talageri is likewise a respected academic and if you are truly interested in maintaining neutrality and looking at current scholarly viewpoints with a broad analysis of the issue, here is his position:

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

Watch844 12:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Watch844 13:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Necessary but not sufficient

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

To whit,

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

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

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

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

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

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch844 11:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Watch844 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The famous "MA conference" is a surreal joke [1][2]. I doubt it is at all possible to be academically more discredited than N. S. Rajaram. In Asko Parpola's words, Thus far Rajaram has got away with this dishonesty because the scholarly community has not considered this work worthy of consideration: it has been taken more or less for granted that any sensible person can see through this trash and recognize it as such. However, the escalation of this nonsensical propaganda now demands the issue to be addressed. dab (𒁳) 12:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Swarasvati: How do you know the dried up river bed in Pakistan WAS definitely the river refered to in Rig Ved as Swarasvati? It seems like a CONVENIENT assumption and may imply an agenda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


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

Elst, Talageri, Kazanas, and Frawley do not.

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

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

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

JFD 15:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Watch844 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Watch844 12:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Watch844 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

Erdosy's "lunatic fringe" comment

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

Recognised scholarly theorists

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

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

Watch844 11:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Watch844 18:06, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

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

explain revert

have reverted[3] for the foll. reasons.

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

Doldrums 10:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up:

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

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

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

OR/False citation/coatracks detected...

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

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

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

The Lead


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

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

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

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

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

JFD 13:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Watch844 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Trautmann himself divides the current scholarship into 2 broad camps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch844 14:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Watch, "indignous" is not in fact an English word, I was making fun of you. here is what you will find in Trautmann (ed.) in terms of OIT, [4]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doldrums 09:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I quote Trautmann directly:

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

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

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

Watch844 11:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Out of interest

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

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


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

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

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

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

A page on Vedic pseudoscience would be much appreciated. -- NOVO —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

problems with Flameoffire's version

[5] for starters,

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

Doldrums 09:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

that was just a revert without discussion, not a new proposal. plus Fof is apparently a member of the Great Hindutva Sock Circus.[6][7]. --dab (𒁳) 09:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My proposed lead: please indicate problems

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

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

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

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

Darrowen 07:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flameoffire 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Flameoffire 11:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Flameoffire 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The person who posts under the name dab is classic example of stooge of certain color who cannot wait to preempt all the world's inventions and argues by putting up a red herring of "Black Egypt". Way to go dab dab. He seems to follow the classic attack and argue tactics propogated by white nationlists (and so well articulated on their websites). Hang out much there dab? Most of the support today for aryan immigrations theory is based on linguistic analysis of how the locii of the IE languages does not appear to be India. Such linguistic conclusions are hokey at best. If OIT is unproven, then so is AIT..

P.S: Go ahead and claim that I am a sock puppet of someone. Ddwiticus (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC) June 24, 2008

it doesn't matter if you are, I suppose the above show of blatant trolling buys you a ban either way. dab (𒁳) 07:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

76.199...'s addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doldrums 18:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

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

The following website gives contact details of these scholars.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is obviously misleading the readers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kishore patnaik speaks:

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

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

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

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

there too?

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

Recent evidence provides a clearer more accurate picture of refuting the idea of people invading india.Genetic studies confirm unlike in the main article which distorts the facts, recent studies comfirm that the genetics of indians north and sout pay homage to indian genes.

It is not necessary, based on the current evidence, to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture. The perennial concept of people, language, and agriculture arriving to India together through the northwest corridor does not hold up to close scrutiny. Recent claims for a linkage of haplogroups J2, L, R1a, and R2 with a contemporaneous origin for the majority of the Indian castes' paternal lineages from outside the subcontinent are rejected, although our findings do support a local origin of haplogroups F* and H. Of the others, only J2 indicates an unambiguous recent external contribution, from West Asia rather than Central Asia. The current distributions of haplogroup frequencies are, with the exception of the O lineages, predominantly driven by geographical, rather than cultural determinants. Ironically, it is in the northeast of India, among the TB groups that there is clear-cut evidence for large-scale demic diffusion traceable by genes, culture, and language, but apparently not by agriculture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizzzla1 (talkcontribs) 16:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

These arguments have already been addressed above. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

neutrality comment

comment in article[8] moved here:

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

Doldrums 08:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Errors in Items Not Found in Rig-veda

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

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

These are referred to in the following verses:

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

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

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

About a Bibliographic Reference

The paper on Indian genome variation was turned down for publication by Nature Genetics. From "But despite being a “historic project”, the findings were reported in the Journal of Genetics published by the Indian Academy of Sciences, Bangalore, instead of high-profile international journals. Nature Genetics rejected the paper after three rounds of anonymous peer-review.

