Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 2

message: *Hindu Wisdom - Aryan Invasion Theory.
can we keep at least a little sense of historical depth? 
A groundbreaking realization in 1780 may sound similar to absolute drivel in 2004. 1780 isn't 2000, there are 220 years intervening. Jones realized that Sanskrit was an archaic IE dialect. This was more than 200 years ago. To cite Jones as support for modern dilettants is, to say the least, bizarre. Lumping together 1780s scholarship and 2000s kookery betrays the same compelte lack of historical perspective than lumping together Neolithic cultures and Iron Age texts. dab (ᛏ) 08:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you will note that the "This being the case, Vedic is much older than Hittite" is from Kazanas, not Burrow. Now I don't know who you're calling a "leading linguistic expert" here. You can quote Kazanas for whatever he is worth, but the proposition that "Vedic is much older than Hittite" is so patently ridiculous that you will have a hard time alleging that he is an expert of anything. dab (ᛏ) 15:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Does being a yoga teacher automatically discredit someone? This is response to dab's edit summary.Bakaman Bakatalk 16:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, it suggests someone is particularly competent in questions regarding Yoga. My comment referred to the description of Kazanas as a "Sanskrit professor", while I have found no evidence that he is an academic. This is the same sort of thing as perpetually referring to whoever supports your pet view as "eminent scholar" and the like. dab (ᛏ) 16:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I note from his article that Kazanas published a few articles in JIES. It is of course perfectly fair to quote and discuss those: I didn't remove the link to his article, I corrected the description of Kazanas as a "Sanskrit professor". It will be a relief if we can reach a level where we discuss stuff published in JIES in comparison to Frawley and friends. dab (ᛏ) 16:47, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: ‘Out of India? The linguistic evidence  in Bronkhorst J & Deshpande M(eds) Aryan & Non-Aryan in South Asia...’  is finally a serious reference! thank you Sbhushan! By all means do quote from that, no need to take the detour via Kazanas. I will look it up, and I suggest that since we finally have a reasonable source, we jettison Frawley's stuff  from the article, since it only distracts from serious discussion of the idea. "Sanskrit is archaic" is a truism that is irrelevant here (so are Greek and Hittite), but your Hock reference looks promising indeed. My comment above, it goes without saying, refers to the current "linguistics" section (Mishra...), not Hock. Let's see what Hock has to say then, I am glad we finally found an academic source even recognizing there is an OIT. dab (ᛏ) 19:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  These commeents from Burrows must stand on his own account - I don't believe they reflect the consensus of indoeuropeanists (have you seen any reconstructions of PIE words? They do not look especially vedic I can tell you), most indoeuropeanists look for ancient traits in Hittite and Baltic languages (lithuanian especially). the phrase "Better preserved" is a comment about the quantity of the material we have about sanskrit- we don't have nearly as much materiial from early hittite or any other early indoeuropean languages.Maunus 16:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: I have removed WIN's attempt to turn this talk page into his platform for presenting nonsensical evidence for and against different theories. I have issued him a warning for Disruptive behavior.Maunus 11:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well done. dab (ᛏ) 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: I would like to see this article include a section of arguments used for and against the theory, along with references to the places where these arguments are used and by whom. This would be a very fair way to let the readers make their own mind up as to which theory thy find most convincing without engaging in POV.
Below I present some of the most important arguments against the OIT, could I ask you to make a list of the best arguments for OIT with references to be included in the article? (Also feel free to add arguments)
*Postulating the PIE homeland in northern India requires positing a larger number of migrations over longer distances than it would do if it were postulated to be near the center of linguistic diversity within the family. That is: A homeland in central asia is the simpler theory (as per Occams razor)( cited in )
* The distribution of linguistic  isoglosses within the PIE family does not support northern india as the center of expansion (the archaic shared features are centered in central asia)
*Indic PIE languages show influence from contact with Dravidian and Munda - if PIE were spoken close to Dravidian and Munda all PIE languages would show these features. That is the contact between Indic and Dravidian/Munda must have occurred after the split of PIE meaning that proto-Indic speakers would have moved into contact with Dravidians and Mundans.Parpola writes: "...numerous loanwords and even structural borrowings from Dravidian have been identified in Sanskrit texts composed in northwestern India at the end of the second and first half of the first millennium BCE, before any intensive contact between North and South India. External evidence thus suggests that the Harappans most probably spoke a Dravidian language.". ."The most obvious explanation of this situation is that the Dravidian languages once occupied nearly all of the Indian subcontinent and it is the intrusion of Indo-Aryans that engulfed them in north India leaving but a few isolated enclaves." 
*To postulate the migration of PIE speakers out of India necessitates an earlier dating of the Rigveda than is normally accepted by Vedic scholars in order to make a deep enough period of migration to allow for the longest migrations to be completed.
* 
* 
*Mallory, JP. 1998. A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia. In: The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern and Central Asia. Ed. Mair. Washingion DC: Institue for the Study of Man. 
* 
 
