User:Sbhushan/OIT NOv26

Out of India Theory (OIT) is the hypothesis that the Indo-European languages (I-E) originated in India, from which they spread into Central and Southwestern Asia and Europe. The theory suggests that the Indus Valley Civilization was Proto-Indo-Iranian (in obsolete or popular terminology, "Aryan"). It suggests the spread of Proto-Indo-European from within Northern India. It uses mainly archaeological and Vedic textual references. This theory is not favored by the Indo-Europeanist community. The majority of the Indo-Europeanist community favours the Kurgan hypothesis postulating a 4th millennium expansion from the Pontic steppe.

History

 * See also Aryan Invasion Theory (history and controversies).

When the finding of connections between languages from India to Europe led to the creation of Indo-European studies in the late 1700s some Indians and Europeans believed that the Proto-Indo-European language must be Sanskrit, or something very close to it. Some of the earliest Indo-Europeanists, such as Friedrich Schlegel, had a firm belief in this and essentially created the idea that India was the Urheimat of all Indo-European languages. Most scholars, such as William Jones, however realized from earliest times that instead, Sanskrit and related European languages had a common source, and that no attested language represented this direct ancestor.

The development of historical linguistics, specifically the law of palatals and the discovery of the laryngeals in Hittite, dramatically shattered Sanskrit's preeminent status as the most venerable elder in this reconstructed family. The demotion of Sanskrit from its status as the original tongue of the Indo-Europeans to a more secondary and reduced role as a daughter language led to the changing of India as the favored Indo-European homeland in the early nineteenth century and linguists and historians started looking for another homeland.

Robert Latham, an ethnologist, was the first to challenge the idea of an Asian homeland. He said that the homeland of the Indo-Europeans must be found wherever the greater variety of language forms were evidenced, that is, in or near Europe. Dyen (1965) has articulated this principle on similar grounds: A homeland in Central Asia is the simpler theory. In 1930, in response to Latham's hypothesis, Lachhmi Dhar provided a different explanation for this greater linguistic diversification in the western Indo-European languages of Europe. Dhar's position is based on a linguistic principle invented by Dhar himself which he called "the conservation principle". This holds that the area of least linguistic change is indicative of a language's point of origin, since that area has been the least affected by substrate interference. This principle constitutes an complete reversal of the principle accepted universally in linguistics: the one stated by Latham.

The theory has most recently been defended by S.G. Talageri, Koenraad Elst , and Nicholas Kazanas. Nicholas Kazanas presented a paper in JIES, where Kazanas' arguments were rejected by no less than five mainstream scholars, among them JP Mallory. In the latter issue of JIES, Kazanas responded to all his critics in the article ‘Final Reply’. OIT proponents argue that the language dispersal model proposed by Johanna Nichols in the paper "The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread" can be adapted to support OIT. . They shift the locus of the IE spread from the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana as proposed by her to Northwestern India.

Current OIT proponents propose that there is no necessary link between the fact that Sanskrit is not the oldest form of IE and the hypothesis that India is not the oldest habitat of IE. It is perfectly possible that a Kentum language which we now label as PIE was spoken in India, that some of its speakers emigrated and developed Kentum languages like Germanic and Tokharic, and that subsequently the PIE language in its Indian homeland developed and satemized into Sanskrit (Elst 1996-227).

The mainstream opponents of the theory agree that it is perfectly possibly but maintain that it is a much less likely scenario than any of the other proposed scenarios to account for the spreading of the IE languages through Eurasia.

Chronology
Neolithic and Bronze Age Indian history is periodized into the Pre-Harappan (ca. 7000 to 3300 BC), Early Harappan (3300 to 2600), Mature Harappan (2600 to 1900) and Late Harappan (1900 to 1300 BC) periods.

One recent author with a degree in Indology is Koenraad Elst who is at least aware of the context of Indo-European studies.

The timeline of the breakup of Proto-Indo-European, according to what Elst calls the "emerging non-invasionist model" is as follows: During the 6th millenium BC, the Proto-Indo-Europeans were living in the Punjab region of Northern India. As the result of demographic expansion, they spread into Bactria as the Kambojas. The Paradas moved further and inhabited the Caspian coast and much of Central Asia while the Cinas moved northwards and inhabited the Tarim Basin in northwestern China, forming the Tocharians group of I-E speakers. These groups were Proto-Anatolian and inhabited that region by 2000 BC. These people took the oldest form of the Proto Indo-European (PIE) language with them and, while interacting with people of the Anatolian and Balkan region, transformed it into its own dialect. While inhabiting Central Asia they discovered the uses of the horse, which they later sent back to Urheimat. Later on during their history, they went on to take Western Europe and thus spread the Indo-European languages to that region. During the 4th millenium BC, civilization in India was evolving to become the urban Indus Valley Civilization. During this time, the PIE languages evolved to Proto-Indo-Iranian Some time during this period, the Indo-Iranians began to separate as the result of internal rivalry and conflict, with the Iranians expanding westwards towards Mesopotamia and Persia, these possibly were the Pahlavas. Their also expanded into parts of Central Asia. By the end of this migration, India was left with the Proto-Indo-Aryans. At the end of the Mature Harappan period, the Sarasvati river began drying up and the remained of Indo-Aryans split into separate categories. Some travelled westwards and became the Mitanni people by around 1500 BC. The Mitanni are known for their links to Vedic culture, after assimilating and establishing a presence in the Hurrian homeland, they established a culture very similar to that of Vedic India. Thus the Mitanni language is still considered Indo-Aryan. Others travelled eastwards and inhabited the Gangetic basin while others travelled southwards and interacted with the Dravidian people.

Linguistics

 * See also linguistics, or historical linguistics.

OIT proponents have used the arguments presented by linguistic scholars to show that either the linguistic evidence is inconclusive or supports OIT hypothesis. OIT proponents propose to use the language dispersal model proposed by Johanna Nichols in the paper The Epicentre of the Indo-European Linguistic Spread. But shift the locus of the IE spread from the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana as proposed by her to Northwestern India. These ideas have not been accepted by mainstream linguistic scholars.

Comparative linguistics


There are twelve accepted branches of the Indo-European family. The two Indo-Iranian branches, Indic (Indo-Aryan) and Iranian, dominate the eastern cluster, historically spanning Scythia, Iran and Northern India. While the exact sequence in which the different branches separated or migrated away from a homeland, linguists generally agree that Anatolian  was the first branch to be separated from the remaining body of Indo-European.

Additionally, Graeco-Aryan isoglosses seem suggestive that Greek and Indo-Iranian may have shared a common homeland for awhile after the splitting of the other IE branches. Such a homeland could be northwestern India (which is preferred by proponents of the OIT)- or the Pontic steppes (as preferred by the mainstream supporters of the Kurgan hypothesis).

Mainstream opponents to the OIT (e.g. Hock(1999)) agree that while the data of linguistic isoglosses do make the OIT improbable it is not enough to unequivocally reject it, so that it may be considered a viable alterative to mainstream views, similar to the status of the Armenian or Anatolian hypotheses.

Dravidian substratum influences in Rigvedic Sanskrit
A concern raised by mainstream linguistic scholars is that the Indic PIE languages show extensive influence from contact with Dravidian, a claim best developed by Emeneau(1956, 1969,1974). OIT proponents argue that the evidence of a linguistic substratum in Indo-Aryan is inconclusive. Another concern raised is that there is large time gap between the comparative materials, which can be seen as a serious methodological drawback. Some indoeuropeanists (Such as Hock 1975, 1984, 1996, Hamp 1996, Tikkanen 1987 and Jamison 1989) maintain that the traits claimed as probably stemming from early Dravidian substrate influence can also be explained by other internal factors or adstratum influences, and that internal explanations for these traits should be preferred leaving the hypothesis of Substrata influence inconclusive. Also the wide agrement between scholars that little or no loanwords of non Indo-European origin is found in early Indic languages suggest to these scholars (including Hock, Witzel, Das(1994) and Thieme (1994) ) that there has been no significant contact between early Indic and Dravidian. Witzel argues that there are signs of para-Munda influence in the earliest level of the Rigveda, and of Dravidian in later levels. Witzel also speculates that Dravidian immigrated into the Panjab only in middle Rgvedic times.

However other linguists writing specifically about language contact phenomena (Thomason & Kaufman 1988 pp141-144) maintain that while separate internal explanations are indeed possible for all of the innovative traits in Indic early contact influence from Dravidian is the only one explanation that can explain all of the traits at once - it becomes a question of explanatory economy. Thomason & Kaufman likewise conclude that the situation of the Dravidian influence of Indic, namely a wide range of phonological and grammatical contact phenomena but no exchange loanwords is symptomatic for contact situations where large populations shift from one language to the other in this case from Dravidian to Proto-Indo-Aryan.

Place Names and Hydronomy
Indo-Aryan languages are the oldest source of place and river names in northern India - which can be seen as an argument in favor of seeing Indo-Aryan as the oldest documented population of that area.

Michael Witzel has stated that “in northern India, rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on. In Europe river-names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 BC (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe). This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus civilization, where one would have expected the survival of earlier names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East." The oldest European river names are not generally accepted as pre-Indo-European, and Old European hydronymy is often interpreted as evidence of an early western Indo-European dialect spoken in the "secondary Urheimat" of the centum dialects.

OIT proponents argue that this indicates that the Harappan civilization must have been dominated by Indo-Aryan speakers, since the supposed arrival of Indo-Aryan migrants in Late Harappan times to the remnants of a civilization formerly stretching over an area larger than modern Pakistan could not have resulted in the suppression of the entire native Harappan hydronomy.

Mainstream opponents of the theory maintain that this is negative evidence, the argument relying on the non-existence of pre-Indo-European place names. They maintain that it is not at all surprising that placenames of the of the arriving Indo-Aryans have superseded the local ones since this has happened in many places. For example no non-germanic placenames have been found in southern scandinavia - even though other languages were clearly spoken there before the arrival of Germanic people.. Also, the supreme importance of rivers, deified as goddesses, in Rigvedic religion can be seen as a powerful motive to introduce Vedic river names over indigenous ones.

Sanskrit
OIT proponents suggest that Sanskrit in many respects embody the most conservative Indo-Eeuropean language and as such can be seen as being closest to PIE. And sanskrit is certainly a conservative language in many respects as can be seen from most standard textbooks (Beekes 1990). Sometimes conservative traits in a language can be correlated with the speakers having a more sedentary lifestyle. This could suggest that Indo-Aryans were sedentary and remained in the original homeland while other groups left.

According to the “Indo-Aryan immigration” theory the Indo-Aryans were on the move over many thousands of miles (from the Russian steppe, Europe and/or Anatolia) over a very long period of centuries encountering many different other cultures, and according to Proponents of the OIT their language could not have retained this closeness to PIE while on the move.

The mainstream response to this argument is that all other IE branches show some traits that are conservative and some that are innovative - and that certainly a number of innovations have occured in the Indic branch which haveen't occured in the other branches. It is as such not possible to say unequivocally that Sanskrit is "the most conservative branch". The Laryngeals are better preserved in Hittite, the vowels better preserved in Greek, the accent better preserved in Balto-Slavic etc. The second part of the argument that correlates a conservative language with a sedentary lifestyle is easily contradicatble since while such a correlation does exist in some cases in other cases the exact opposite is true - for example often exiled speech communities that migrate far away from the main population of speakers often change slower and exhibit more conservative traits than the larger main population that changes faster. This argument would indicate the exact opposite probability than the one proposed by the OIT proponents: that the conservative Indic branch were spoken by a small and disconnected group of IE speakers. However most linguists maintain that no foolproof correlations can ever be made between linguistic conservatism or innovation and the lifestyle, prehistory of the group pf speakers - this is one of the main arguments that the theory of glottochronology has been rejected by the scientific community.

Philology
The determination of the age in which Vedic literature started and flourished has its consequences for the Indo Aryan question. The oldest text, the Rigveda, is full of precise references to places and natural phenomena in what are now Panjab and Haryana, and was unmistakably composed in that part of India. The date at which it was composed is a firm terminus ante quem for the presence of the Vedic Aryans in India. In the mainstream view it was composed the mid to late 2nd millennium BC (Late Harappan) and OIT proponent propose a pre-Harappan date.