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

Voltaire, eh

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

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

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

Problems with intro paragraph

Usually (and as is evident in all wiki pages), any opposing thoughts are included in a separate criticsm section and not the inro section. This is the only page I have seen where the second sentence itself informs you that this theory is rejected by certain people.

Please correct this anomaly. I propose a criticsm section where all the opposing views and theories can be mentioned.--Ddviticus (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Could not have put it better myself

There are, however, many mainstream scholars who refute the Aryan Invasion Theory and have called into question the methodologies of the Western philologists and their modern and post-modern counterparts, the Indologists. Lining up in opposing positions, the “inside India” proponents claim that the theories of Indologists were constructed with a political agenda from an unequal relationship of power--from a position of cultural and economic hegemony. It is argued that scholars who are strongly opposed to considering an indigenous origin for the Sanskrit language employ Euro-centric colonial era paradigms in their analyses, which overlook not only the archeological record, but misread and ignore important references from Vedic literature. --Ddviticus (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We have heard this a million times before. What possible "political agenda" could western indologists have for locating PIE in central Asia? In contrast, the ideological need of Indians to locate PIE in India is obvious. Paul B (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The book "Imperial Encounters: Religion and Modernity in India and Britain" by Peter van der Veer has a good discussion on Aryan origins and what purposes the Aryan myth served Britain and Europe. It becomes clear that the great enthusiasm for this theory in the west was not very innocent and that it was convenient for several ideological and political ends. It was not the Indians but the Europeans who were championing this ideal of the invading Aryan. But howcome the oldest "Aryan" texts like the Rigveda are not preserved in central Asia or Europe ? In India, Arya means a teacher, something quite the opposite of an invader. This makes AIT a contradiction in terms. (Mntr (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2009 (UTC))

Intro changes

I removed this special (?) scholar in the lead and added the info about genetic results. --Kalarimaster (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

And I reverted. Genetic evidence neither confirms nor disproves it. Paul B (talk) 22:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lothal conception.jpg

The image Image:Lothal conception.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


The AIT was born out of the need to justify British Imprerialism and agression of India, its premise was that the Indians were alwasy no good and every thing of substance was of foreign origin. It is sheer racist nonsense.

Today it does not matter whether it was AIT or OIT. What is important is there are over a billion Indians who are languishing at a per capita GDP of less than USD 1000. And India's world image is the home to Slumdogs.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Mostly baloney, but do have any actual suggestions? Paul B (talk) 10:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Swarasvati River and Items not in the Rigveda and Rangpur

I would like to know why it is assumed that the river refered to as the Swarasvati river in the Rg Ved is definitely the dried up river in Pakistan.

In the section, "Items not in the Rigveda" it is written that these items are not mentioned in the Rg Ved and so they must have been composed before the Harappan civilization. It could just as easily indicate that they were just not acquainted with these items as they were not Harappan or had no connection with them and in fact, they could have been written while the Harappan civilization was still in existence. It does not throw any definite light on the dating of the Rig Ved.

I have also observed there is a Rangpur district in Bengal (Bangladesh). {{editsemiprotected}}

Not done Please could you suggest what needs changing into what, once consensus for change has developed on this page. Thanks! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


"The determination of the AGE in which Vedic literature started and flourished has its consequences for the Indo Aryan question."

The key word in this sentence is AGE... I assume.

"The oldest text, the Rigveda, is full of precise references to places and natural phenomena in what are now Punjab and Haryana, and was unmistakably recorded in that part of India.[citation needed] "

This sentence is about geography ... Does it really fit here after the first sentence? The rest of the section goes back to dealing with the age. Quite in line with the first sentence but the second sentence seems out of place. Could you explain?

The rest:

"The date at which it was composed is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India. In the academic mainstream view it was composed the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan)[35] and OIT proponent propose a pre-Harappan date.

OIT proponents propose that bulk of Rigveda was composed prior to Indus Valley Civilization by linking archaeological evidence with data from Vedic text and archaeo-astronomical evidence." {{editsemiprotected}}

Not done for now: could you rephrase that "Please change X to Y"? - Jarry1250 (t, c) 19:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

it is true that a lot of nonsense has crept into the "philology" section.[10] The proposed 4th millennium BCE date of the Rigveda is completely loony, already on linguistic grounds, but also, of course, because there was no metal, no wheels, let alone chariots at the time. If the Rigveda predated Harappan culture, it would need to reflect a stone age society. Which it ostensibly does not. This is an article about a crackpot theory, so we can report the crackpot literature, but Wikipedia's voice will obviously nor argue in favour of this stuff, or even silently imply they are a reasonable point of view. This is cranky nonsense beginning to end, and the article must make absolutely clear that this is the case. --dab (𒁳) 21:11, 29 March 2009 (UTC)



tendentious statements

The spread of the Indo-European languages is associated with Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a1.

