I don't like the words "final and definitive," but it is indeed profitable to read the research of authors like Reich and Anthony. It is also worthwhile to keep in mind Hans Hock's caution that people with the same genetic markers could be speaking different languages. 


Madhav M. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus, Sanskrit and Linguistics
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA
Senior Fellow, Oxford Center for Hindu Studies
Adjunct Professor, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bangalore, India

[Residence: Campbell, California, USA]


On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 8:18 AM Michael Brattus Jones via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Prof. Paturi,

Yes, of course the Indo-Aryan (IA) languages are much later than Proto-Indo-European (PIE). There are several versions of the Out of India Theory (OIT), with different scenarios involving the Indus Civ etc., but, as far as I know, the “Invasion” in AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) has been superseded by the term “migration” in serious evidence-based discourse nowadays, so putting AIT as OIT’s contender could become a straw-man type of situation.

I noticed you did not mention the Indo-Iranian (IIr) branch of IE, which is another stumbling block for some OIT proponents. The fact that OIT doesn’t get much traction outside of India (/S Asia) is itself telling. It requires special pleading. Maybe it was more plausible a few decades ago, but its burden grows increasingly heavy in the face of mounting linguistic, archaeological, and now even genetic evidence coalescing to the contrary.

Anyway, I do recommend Anthony’s Horse, Wheel, and Language to anyone interested in any of these issues.

(I admit I smiled at the Sri and the ji you lavished upon me, but there are far more qualified scholars to take up this complex interdisciplinary issue, and also, “Mike” is just fine.)

Thank you!
Satyam eva jayate! 
- Mike B. Jones

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 7, 2025, at 4:46 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com> wrote:


>  hasn’t been a real contender for some time, and the “out of India” hypothesis wasn’t ever really taken seriously, out of India, that is

--- 

Dear Sri Michael Brattus Jones ji, 

Out of India 's contender is AIT and/ or vice versa. 

A in AIT comes from IA and PIA which is a much later part of the story of IE and PIE. 

The word 'Arya(n)' that A stands for in AIT and consequently in the arguments of OIT is found in one of the IA languages that comes much later in the story. 

It is the PIE speakers whose place of origin is being discussed in the article on hand. 

OIT theories that place PIE in India are probably the contenders of the position in the article but not the OIT theories that debate the movement of IA language speakers during the part of the story later to the separation of PIA from PIE. 



On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 3:34 AM Michael Brattus Jones via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
There’s really not much doubt about the big picture anymore, but further refinements may still emerge and some questions still linger. 

This is what Gimbutas argued, then Mallory, then Anthony, all without using genetic evidence. Anthony’s Horse, Wheel, and Language is a must-read for anyone interested in IE spread (and it’s now available as an audiobook). Reich’s team showed the genetic evidence confirms it, and refines it (re: Anatolian). Renfrew’s competing hypothesis, that IE spread with the Neolithic revolution, hasn’t been a real contender for some time, and the “out of India” hypothesis wasn’t ever really taken seriously, out of India, that is.

The genetics mostly just confirmed what was already known, and further refined it. That’s my understanding at least. 

-Mike B. Jones


Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 6, 2025, at 1:40 PM, Hock, Hans Henrich via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

 Reich and Lazaridis have a well-established record of trying to unravel the prehistoric genomic scene in the Eurasian steppes (and neighboring areas).

The spread from that area west and south (as well as east, as established by other studies) coincides with the spread of Indo-European languages; so the conclusion that the two spreads are in fact identical is not at all far-fetched.

It is noteworthy, however, that other studies show that the genomic spread into the Iberian peninsula seems to have included both Indo-European speakers and linguistic ancestors of the Basques; similarly, a recent study suggests that the Etruscans, who are by most counts non-Indo-European, also had steppe genomes. If these findings are correct, it would need to be acknowledged that the population spread out of the steppes did not only include speakers of Indo-European languages but also of other languages; put differently, the population spreading out of the steppes may not have been linguistically homogeneous. (If we consider later spreads, such as that of the Huns, who included in their group not only East (Central) Asian populations but also some Iranians, as well as one branch of the Goths, such mixed linguistic composition should not come as a great surprised.)

So, the Harvard study constitutes a major contribution to unravelling Eurasian prehistory and connecting it with archaeology and linguistics.

All the best,

Hans Henrich


On Feb 6, 2025, at 14:03, Antonia Ruppel via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

My take as someone who has not read the original study: I am cautious about this for several reasons.

-- A person's genes do not tell you what language they're speaking. 
-- University alumni magazines love to talk up research from their institutions and make its results sound much more 'decisive' than they are.
-- That they get wrong simple things like when Europeans noticed that Sanskrit, Latin and Greek were related by well over a century does not inspire confidence. (But hey, scientists don't need to read early 17th-c sources in Latin, right:-)?)

That said, if further study of the Nature article corroborated these findings, I'd be more than delighted. I'm definitely going to take a look.

--Antonia

On Thu, 6 Feb 2025 at 15:22, Howard Resnick via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology__;!!DZ3fjg!9k7xhGZcA6K_Hegt9TdQfY9gVmVWMAaTIgzKhnSV2tRJ4LiebQx2i3dJgAlOSiyp5SHtWFvIkQaegenJEZ4YqOAGubAB$


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology


--
Nagaraj Paturi
Dean, IKS and Senior Director, IndicA

 
 
 

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology