Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 1

message: Nobleeagle, your description of 
:The Aryan Invasion model suggests that an Aryan race, which originiated from outside India, were the creators of the Vedas and the original speakers of Sanskrit.
smacks of the 19th century. No-one would speak of an "Aryan race" today, and no-one would claim the immigrating Indo-Aryan speakers were "the creators of the Vedas and the original speakers of Sanskrit". These are either strawmen consciously set up to be shot down, or else "anti-IAM" polemicists really think this is what is proposed, in which case it is no wonder they feel uncomfortable with it. It would be correct to state that the immigrating Indo-Aryan speakers were the linguistic ancestors of the later (Indian!) people who established the Vedic schools 1,000 years later, and that Sanskrit is a refined language based on the vernacular of this early people. This is so different from the childish notion of a conquering Vedic Aryan race that I don't know what else to say if it doesn't impress itself on you. I think the problem is that Hindu culture is lacking a sense of history, which makes it impossible for people to wrap their minds around the concept of historical change. They are capable of imagining the proposition of the intrusion of a fully formed Vedic/Sanskritic culture, an idea which they rightly discard immediately, but they seem quite uncapable of conceiving of the genesis of Vedic/Sanskritic culture within India in the early Iron Age. After reading so much of this stuff on Wikipedia, I really think that this is what lies at the bottom of this almost comical impassé: scholars propose Vedic culture formed, in India, 1800-1000 BC. Hindu nationalists hear "Vedic culture originated in Central Asia" and are outraged. dab (ᛏ) 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, the article I was sourcing was talking about the apparent 19th century version. I believe that under WP:OR, we shouldn't be misrepresenting the context of a particular view or article. In anycase, Dr. Agarwal's point was that Vedic culture originated long before 1500 BC, which is still around when scholars proposed it originated. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's precisely what I mean. 40000 BC, 7000 BC and 4000 BC is all the same to these authors, and all equally "Vedic", just as long as "Vedic" predates the Bronze Age and recorded history anywhere else :) this renders the term "Vedic" essentially meaningless. There is no inkling of historical depth here, everything was frozen in some eternal Vedic Golden Age for countless millennia up to 1900 BC. Then the Sarasvati dried up, everything collapsed, and history began.  dab (ᛏ) 08:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Welcome to Wikipedia! Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AIM link

message: Shouldn't this article have a criticism section written from the consensus perspective of historical linguistcs?  As it stands, all sorts of supporting statements are advanced in the article which are linguisticly meaningless (i.e. Sanskrit is ... a grammatically complex and highly refined language. OIT supporters believe that the idea that Sanskrit is a language originating with Central Asian nomadic people is highly impossible -- consensus lingustics rejected any linkage between grammatical complexity and technological attainments several decades ago.)  I appreciate that OIT supporters reject consensus opinion, and in some cases may misunderstand/misrepresent it, but shouldn't it get a voice here?  -Ben 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could add a criticism section and fill it with well-sourced material. But note that what you call consensus is rejected by a number of voices and media sources on the subject. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 07:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It may be rejected by "media sources", or by an overwhelming majority of the Indian population, or even by a majority of Indian linguists (though that would surprise me).  But some note should be made of OIT's non-mainstream status within the non-Indian community of professional linguists.  -Ben 12:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism Section