:Excellent suggestion.  All the words quoted should be from referenced article without bias (WP content policies are not negotiable).  Regarding adding arguments, we can start with the list and add argument as sources acceptable to WP:V policy becomes available.  So all pro-OIT crowd, please look for good sources.  Religious arguments reduce credibility of good scholars and do not help the discussion or the theory.  Nothing is gained by debating positions, better people then we are arguing for a long time.  Let us just present theories from verifiable sources and not as established facts.
:Maunus, can you provide more details of the Vedic scholars referenced by Mallory (1989).  Kazanas article (a new date for RV page 1-3) has few scholars who argue for 1500 BC date.  M Witzel has provide some details re 1500 BC in article Autochthonous Aryans? Page 4 and 5 (http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf).Sbhushan 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There iis a good use of the argument strategy in the article on Origin of Romanians where the  mainstream Roessler theory is presented side by side with the less accepted Daco-Romanian continuity theory.Maunus 16:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although argument strategy is a good way to present this, would it be better from readers point of view to see the point made by proponent countered in the same paragraph by opponent. e.g. K prospose that Rigveda has no knowledge of silver and silver was available since 4 millinium BC, so Rigveda should be dated before that time.  Mainstream scholars have responded that Rigveda is "e silentio".  There are certain criticism, that are overall of the theory.  E.g. Dravidian connection.  What do you think.  The argument strategy would be very good for the AMT/OIT controversy page.Sbhushan 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Idea for a change in structure

message: I have started dePOVizating the article bit by bit but it is extremely tedious work. As it is now each section presents an argument in favour of the OIT, but in a very obfuscating manner making the argument look like some kind of semifact. Further more when it mentions counterarguments it does it in a way that is clearly intended to put the counter arguments in a bad light as nonsensical or unreasonable. Further more each section ends with a little coda that present the argument as the only reasonable one. Not acceptable and certainly POV.
I am trying to make it obvious in each section what is the argument, who proposes what and what counter arguments are presented by the mainstream side. Sometimes I cannot refer to a particular source but the counter argument is so obvious that I include it in my own wording - it is better that it is a little balanced and then it can be sourced later. I also remove excessive sourcing of arguments - the article is way too long and spends way too much space explaining and providing sources to things that it doesn't really explain anyway. Sometimes less is more - this is one of those times.
Maunus 12:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: De-POVization

message: I will start rewording each section (keep original wording in clean up section till we agree).  I will do the summary last.  I will base this on work of E, K and T.  I will try to stay away from controversial issues unless they are extremely important (in my opinion).  We can discuss on talk page and reword as required to make it perfect.  Since I am referencing same document at different places, I am suggesting we use the reference like e.g. (Kazanas, 2001a:4) to represent actual page number from the document.  This will be make it easy for reader to locate reference instead of reading the whole document.  This will create some conflict with the existing structure of the document.  We can have separate sections for "Notes" and "References".  Any suggestion as to best way to handle this?Sbhushan 14:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The italics and Clean Up Section don't really occur on Wikipedia. I have moved your edits to User:Sbhushan/OIT. I hope you don't mind. If you wish to contribute the Sbhushan's upcoming version then go to that page. I just don't want the article to be in complete disarray for a month while this happens. I explained this at User talk:Sbhushan. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 03:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "It might be useful for reader to get a summary on what liguistic is"? We are not writing a stand-alone monography here. How about you send readers to linguistics, or historical linguistics? Explaining offtopic general knowledge is talking down to the reader. Readers who are missing such knowledge and are willing to read up on it can click on the wikilink. No amount of tangents and caveats will prevent the readers who do not want to learn (like WIN) from not learning. dab (ᛏ) 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WIN with everything you write you make it painfully clear that your ideas about what linguistics is and how to apply its methods are not the ones shared by the mainstream linguistic community after Ferdinand de Saussure  (who based on his contributions to linguistics in the early twentieth century is often called the father of modern linguistics). Dab was being less than polite to refer to you in such a tone in his previous post, and I understand that you felt offended but please don't make use this pages to try and prove what you know about linguistics, currently you are contradicting 80 years of development in the science of linguistics - instead acknowledge that perhaps you too can learn from somebody, just like Dab, Sbushan and myself can.Maunus 13:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

