Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Benwbrum (talk | contribs) at 12:23, 14 September 2006 (→Criticism Section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Can we link http://www.indoeurohome.com/ or is that over the top? It's a beautiful specimen of kookery, the man is even proudly displaying a letter from Jan Puhvel politely returning his 'material' calling his stuff 'erudite esoterica' :o)

The relationship between the Cypriot script and early Chinese phonitics and radicals points to some parts of this script having been formed before the exodus of the Indus Valley (link to that page below). The sign that started me to look at the Ecliptic stars is the sign next to zo it is the the same sign used today for Aquarius.

This chap is a riot, there can be no doubt he could decipher a 3-years-old's doodles as Vedic Sanskrit dab (ᛏ) 16:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, this is WIN's latest bit of "evidence" isn't it. I had a quick look at it the other day, but it seemed barely decipherable! I'll add it to external links. Paul B 10:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

only if we add this to Category:Pseudoscience -- I realize the 19th century proposals were perfectly defensible, and we need to take care to distinguish between serious but obsolete theories and this sort of hilarious quackery :) dab (ᛏ) 13:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Siting this website is not written as some evidence by me. Your words as wrong & mis-leading in totality. There are many points which goes against AIT / AMT. Why I don't find any comment on that ? Because you are just negating valid against points , mine or any `against AIT/AMT theory' scholars. Why don't you write instead and not skip that against points in talk pages of AIT and AMT. WIN 06:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

your words do not even parse WIN, far from making any sort of point beyond spreading an aura of surrealism. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

AIM link

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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)

keep on topic

Nobleeagle, please try to avoid adding the exact same tired material already sprawled over Indo-Aryan migration, Sarasvati river, etc. If we turn this into another article about IVC and Sarasvati, there is no reason not to merge it back. These arguments don't hold any more water for being reiterated on ten different Misplaced Pages articles. This article is supposed to discuss the Out of India part, i.e. movement of I-A (or PIE) speakers outside India. Thus, discuss evidence from outside India that supports such a movement. This isn't the "Everything happened Inside India" article. We are only interested in cities dating to 7000 BC if some author or other has suggested that it is the locus of Proto-Indo-European. dab (ᛏ) 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

To tell you the truth, Stephen Knapp relates every ancient Hindu temple or ancient Indian city back to the Out of India theory, I realised that when I was reading some of his essays and extracts. There are many cases I've read while reading on the internet which I've simply disregarded as I thought they didn't prove anything. I'll try and keep on topic. I was wondering if you could add some stuff on the linguistic issues with the theory, ie. why linguists don't consider the OIT possible. Sometime in the future I'll create a Political Controversy section and can then detail the Hindutva bias that is sometimes found. Nobleeagle (Talk) 08:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm just concerned that this will replicate Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies) all over again: do try to refer to that article whenever you are discussing material already covered over there. I am sorry, but I do think we need some minimal distinction of honorable scholarship from foaming crackpottery here: this Stephen Knapp is so far over the lunatic fringe that discussing him among more conservative approaches (it is possible to discuss OIT in serious terms, and it has been, back in the 19th century) just creates the impression that the whole topic is a gallery of cranks. Let's try to cite reputable publications in archaeological and linguistic journals separate from the din of self-styled decipherers and discoverers of Neolithic Bharato-Aryans. dab (ᛏ) 08:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP. Bakaman _Bakatalk 03:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff on the AIT would be better off if it were shortly summarized there and sent over here. The cradle of civilization stuff is related to this theory more than that theory. We also need to work out how to write about the Hindutva bias without linking back to the Hindutva bias against the AIT. Opposition to the AIT and support for the OIT are often connected. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

surprisingly enough, our resident Hindutva crowd neglected to talk about an OIT almost completely: We get months of bickering over "AIT", but it was left to Paul and me to create the bleeding OIT article. They support it once they hear of it, of course, just as they'll support the Anatolian hypothesis as obviously true as soon as they are informed that it might give them IVC Aryans. The problem is that these people know what they want to believe and then merely sift actual evidence into "supporting the truth" and "not supporting the truth", a posteriori, so that all authors speaking the "truth" are defended automatically, no matter if they are actual scholars or just raving lunatics. This is much like dealing with biblical literalists, the hallmark of fundamentalism, and has nothing to do with scholarship, even if the occasional scholarly source is waved about. See 'Bakaman' just above for a quaint example, parroting what actual editors told him over at Witzel's article (as if we were writing some biography here). Half of the time, these editors fail the Turing test completely, we might as well be dealing with an armada of chatterbots unleashed from an underground BJP headquarters :o) dab (ᛏ) 08:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Alright it looks like Dab knows how to rant about Hindu users. Hah a "chatterbot from the BJP Hq", what a joke. I guess the BJP mustered them to fight the Aryan race.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If AIT is called as " Christian motives of British Raj", then how it feels Dab. You are always spouting against opposers of AIT/AMT as if opposers are not intelligent enough and all intelligence lies with AIT supporters. I have already told about your `one way thinking' and shallow level of logical understanding in talk page of Indo Aryan Migration.