message: :I'm afraid that, in the absence of sources to back up this claim, this constitutes a violation of  WP:OR, as well as a potential WP:BLP violation that is defamatory. Therefore, I have put fact tags there and, if somebody does not provide a reference from a legitimate academicsource/peer-reviewed journal/notable scholarly text that Knapp has been accused by many academics of pseudoscience/propaganda then I am within the bounds of wiki polcy to remove that sentence as it is a violation of 2 wikipedia policies. As of my signature time I shall wait for 48 hours as a courtesy. Thank you.Hkelkar 12:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: look, if this is going to be an article about a bona fide theory of Indo-European origins (albeit possibly obsolete, see Schlegel), Knapp has no place at all in the article. He is so far from any sort of peer reviewed that even mentioning him in passing is a joke. There are two options: stick to peer reviewed academic discourse, which will mean Knapp is out of the window and Frawley must be qualified as extremely fringy, or we turn this into the "Hindutva propaganda and Indo-European" article and put it in :Category:Propaganda. I am happy to oblige and remove discussion of Knapp altogether for now. If you are unhappy with this, it is your responsibility to produce an academic review of Knapp. dab (ᛏ) 15:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid that, unless you can provide sourced academic refs that attest that OIT is political propaganda, all this is OR. Since Knapp does not have peer-reviewed publications, I am not opposed to not mentioning him.However, unless you can provide verifiable sources that target specific claims, we have a violation of WP:AGF,WP:BLP and WP:OR.Hkelkar 18:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, this page itself is WP:OR in that several disparate sources arguing different things have been thrown together under a neologism of an article title. I cant imagine how categorising this as pseudoscience is what violates OR rather than the article itself. Hornplease 22:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a vague accusation and, in turn, is OR without WP:Reliable Sources. Categorizing anything as pseudoscience without third aparty verification is WP:OR ab-initio.Almost everything in this article is cited and uncited OR has been removed.Hkelkar 23:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the sources, Hornplease, you will see that every source relates to the Out of India theory (or a model showing the spread of IE languages out from India) specifically. It is thus NOT OR. As to "cant imagine how categorising this as pseudoscience is what violates OR rather than the article itself", perhaps you have misinterpreted WP:NOR, it says in a nutshell that articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published arguments, concepts, data, ideas, or statements that serves to advance a position.. Your categorizing of Knapp and Frawley as pseudoscientific authors is your analysis of the arguments they put forward towards to Out of India theory. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 00:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I know nothing of Knapp or Frawley, though I would hesitate to call authors pseudoscientific, only non-notable, if indeed they are, on which I have no opinion as yet. My observation was on the structure of the article. I find it difficult to believe that (a) the phrase "Out of India Theory" is not a neologism - the phrase itself is not sufficiently cited and (b) that there is not an artificial unity brought to all these views by presenting them under the same heading, without analysing the differences that were no doubt inherent in views from different ields of inquiry and at different times. That is what I feared was OR about the article - that was the 'new synthesis' that the policy page declares. I did not intend to take a position on the scientific virtue of the statements themselves, merely pointing out that saying the statement "this article is pseudoscience" is OR is hardly fair, when the article is perilouosly close to OR itself. But, if it makes you feel better, ignore that statement, and concentrate on avoiding points (a) and (b) above. Hornplease 07:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have seen some authors talk of the Out of India term, while others have called it the Proto-Vedic Continuity Theory. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accusations of "pseudoscience" and "propaganda"

message: I want to know about Photo displayed as IE language expansion out of India ( put by anyone ). Central & Eastern India expansion is shown as post 2000 BC. And, main IE dates in NW & W India shows gap of around 6,000 to 4,000 years. Do you agree that language spread took same time from Sindhu-Saraswati basin area to Western Europe and Central & Eastern India ? Is it logical to think in that line ? Do you agree that it was as difficult for people to move from NW & W India to C & E India as from NW & W India to Western Europe ? This picture is utterly false. It is based on AIT/AMT. WIN 10:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I created it. It is based on Koenraad Elst. It is not a simple matter of Aryans saying they want to invade everything and anything around them. They split off for reasons...demographic expansion, internal rivalry etc. etc. In most of these cases they saw the Hindu Kush as a suitable place to travel to. With the drying up of the Sarasvati and the decline of the IVC, the Aryans began interacting with the Dravidians, who were not backward and to this date exist in large numbers. The two groups overran the Veddoid tribes of South Asia and to some extent South East Asia. I don't know why, but Elst does not use the evidence of Aryan settlements on the Gangetic plains around 3000 BC and I can't do anything about that. It's hard to believe but to avoid OR I created a map based on that source and that source only. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 22:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I might upload the map again. I made a mistake while reading Elst's scenario and attributed 6th millenium BC to 6000 BC instead of 5999-5000 BC as it is meant to be. What you are reading as 8000 BC is meant to be 6000 BC but it got stuffed up so I'll have to fix that and adjust it to 5000 BC. Of course I wouldn't date anything at 8000 BC. The first split of PIE from the Indus Valley was dated to the 6th millenium BC, thus I am assuming that the PIE were in the Indus Region before this breakup, which is why I used Pre-6000 BC (which I am now changing to Pre-5000 BC). Thanks for pointing that out. Nobleeagle  (Talk) 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections then :) I am in fact grateful that we now cover this perfeclty reasonable scenario, it is a refreshing breeze of sanity after all the Pleiades-and-Saraswati-cruft. dab (ᛏ) 10:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Witzel is translating Sanskrit samudra as terminal lake in Rig-Veda verses. Samudra is translated as ocean in all Indian languages as opposed to terminal lake. But Rig-Veda hymn 3.33 says that Vipasa and Sutudri rising from mountains ( Parvat ) and flowing down to Samudra. Now, what should be assumed - ocean or terminal lake ? Then, who is moron or trying to make other moron ? WIN 09:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Harvard professors are rarely idiots. Read what he actually says.. It's amazing how quick you are to "downgrade" all cultures other than India. Has it occurred to you that most people in other cultures don't even care where PIE originated, and so wouldn't dream that being its place of origin would either "downgrade" or "upgrade" a country. Paul B 10:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saraswati River in Rig-Veda 

message: Many people have pointed out on this talk page that no serious linguist would support the theory. Why? We need to have a criticism section which may discuss desicive bits of data and how they completely ruin the fundamentals of the OIT. That would help make the page not seem like a biased one. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 06:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What would really help the page seem like an un-biased would be if the entire text didn't read as if the OIT theory is the only sensible and most widely accepted theory. A criticism section would be a start but the article is permeated by the biased viewpoint, and the entire text needs fixup.Maunus 07:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it is one thing to refer to expert opinion, it is another thing to repeat the entire debate. We cannot turn this into a crash course in historical linguistics, and even if we did (this would fill volumes, people don't become 'experts' because they felt like it one day), it would drown out the actual topic, and it still wouldn't help people like WIN with strong opinions but no background knowledge. dab (ᛏ) 10:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism/Opposition section 

message: To find what's meaning of Sanskrit Apbhransh or Degradation, look at South East Asia's Sanskrit based words in vocab. Even though SE Asia's language are considered as from different language family, they have high % of Sanskrit or Sanskrit based words.
Just take recent names appearing in Thailand Coup.
Thai King , Bhumibol Adulyadej = Bhumipal Atulyatej
Old thai capital ,Ayuthaya = Ayodhya of India
Ruangroj Mahasaranon = Rangaraj Mahasharan or Mahasharanan ( in South Indian style )
Suriya Jungrungreangkit = Surya .... ( remaining name can not be understood right now )
Pratheep Ungsongtham Hata = Pradeep ....
Pridiyathorn Devakula = Pritiya Devakula
You can see that there are many pronunciation errors from Sanskrit words. And, this is called Degradation or Deviation. Due to different pronunciation habits, Thai people are pronouncing Sanskrit word differently. You will always find very high stress given on exact pronunciation of Sanskrit words in India. It's similar to changing place names of Indian cities or rivers by Western people like Pliny or Britishers due to their habitual inability to speak original Indian name. WIN 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is Sanskrit Apbhransh / Degradation ? 

message: 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)
thread_title: please

message: There is some quite bizarre stuff here. What does the California text book controversy have to do with this? Why are we told about an 11 year old kid who was teased by other kids? I very much doubt that was because of AIT! "Ya boo, your country wasn't the source of Proto-Indo-European! Sucker!". More likely they were repeating standard Christian evangelical ridicule of multi-armed or elephant-headed gods. Do we really need to narrate the history of AIT? This is supposed to be about OIT. Paul B 14:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: rolleyes: more likely, these kids are teased because their parents are fundamentalist loonies... dab (ᛏ) 14:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks like dab can do nothing but call people names.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: how about you "close communication" with me too, Bakaman? I'll be more than happy in Zora's company. Or with all of en-wiki while you're at it? It is not like you are making a secret of your agenda. dab (ᛏ) 11:03, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That's what people call me. Luckily some anon IP counterbalanced you in the names by calling me a "Gandhian/Nehruvian secularist". "Ya boo, your country wasn't the source of Proto-Indo-European! Sucker!" Bakaman Bakatalk 15:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: so there are people with their heads even further up their asses, that's hardly a surprise (rather an axiom of online culture :) dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Extraneous material

message: Sen is commenting on the "AIT controvesy", he is not alleging to have done any research of his own, he is simply commenting on the bizarre constellation of scholarship vs. brute nationalism. His voice thus belongs in a "political implications" section. Or, once again, we could clean this article of all unscholarly exploits and confine those to the one that is ostensibly about the jingoism, Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies). dab (ᛏ) 10:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sen

message: this article keeps forgetting that it is about OIT, not anti-AIT. Most of the stuff in the "Basis" section is again compeltely off-topic and belongs on Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) (these arguments do not become more convincing by repeating them in three different articles). So far, the only marginally notable contemporary supporter of OIT appears to be Elst. Frawley's stuff is just as incompatible with Elst's OIT as it is with any other reasonable account, and if we must keep Frawley around (to the discredit of OIT as presented here), at least keep him in his own section. dab (ᛏ) 10:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: again, we can keep Talageri, Mishra, Knapp, Frawley and friends, but all they achieve, being as blissfully innocent of any required background as they are, is make the theory look silly. Elst's thing is the only reasonable reference so far, and pending other citations, the article should really focus on that. dab (ᛏ) 11:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup, again