message: The title to reference number nine is misspelled.
To edit the reference name, edit the section where reference is being used.  You will see the text between ref>......</ref, change it there.  I have fixed the reference.  This page is being rewritten; please see the talk page for more details.Sbhushan 00:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i cannot figure out how to correct this spelling error. 

message: fine, let us look at that section. Since you make statements in Wikipedia's voice, let's look at them for what they are, claims:
:It has been pointed out that the Vedas present no direct mention of a Urheimat, unlike other ancient texts such as the Torah. 
::the Torah presents "mention of an Urheimat"? What blooming nonsense. The earliest mention of an "Urheimat" in the Torah is the garden of Eden. After that Ur of the Chaldeans. These are myths or legends that have nothing to do with "memories of a Semitic Urheimat". You seem to fail to understand that "Urheimat" is a linguistic term. What is the "Urheimat" of the Jews, Egypt (Exodus), or Babylon (Captivity), or Jerusalem (Jewish diaspora)? You cannot arbitrarily call "Urheimat" any point of departure of some migration. Otherwise, of course, Gandhara would be the "Rigvedic Urheimat", because India was settled by the Rigvedic people starting form the extreme NW. The Caspian steppe is the Indo-Iranian Urheimat, not the Proto-Indo-European one, and not necessarily the Indo-Aryan one. 
:To have forgotten a homeland which they may have left a few centuries ago (based on Aryan migration models) is incoherent with what has been seen in other parts of the world in Ancient History. Other branches of IE have a clear migration history, even if no literary record has been preserved. 
::how is this incoherent? You state yourself that there are no literary records of any Urheimat, in any branches. Generally accepted "migration histories" of other branches are on precisely the same footing as the generally accepted migration history of the Indo-Iranians from Central Asia. The Greeks, case in point, have no indication of any immigration whatsoever, and the time-span separating supposed immigration to Greece and earliest sources is directly comparable to the Indo-Aryan case.
:It is commonly accepted that the Celtic and Italic peoples were invaders into their classical habitats. 
::just as it is commonly accepted that the Indo-Iranians settled in Central Asia. This article is about dissent against such mainstream scenarios. If you can dissent with Indo-Aryan migration, you can also dissent with Celtic migration, same game, there just aren't quite as many Celtic mysticists pestering Wikipedia, thank goodness.
:The Celts’ itinerary can be archaeologically traced back to Slovakia and Hungary, and Germany still preserves some Celtic place-names. In France, Spain, and the British Isles, a large pre-IE population existed, comprising at least two distinct language families. 
::can it now? are you an expert on Celts, suddenly? This corresponds to the greatest historical expansion of the Celts, not to some sort of 'itinerary'.
:The Iranians are fairly clear about their history of immigration from Hapta-Hendu and Airyanam Vaejo, two of sixteen Iranian lands mentioned in the Zoroastrian scripture Vendidad. (see below).(Elst 1999: Ch 4.6)[2]
::"fairly clear"? These are, indeed, two of sixteen "Aryan" lands mentioned in the Vendidad, that is, probably around 600 BC or so. All this proves (arguably) is that the Iranians were aware of the existence of the Punjab. It tells us nothing about any sort of "migration memories".  
:Some branches of the IE family have no memory of any migration, some have vague memories of their own immigration into their historical habitat, the Iranian branch has a distinct memory of migration from India to Iran, and only the Indian branch has a record of emigration of others from its own habitat. However, if the Indian subcontinent, the site of the composition of the Vedas, was the Urheimat of the Vedic people, this problem would not be present.(Elst 1999: Ch 4.6)[2]
::claiming that "the Iranian branch has a distinct memory of migration from India to Iran" is pure bollocks. So is "only the Indian branch has a record of emigration of others from its own habitat": the Gutasaga has memories of an exodus from Scandinavia to Greece, for example. The Graeco-Roman historiographers record all sorts of migrations of Germanic and Slavic tribes. Records of population movements in Indian sources are on exactly the same footing as these and have nothing whatsoever to do with any Proto-Indo-European migrations.
If Elst really makes such arguments, his case is much weaker than I thought. We can still state that Elst speculates, or asserts this or that strange non sequitur. It is out of the question that you should present Elst's flawed argument in Wikipedia's voice. Just about every sentence above flies in the face of commonly accepted knowledge. If you think you are within NPOV policy with this paragraph, you haven't even begun to understand either the issue or Wikipedia rules. dab (ᛏ) 10:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dab, everything in that section is from Elst article (please check the electronic link).  You could provide a good critique to Elst.  Your argument is with Elst and not me.  I am OK with Maunus edit.Sbhushan 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: my argument is with you because you keep presenting Elst as fact instead of as idiosyncracy. I have no issue with Elst any more than with Tilak, people are free to write anything they like in their own books. dab (ᛏ) 10:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Memories of Urheimat