This is an unreferenced sentence. I don't believe, any scholar would say that. The R1a* group is associated with Indian populations, not Indian or Indo-European languages.

A recent study by S. Sharma et al., published in the ASHG Abstracts 2007, argued for an Indian origin of R1a1 lineage among Brahmins, by pointing out the highest incidence of R1a*, ancestral clade to R1a1, among Kashmiri Pandits (Brahmins) and Saharias, an Indian tribe.

This is again a tendentious sentence by suggesting in the first part, that R1a1 would be the ultimate gene of the Brahmins. The study shows, that Brahmins have the same R1a1 links as tribals. The paper refuses claims, that R1a* is an exlusive Indo-European group. --Neutralpointofyou (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

=The Indo-Aryan Controversy, 2000s academic book

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

  • 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[11]. 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"...

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

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.

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. and Underhill's (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 and Underhill's (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: [12] [13] [14]. 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

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) [15] 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 [16] 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, 4 October 2010

{{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:


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>


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> (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, 4 October 2010

{{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.


*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>


*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.


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.


Yet, despite the importance of the rice in ritual in later times, the Rigveda makes no mention of it. (talk) 15:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Edit request from, 4 October 2010

{{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. (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, 4 October 2010

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

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

Linguistic Center-of-Gravity Principle

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 (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?

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. " 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we add the following reference?

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." ref:

Michael Witzel worshipping

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?

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!

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. (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Old references need to be updated

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

Ancestral north indians are present here from 40,000ybp. Link: Nirjhara (talk) 04:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hindutva opposition to the Indo-Aryan migration theory

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. (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 2986641Freely accessible, 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; Semino, Ornella (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 2987245Freely accessible, 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.ref:;; 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. ref: 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

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


"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."



Thank You (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

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. (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 (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 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 16:05, 16 March 2014
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

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)
    • ^ Elst, Koenraad;
    • ^ Talageri, Shrikant; "The case for an Indian homeland is so strong, and the case for a non-Indian homeland so weak, that the academic world will untimately be compelled, nevertheless, to accept the fact that the Indo-European family of languages originated in India, or, at the very least, to drastically tone down, or qualify, their strident rejection of it".
    • ^ Gupta, S.P. The Indus-Sarasvati civilization (New Delhi, Centre for studies in civilizations, 1999, pp 270-9,339-51)
    • ^ Trautmann, The Aryan Debate pxiii (2005) "the indiginous aryan view is not a recent invention, and there have always been some scholars who supported it."
    • ^ Trautmann, The Aryan Debate pxii (2005) "There are others taking up the indigenous aryan position who are very well qualified, and whose scholarly credentials entitle them to a respectful hearing."
    • ^ Cavalli-Sforza (2000:152) "The Aryan invasions of Iran, Pakistan, and India brought Indo-European languages to Dravidian-speaking areas."
    • ^ Mallory 1989 "the great majority of scholars insist that the Indo-Aryans were intrusive into northwest India"
    • ^ Kenoyer, J. Mark; Indian Archaeology in Retrospect, Volume 2 (Protohistory: Archaeology of the Harappan Civilization), edited by S. Settar and R. Korisetttar) " the cultural history of south Asia in the 2nd Millenium BC may be explained without reference to external agents."
    • ^ Kashyap, V.K. (2006) "there is no clear genetic evidence for an intrusion of Indo-Aryan people into India."
    • ^ Trautmann 2005 The Aryan Debate;p xviii "unflattering labels such as 'Hindu nationalist' and 'Hindutva' are thrown about as if they were proofs that the arguments of the writers opponent were not true...identifying the social historical location of a piece of history writing does not tell us whether it is true or false."
    • ^ Witzel, Michael (2006). "Rama's realm: Indocentric rewritings of early South Asian archaeology and history". In Fagan, Garrett G. Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public. Routledge. pp. pp. 203–232. 
    • ^ Sahoo S, Singh A, Himabindu G, Banerjee J, Sitalaximi T; et al. (2006), "A prehistory of Indian Y chromosomes: evaluating demic diffusion scenarios.", Proc Natl Acad Sci, 103, pp. 843–848  , Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, Edmonds CA; et al. (2006), "Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y-chromosome distributions in India identify both indigenous and exogenous expansions and reveal minor genetic influence of central asian pastoralists.", Am J Hum Genet, 78, pp. 202–221  .
    • ^ Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Mastana S, Kaldma K; et al. (2003), "The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations.", Am J Hum Genet, 72, pp. 313–332  .