message: This article tends toward a POV pushing of this "theory", and gives short shrift (when it gives any shrift at all) to the views of actual historical linguists, or the weighty evidence against the theory.  It must therefore be labelled as NPOV until such time as it is cleaned up. RandomCritic 16:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that's because actual historical linguists have nothing to say on the topic. the "linguistics" cited at present makes it perfectly clear that this is the lunatic fringe. Heck, the whole article betrays that it treats a lunatic fringe topic to any reader who isn't asleep or braindead. The article presents such proponents as there are, and these proponents speak volumes about the theory's notability. dab (ᛏ) 17:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: In Arkaim in Russia , just north to Kazakhstan ; a city of around 2,000 to 2,500 people was found on steppes plains. Read what biggest russian newspaper Pravda says about it from this link http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/15814_Arkaim.html  . Arkaim town , contains sewage system , well , food storage area - Each house was outfitted with “all modern conveniences,” - the town was built as a projected plan and it was not some natural development.They had bronze smelting ovan. They had central ritual site with arranged bonfires. It is dated 1700 BC. It's claimed to have some Astronomy in it and is called Swastika City.
Now, above descriptions in Pravda says that it was a planned town with sewage system, bronze smelting ovan , systematically arranged ritualistic fireplace. This are Hallmark of IVC people who were very advanced from central asian nomads.So, how some steppe nomads called `aryan' is resembling with IVC people ? If claims of Astronomy and Swastika is considered than also it's clear indication that this was IVC Indians' settlement who migrated to this land area after complete drying of Saraswati river after 1900 BC. Astronomy which is woven in Indian life and culture much more than any other people on the earth or IVC excavated Indian Swastika symbol - is hallmark of Indian culture.
This means that Arkaim was settlement of migrated IVC Indians. Suppose, this is some nomadic central asian steppes people's town ( what a irony ! nomadic and town - both words are opposites to each other ); then nomads learnt so much from IVC Indians that they tried to replicate their life in steppes ! 
But, then how those nomads were able to impart their language & culture on vast Indian subcontinent ! 
WIN 06:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sadly certain users think they are too high and mighty to counter WIN's logic.Bakaman Bakatalk 17:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: no, no, indeed, WIN is absolutely right, Arkaim is Swastika City, hence it was planned and built by Vedic Indo-Aryans, nothing could be more obvious than that. I mean, come on, who but Vedic Aryans could plan their way out of a paper bag, let alone plan sewers or fireplaces?? It must be Aryans, everybody else at  the time were pretty much monkeys, what more proof do they need, for crying out loud? Fie, stupid, arrogant, eurocentric academia, why do we need specialists in the first place if they cannot see things as obvious as this. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for proving my point.Bakaman Bakatalk 18:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. this should be Aryapedia anyway, non-Aryans need not apply, you and WIN would then be free to tell the self-evident truth without wasting time with inferior half-wits. Oh wait, you could already do that if you set up your own wiki at aryapedia.org, think about that. dab (ᛏ) 18:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: And what logic would that be? It's nice that WIN has finally discovered the existence of the  Sintashta-Petrovka culture. It's difficult to understand why he would think the existence of ovens and sewers is evidence of links to the IVC, unless only Indian Übermenschen could ever invent such things. You know, other people had them too. In other respects there is almost no resemblance to IVC cities - as a simple look at the place should indicate. Nor, btw, are there any swastikas there. Paul B 19:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, the sad truth is that WIN keeps us amused for weeks before he goes and reads (alright, looks at the intro of) one other article to throw in the fray. At this rate, it will be years before he reaches the rationalism or even just WP:ENC page :p dab (ᛏ) 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What are you trying to suggest with "Übermenschen"? You suggesting WIN's a Nazi, because we do have a german user editing this article and his name's not WIN.Bakaman Bakatalk 19:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is his name, Mr. Godwin? I am about as German as Arkaim is in India, and your conclusion German>Nazi is about as sound as Swastika>Aryan. I am sure it all makes sense in your head, though. dab (ᛏ) 20:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Unlike user subhash_bose, I have no idea what these german phrases mean. Perhaps if you translate it (since you are German) I'd know what it means. I was suggesting that you were the only one who actually knows what Ubermenschen means, and that Paul Barlow's useless rant fell on deaf ears.Bakaman Bakatalk 00:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not German, but I can answer your question. Or you could have just looked it up, whatever. Anyway, in brief, Übermensch, plural Übermenschen, was a term coined, or at least made famous, by the 19th century German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. A literal translation would be "overman", although it means something more like "superman" or "superior man". Although Nietzsche himself was not a national socialist (far from it, his writings often pretty violently rejects Germany, the German people, and blind nationalist ideologies in general) the idea was later appropriated by the Nazis and incorperated into their national/biological mysticism. To the Nazis, anyone of "Aryan" descent was an übermensch, and anyone not of "Aryan" descent was an untermensch, an under man. I'm guessing Paul Barlow was pointing out that the prejudice that only sophisticated and clever Aryan Indus Valley Indians could have taught the Central Asians how to build sewers or ovens is pretty much identical to the Nazi prejudice that German Übermenschen were the source of the Aryan culture and that Aryans could only have come from superior Germany. Both are ridiculous, imperalist notions based entirely on politics, not fact. --Krsont 11:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for not being a dick and being straightforward about this. I dont think Paul Barlow meant that though, I think he obviously wanted to paint me as a Nazi, because I'm a Hindutva sympathizer or as dab says "chatterbot from the BJP headquarters".Bakaman Bakatalk 16:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant exactly what Kronst said (thanks Kronst for expaining). BTW, if you didn't know the meaning of the word why would you think it was intended to "paint you as a Nazi"? That's a rather idiosyncratic interpretation, since the comment was explicitly in response to what WIN said!Paul B 20:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Because painting people as Nazi is generally why people use German words. Otherwise there are 6000 other languages you can express yourself in, its funny why only german had to be used.Bakaman Bakatalk 21:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kronst explained clearly why German was used. Not wishing to create too much angst or to display schadenfreude, I'm quite sure that there are many reasons why German might be used that have nothing to do with Nazis. It may just be the Weltanschauung created by the post WW2 zeitgeist: or perhaps your have been blitzed a by Nazi references creating a gestalt that equates Germanness with Nazism. Very sad. Still, times change - alle herrlichkeit des Menschen, wie des Grases Blumen. Paul B 22:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nein mein freund.Bakaman Bakatalk 22:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bs, you are being a dick, consistently, and you know you are. This is about the fifth time you made your gratuituos Nazi allusions in mock innocence. If you really think you are so smart, why don't you write some useful article for a change? Or do you really enjoy pestering people and intruding on adults' discussions with your puerile smugness so much? You should then join your peers in an online discussion forum, because that isn't what we do on Wikipedia. dab (ᛏ) 08:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arkaim - a nomadic steppe town or migrated IVC Indians planned town ? 

message: Vedas were created in ancient India by vedic rishis. Then why below names which are from Veda & other Sanskrit scriptures , are found in specially Russia or other European countires ?
Mitrova - Russian town name           = Mitra - Vedic deity
Agnova - Russian surname              = Agni - Vedic deity
Purvova - Rus. name                   = Purva - Eng. East
Vedova - Netherland , Russian name    = Veda
Ravova - Serbian name                 = Ravi - Sun
Devova - Rus. name                    = Deva 
Indrova - Czech name                  = Indra - Vedic & Puranic Hindu God 
Meneka - Czech name                   = Menaka - famous Apsara of Puranas
Dasova - Cz. surname                  = Das - servant ( and Dravidians as per obsolete AIT )
Rambova - Rus. female name            = Rambha - famous Apsara of Puranas
Brugov - Male German name             = Bhrigu - famous Vedic rishi on whose name ancient & historical seaport Bhrigukachch ( or current Bharuch ) is named 
Slastikov, Slastik - Rus.,Polish name = Swastik - Hindu sign dating IVC
Mantrov, Mantrova - Rus. name         = Mantra 
Havanova - Rus. name                  = Havan - Vedic Firepit or Vedic Fire ritual ( a major Hindu practice even today )
Yamnova - Rus. name                   = Yamuna - famous & big Indian river
Gargova - Rus. name                   = Garg - Vedic rishi or a Hindu surname finding lineage from Rishi Garg
Mudrova - Rus. name                   = Mudra 
Durgova - Rus., Bulgarian female name = Durga - Hindu female God from Three major Goddess who represent different aspects of virtues. And, wife of Hindu trinity Shiva.
Gangova - Croatian name               = Ganga - Ganga river's name or Eng. Ganges river
Parvatova - Rus. female name          = Parvati - origianl name of Durga - Hindu female goddess
Shaktova - Rus. surname               = Shakti - Eng. Energy. - Hindu Shaktism 
Kaspova,Kashapova - Rus. surname      = Kashyapa - Vedic & Puranic rishi who is told to go to far Northern countries
to India. Name Kashmir , Caspian etc. is told to derive from his name.
Agatsova - Rus. surname              = Agastya - Vedic Rishi
Rudrova - Rus., Cz. name             = Rudra - Vedic God and other name of Shiva
Gitova - Rus. surname                = Gita - associated with Bhagvad Gita 
Omsk - Rus. city                 = Aum or Om - famous Hindu symbol 
Minsk - Rus. city                = Min  - Skt. word meaning fish
Novosibirsk - Rus. city          = Nava Shibir - Skt. word meaning New Settlement.
Above are just few names which I could transform in Russian style and searched from Google. Similar way there will be more transformation of Sanskrit words in other IE languages which I am not able to reconstruct myself rightnow and search on the net. Anyother names in this list is most welcome.
Since Vedas are Indian then how the above so many names are found in Europe which are Vedic or Puranic ? [User:WIN|WIN]] 06:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WIN, you really do not need to prove that sanskrit and IE-languages are related that is already well established. However your wordlists do NOT support your conclusions in the least. Please, please, please read a book about historical linguistics. User:Maunus 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: WIN, you should really go and write a book about this. Why do you still bother posting your stuff to Wikipedia:talkpages when you know this isn't welcome, you know it has no effect beyond slightly amusing us, and you aren't interested in listening or reading what scholars have to say? Just go and publish your ideas on your own website or in book form. Thank you and goodbye. dab (ᛏ) 07:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reckon it's worth to mention these connections somewhere. If we assume Aryans originated in Central Asia, they would not have knowledge of the Ganga and the Yamuna. If we assume Hinduism originated in c. 1500 BC in India, it would again, mean that these connections between cities and words do not fit. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 08:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: What conections are you referring to? Not WIN's Russian surname list? There's obviously no reason to assume that Central Asian ancestors of Vedic culture would know of the Yamuna, nor does anyone say they did. I looked up one of WIN's names. "Mitrov(a)" derives from a diminutive form of Dmitry, the Russian variant of the Greek name Dimetrios, itself derived from Demeter. So it ultimately traces back to a Greek deity, not a Vedic one. Does this prove that the Mitrovs were migrants from Greece? Paul B 16:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I am native to the extreme West of Eurasia and yet the Yamuna is known to me. Get it, they migrated, over several centuries. 1900 BC: Kazakhstan, Yamuna not known. 1000 BC: Gangetic plain, Yamuna known. Amazing, isn't it, the theory is so advanced, it includes considerations of space and time!! You do realize, I trust, that the distance from the Indus to the Oxus (Afghan-Tajik border) is about a third of the distance from the Indus to Varanasi. No Swastika was excavated in Arkaim btw, these are claims of your Russian fellow crackpots. Oh, and the Swastika plays no role in Vedic religion, it only appears to gain importance in Hinduism in Vedantic times. dab (ᛏ) 09:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: We have no reason to believe that Russians with the surname "Yamnova" are named after the Yamuna, or that the name "Slastikov" is somehow connected to the word Swastika. Until someone provides etymologies for these names that link them to Indian words, this evidence tells us nothing. It is also a clear case of OR. Paul B 13:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: um, because the Yamuna is in the Gangetic plain?  The people living in the town weren't nomads. Kazakhstan is only 2,724,900 km² large, so maybe there was room for a nomad or two outside Arkaim? Do you even realize the level of stupidity of your "contributions"? Even the most vicious vandals over at Rajput made more sense than your imperturbable dimness. There is a possible BMAC connection with Arkaim. Note that the floor plan is round, like BMAC settlements, and unlike IVC settlements. Central Asia had its very own Bronze Age 'urban' culture, not more connected to the IVC than the IVC was connected to Elam. And the Rigveda is composed from the point of view outside these towns, hence the 'nomadic' theme. These are the very basics, check Parpola or anybody. We shouldn't have to discuss on such an infernal level. "Out of India" was a reasonable theory in the 19th century, and we should address that, not random misguided national mysticism, try to "de-colonialize your mind" on some other forum, WIN. dab (ᛏ) 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanskrit Vedic & Puranic names in Europe 