message: Dab, I see that you have reverted the section again.  I explained my reasons in the summary.  Both Natshatra and Swords are relevant to discussion.  These are exact words from Elst (please check the link).  You disagree with Elst regarding how many time "sword" is mentioned and ref to Ramayana.  Now it is your words against Elst.  Why should this article represent your words?  Again most of these were presented in JIES article, why don't you add the critique from JIES (take the worst that you can find).  Also, what is with the start of the section - those words are not sourced and completely irrelevant to the OIT discussion.  I am trying to work with you to resolve this issue.Sbhushan 15:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've told you repeatedly, you can reference Elst's various opinions and speculations, but you cannot keep them in Wikipedia's voice. Why is this so difficult to understand? Griffith uses "sword" twelve time in his translation. This isn't "my word against Elst's", it is Elst's mistaken statement against Griffith's text itself, which is freely available. I have removed your words at the start of the section, implying that the absence of Harappan items in the RV can somehow be taken to assert a pre-Harappan(!!) date for the RV, which is an obvious and complete travesty of the situation. Do you even realize what you are claiming here? The patently Bronze Age context of the Rigveda is really Neolithic? Such stuff is really beneath discussion. dab (ᛏ) 15:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let us try to address one item at time.  What is your concern with Nakshatra statement?  "Nakshtra were developed in 2400 BC, they are important in religious text and RV does not mention this, which suggest RV is before 2400 BC".  The words used in document earlier were from Elst so that I don't introduce my bias.  Why do you object to this addtion?  If you don't like the wording, suggest something and we can discuss.Sbhushan 17:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: items not in Rigveda

message: I have started dePOVizating the article bit by bit but it is extremely tedious work. As it is now each section presents an argument in favour of the OIT, but in a very obfuscating manner making the argument look like some kind of semifact. Further more when it mentions counterarguments it does it in a way that is clearly intended to put the counter arguments in a bad light as nonsensical or unreasonable. Further more each section ends with a little coda that present the argument as the only reasonable one. Not acceptable and certainly POV.
I am trying to make it obvious in each section what is the argument, who proposes what and what counter arguments are presented by the mainstream side. Sometimes I cannot refer to a particular source but the counter argument is so obvious that I include it in my own wording - it is better that it is a little balanced and then it can be sourced later. I also remove excessive sourcing of arguments - the article is way too long and spends way too much space explaining and providing sources to things that it doesn't really explain anyway. Sometimes less is more - this is one of those times.
Maunus 12:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate the effort you are putting in this.  As I mentioned earlier, I am new to WP and my strength is research not writing.  Most of the edits that you and Paul have done are definitely an improvement. I will take this as learning.Sbhushan 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I appreciate the amount of research you have done and the effort you have put into building this new layout of the page. But most of all I appreciate your responsivee opeen minded attitude.Thanks. Maunus 15:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: De-POVization