Something similar to OIT is always said by all Hindu Brahmins during reciting Shrimad Bhagvat much much before advent of AIT theory.( brahmins are told to be nearest to Aryans as per AIT/AMT. What a pitty for AIT supporters ! ) That means all Hindu Brahmins are biggest "chatterbot from the BJP Hq" much much much before BJP !!! I warn you to be in control as you or your gang is deleting rectification of your mis-guiding words from OIT article, in which you don't believe at all. You are now crossing limits of civilized behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIN (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to make this a Hindu vs non-Hindu fight or something like that. I think everyone needs to present sources, the Basis of the Theory section I have expanded is full of sources, unlike the Overview section on the AIT page. Suggestion that a theory is pseudoscience must be sourced. We don't care whether you and Paul B are experts, if you haven't wrote a book about the subject or written something credible somewhere else then honestly I don't care. Please begin presenting sources. The way I go with OR is put a tag for a few days and if there is no source then I shall remove the sentence, consider the tag a message that this sentence is on probation. I'm sure sources will be found, but just want to make it happen quicker. Alright? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Terming oppositon to AIT/AMT as something Hindu nationalism is done by AIT supporters. But, it's a fact that during Western colonization period, conversion was an additional religious side effect.So, Hindu Indian or any Western scholar in Sanskrit, who knows about Hinduism and Sanskrit should not be termed as `Hindu Nationalism' as I don't know of any Indian Muslim who is well verse with Sanskrit and Hinduism. WIN 12:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

not quite. pseudoscience is characterized by remaining unnoted in academia. Therefore, the absence of any expert criticism is a hallmark of pseudoscience. If you want to discuss a publication as a notable contribution to a subject, it is up to you to provide evidence that it is indeed respectable. "reliable sources" does not mean "it has been printed":

Editors have to evaluate sources and decide which are the most reliable and authoritative. For academic topics, every field has an established system of reviews and evaluations that can be found in scholarly journals associated with that field.

it is unacceptable to lump together actual scholarly discussions of a topic with random crackpottery from outside the peer-reviewing process. It is up to you to establish that your source qualifies as scholarly. Labelling a statement as "pseudoscience" is in fact a courtesy, saying that its scholarly status has not been established. If this is in doubt, it would be perfectly alright to remove the statement altogether. This has nothing to do with my personal expertise (which may allow me to locate proper sources more quickly, but which is does not carry weight by itself on Misplaced Pages at all). I am open to two possibilities: a) treat this as an academic topic, such as it is, and ignore crackpots like Knapp in favour of discussion of proper literature; b) include mention of Knapp and similar stuff, clearly labelled as standing completely outside serious scholarly debate. Case b) will warrant categorization as "pseudoscience/archaeology", but I am also happy to leave this stuff unmentioned altogether, also. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section

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)

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)

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)

This is a bizarrely POV article

I've tried to refrain from getting too involved further in the encroachment of hindutva propaganda and rewriting of history through wikipedia, but this article is really too much. It's full of nonsense, POV ramblings, and stuff that contradicts the rest of wikipedia. On a first read through I noticed:

1. use of the term "Aryan Invasion Theory" to describe current theories on the migration of Indo-Aryan culture into South Asia. This seems to be a hallmark of Hindutva propaganda; presumably because its easier to attack your opponent by setting up strawman versions of them from 100+ years ago.
2. another hallmark of Hindutva propaganda on this subject: the idea that "year after year", new evidence is uncovered that shows that the whole business of the "AIT" was invented by evil "britishers". This is completely false. The vast majority of the linguistic community outside of India does not consider the idea of the ingress of Indo-Aryan languages into India to have been discredited or disproved.
3. whats "monosyllabic agglutinative language" supposed to mean?! Agglutinative by definition means words are made up of more than one agglutinated morpheme syllables.
4. bizarre assumption that astronomical "data" in religious texts carries more weight in linguistics than actual linguistic evidence.
5. racist assertion that Sanskrit is better than other languages and that the people of Central Asia could never have come up with something that "refined".
6. a belief that genetics can be used to dismiss linguistics. Genetic evidence has also found almost no Central Asian (or South Asian, for that matter) admixture among Europeans either, but that doesn't mean they don't speak Indo-European languages.

I've added the totally disputed tag. Let's try to represent this theory properly: a mostly discredited early description of Indo-European language origins that has recently gained some support in India for political reasons. --Krsont 11:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)