message: I have been following the article and talk pages on both the AIT/AMT and OIT articles. As a South Indian it struck me as quite strange that neither article has made a mention of any theories about Aryan vs. Dravidian concept with respect to the AIT/AMT or OIT idea. The last sentence under "Koenraad Elst" section says "...while others travelled southwards and interacted with the Dravidian people." This implies that the dravidian people already existed and had a distinct culture when the Indo-Aryans split up.
So does OIT apply only to "north indians" while "south indians" lived in happy isolation all the while? Is there a way this article can also mention how 'dravidian' fits into the OIT theory? Or at least use a different term because Aryan/Vedic somehow appears to imply that they are liguistically and genetically very different from Dravidian and that Dravidians do not have a Vedic root. Correct me if I am wrong.
(in common language "aryan" is used with respect to North Indian and "dravidian" is used to denote South Indians.) Roshan 10:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: these are linguistic terms. there are Dravidians in North India (viz., the Brahui). IAM assumes that much of NW India was populated by Dravidians in IVC times (especially in the Elamo-Dravidian picture, cognate languages would have been spoken from Elam all the way to the Indus. The AIM broke up the Elamo-Dravidian dialect continuum, and Proto-Dravidian dates to about that time. The OIT as far as I gather doesn't care about Dravidians at all, they just fall outside the scope of the model, just doing whatever it was they were doing somewhere in South India (and of course it doesn't account for the Dravidian language insula of the Brahui). dab (ᛏ) 19:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No-one can deny that Dravidians were seperate from Aryans linguistically. I'll look for an  official academic view, but it does seem from Koenraad Elst's account that Dravidians were in the south of India before breakup of PIE. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 07:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you mean "no-one can deny"? The issue is not Southern Dravidian, but nothern Dravidian, which exists in pockets. To some extent the demographics of Dravidian speakers are also relevant, such as the fact that it is spoken by Gondi tribes, who have been partially isolated from mainstrean culture. Of course that would not necessarily contradict an Indus PIE, but it means one has to construct ad hoc arguments to explain the isolated pockets. It's much more difficult to reconcile with Talageri's model. Paul B 07:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the OIT explains nothing elegantly except for the presence of Indo-Aryans in N India (and this is all it wants to explain) - the rest of the world is just a nuisance to this theory, and it has to account for it by introducing ad-hoc anti-Occamisms. There is, after all, a reason nobody endorses the theory. dab (ᛏ) 08:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to note: the picture concerning the Dravidians is a lot less clear than that of the Indo-Aryans. Lots of mainstream scholars, including Hock, Witzel, Southworth, and Kuiper don't think that the Dravidians once necessarily occupied the entire subcontinent. They tend to explain Brahui and other North Dravidian languages through later migrations. --Xiaopo ʘ 06:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aryan vs. Dravidian and AIT/AMT/OIT theories 

message: In Croatia there is Vucedol culture which is dated 3000 to 2200 BC and which is told as earliest Indo-European culture in Europe. Read  http://www.geocities.com/vucedol_culture/ for complete info. These people were remarkably much more advanced than any nomads of central asia. They were having high knowledge of astronomy, copper smelting technique, high quality of pottery, developed labour divison sytem etc. which are marker of high ( & certainly not nomad ) culture. 
I have question - as they were earliest Indo-Europeans in Europe dating 3000 - 2200 BC then these ancient people were not nomads & civilized in Croatia. But Croatian language is found of Indo-Iranian origin and Croatians call their language as Hvar and themselves as Hrvati which is non-slavic name ( like Indians is Anglisized name of Bharat ). Then it means that ( as per OIT ) that , these early Aryans left India very early and it matches with IVC as Vedantic age. 
Now, if AIT/AM is believed then these nomad aryans took much more time to travel from central asia to India then Croatia. ( central asia was nearer to India - in terms of culture or distance ). Then how nomad aryans reaches faster to Croatia then reaching ancient India ( Afghanistan included ). And Remember - Arabs gained major knowledge of Astronomy from India by translating Sanskrit scriptures. WIN 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: you are spouting pure nonsense again. Croatians aren't Indo-Iranians. The Slavs arrived in the Balkans in the 6th century AD, some 23 centuries after the Indo-Aryans settled in Gandhari. dab (ᛏ) 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, WIN, it's a geocities website. You can write whatever you like on those things. Vucedol is an archaelogical culture of the so-called copper age. People had some sort of "system of astronomy" going back to Stonehenge. So what? We have no idea what language they spoke. Maybe it was some ancestor of IE. There's no way of knowing. The "nomad aryans" didn't just make up their own language out of thin air. They inherited it from their own ancestors. But we have no way of reaching back through time to some Proto-PIE, so it just becomes guesswork. Paul B 10:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you keep proposing your original research based on non reliable sources on these pages WIN? If you want to deduce anything at all write an article about it and publish it in a peerreviewed journal and when it gains wide acceptance in the scientific community we can start putting it here. This is not a discussion forum nor a place to present personal original research.Maunus 11:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: since this guy obviously just Doesn't Get It, I suggest editors begin removing his ramblings again. He has filled pages and pages with the stuff by now. This is NOT what Wikipedia is for. For the sake of uncluttered talkpages, please try to keep some order here. We do not as a rule remove comments or opinions from talkpages just because they aren't referenced, but this is an extreme case. dab (ᛏ) 11:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what you or dab or anyone here thinks it implies. It matters what reliable sources say about the material. If reliable sources have nothing to say about the vucedol culture then there is no need at all for mentioning it here. Please discontinue turning this talk page into a discussion page for or against the OIT theory. The page needs only to present what the theory is in a balanced way, and what we need to discuss here is how to do that. Publish your opinions and ideas on a geocities site.Maunus 07:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: IE Vucedol culture in Croatia dating 3000 - 2200 BC 

message: The last two quotes in the "Quotes" section are unimportant for reasons explained in the Archaegenetics section. They should either be removed or a refutation of the presented flaws in the Archaegenetics Theory should be posted. Humancadaver101 23:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better to expand the archaeogenetics section, and I think that context-free "quotatons" are in general a bad idea, except when famous words are being recorded. Otherwise we just get whatever opinions editors want to be included. We shold point out the problems of defining history through genetics and include - concisely - the full range of genetic studies. Paul B 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, move the quotes to their relevant areas in the article. This isn't the type of topic where you would want such a random list of quotes at the end. Nobleeagle  [TALK] [C] 05:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Quotes

message: I have recently noticed that OIT opposers are deleting my points from talk pages. It's not for you opposers who want to behave like Supremist. When you are getting some more & more unpleasing points , you have started resort in deletion of those points. You don't have answers that is OK but you don't want others to read and put it in the article, that is the objection.  WIN 05:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning to OIT opposers for deleting points 

message: Guys, sorry for the long note.  I have read all the discussion related to this topic on (talk pages Wikipedia) and the article as presented (Wikipedia).   Although great effort has been done on the article, I believe the presentation of this article can be improved.  Specifically, the impression I get from reading the article is that only linguist opinion counts and people who support this theory are non scholar and Hindu religious fanatics and not enough details about the actual theory.  I don’t think this is correct.  
Regarding the first issue, the discussion is not only about common language, but common culture of PIE, so linguistic are not the only stakeholders in the discussion (point earlier made by NobleEagle).   
Regarding second issue, the scholars I see supporting IA as continues culture from 5th millennium BC to 500BC in India are N. Kazanas, Shrikant G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst, D. Frawley, G. Feuerstein, Edmund Leach, Jim Shaffer, Diane Lichtenstein, S.R. Rao, B. B. Lal, S. C. Kak, N. Achar to name a few.  Notice that these people are from all over world and are all serious scholars from different specialities (eg. Indology, Vedic scholars, anthropologist, archaeologist, astro- archaeologist).  D. Frawley is only scholar in the list whose writings have some religious bent, but the issues and facts raised are still valid points.  I read reference to Talageri in talk page, but did not see why his view should be excluded.  So this should be presented accordingly.  If you disagree, please provide valid sources.
I am suggesting a possible structure for presentation of OIT theory.  Essentially the page should show what the theory is (details of theory), what facts support the theory, how other specialities (linguistic, archaeology, anthropology, genetics etc.) view it and Criticism sections.  We can all agree that the OIT dating does not agree with linguistic theory, but again linguistic is one of stakeholders.  Objective is to present all relevant facts from sourced material.  As Dab mentioned in one of earlier post, let us keep the discussion about pro/con of theories on the other pages.
Primary articles I am referencing are (I am providing weblink eventhough some of these are publised in Journals and one is a book) Update On The AIT by Koenraad Elst(http://www.voi.org/books/ait/index.htm), various articles by N. Kazanas (http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/en_index.html), “The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis by Shrikant G. Talageri (http://voi.org/books/rig/).
The proposed structure is (I can provide more details and page reference):
1. Textual reference: content to date the IA presence and Vedic literature in India relative to IVC (Rig-Veda is primary document used by both AIT and OIT supporter).  This secion should also discuss if IVC is vedic.  Conclusion bulk of Rig-Veda before IVC, other vedic literature (Brahman and Sutra) same time as IVC – source Talageri, Elst, and Kazanas.
1a. Geographic data (mainly Saraswati, I see Dab’s views but this is integral part for dating of the documents)
1b. Rig-Veda material culture relative to IVC – urbanization, rice, brick, silver etc.
2. Vedic Sanskrit compared to PIE – mainly Kazanas and some Elst – conclusion Sanskrit is closer to PIE.  We can add mainstream linguistic view here.
3. Linguist discussion – need input as to why Sanskrit is lower on the tree?
4. Vedic culture compared to PIE culture – Kazanas discussion about comparative mythology.  Conclusion Vedic Mythology preserves most of the common IA mythology implying Vedic being source of others.
5. Overlap/movement with Indo-Iraninans – Talageri – conclusion early Avesta literature being same time as Mandala 8 of Rigveda quotes 
6. section each for Archeology, Anthropology, genetics, astro-archeology etc.
7.  Criticism section.
What do you guys think?Sbhushan 19:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structure of the Article