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

Sarasvati River
Many hymns in all ten Books of the RV (except the 4th) extol or mention a divine and very large river (naditamaa), named Sarasvati, which flows mightily “from the mountains to the [Indian] Ocean” (giríbhya aaZ samudraZat: VII, 95, 2). (Kazanas 2000:4) Talageri states that “the references to the Sarasvati far outnumber the references to the Indus” and “The Sarasvati is so important in the whole of the Rigveda that it is worshipped as one of the Three Great Goddesses” (Talageri, 2000: Ch 4: The Rigvedic Rivers). According to palaeoenvironmental scientists the desiccation of Sarasvati came about as a result of the diversion of at least two rivers that fed it, the Satluj and the Yamuna. “The chain of tectonic events … diverted the Satluj westward (into the Indus) and the Palaeo Yamunaa eastward (into the Ganga) … This explains the ‘death’ of such a mighty river (the Sarasvati) … because its main feeders, the Satluj and Palaeo Yamunaa were weaned away from it by the Indus and the Gangaa respectively”. This ended at c 1750, but it started much earlier, perhaps with the upheavals and the large flood of 1900, or more probably 2100. P H Francfort, utilizing images from the French satellite SPOT, finds (1992) that the large river Sarasvati is pre-Harappan altogether and started drying up in the middle of the 4th millennium BC; during Harappan times only a complex irrigation-canal network was being used in the southern region. With this the date should be pushed back to c 3800 BC. The RV hymn X, 75, however, gives a list of names of rivers where Sarasvati is merely mentioned (verse 5) while Sindhu receives all the praise (verses 2-4 and 7-9). This may well indicate a period after the first drying up of Sarasvati (c 3500) when the river lost its preeminence. It is agreed that the tenth Book of the RV is later than the others. (Kazanas 2000:4, 5)

The 414 archeological sites along the bed of Saraswati dwarf the number of sites so far recorded along the entire stretch of the Indus River, which number only about three dozen. About 80 percent of the sites are datable to the fourth or third millennium B.C.E., suggesting that the river was in its prime during this period.

Items not in the Rigveda

 * The RV knows no silver. It knows ayas ‘metal’ or ‘copper/bronze’ and candra or hiran-ya ‘gold’ but not silver. Silver is denoted by rajatám- híran-yam literally ‘white gold’ and appears in post-Rivgvedic texts. There is a generally accepted demarcation line for the use of silver c 4000 BC and this metal is archaeologically attested in the Harappan Empire (Allchins 1969: 285; Rao 1991: 171). (Allchins et. all cited by Kazanas 2000:13)


 * The Harappan culture is also unknown to the RV. The characteristic features of the Harappan culture are urban life, large buildings, permanently erected fire altars and bricks. There is no word for brick in RV and iswttakaa ‘brick’ appears only in post-Rigvedic texts.(Kazanas 2000:13)


 * The RV mentions no rice or cotton, as the Vedic Index shows. Rice was found in at least three Harappan sites: Rangpur (2000-1500), Lothal (c 2000) and Mohenjodaro (c 2500) as Piggott (1961: 259), Grist (1965) and others testify (Rao 1991: 24, 101, 150 etc). Yet, despite the importance of rice in ritual in later times, the RV knows nothing of it. The cultivation of cotton is well attested in the Harappan civilization and is found at many sites thereafter.(Piggott et. all cited by Kazanas 2000:13) (Elst 1999: Ch 5.3.10)


 * 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 youngest book only mentions “constellations” (RV 10:85:2), a concept known to all cultures, without specifying them as lunar mansions.


 * On the other hand, it has been claimed that the Rigveda has no term for "sword", while Bronze swords were used aplenty in the Bactrian culture and in Pirak. Ralph Griffith uses “sword” twelve times in his translation, including in the old books 5 and 7, but in most cases a literal translation would be more generic "sharp implement" (e.g. ), the transition from "dagger" to "sword" in the Bronze Age being a gradual process.

Based on these set of statments, OIT proponets argue that the whole of the RV, except for some few passages which may be of later date, must have been composed prior to Indus Valley Civilization.(Kazanas 2000:13, Elst 1999: Ch 5.5 )

Memories of an Urheimat
The fact that the Vedas do not mention the Aryans' presence in India as being the result of a migration or mention any possible Urheimat, has been taken as an argument in favour of the OIT. The reasoning is that it is not uncommon for migrational accounts to be found in early mythological and religious texts, a classical example being the book of Exodus in the Torah, describing the legendary migration of the Israelites from Egypt to Canaan.

Proponents of the OIT, such as Koenraad Elst, argue that it would have been expectable that migrations, and possibly an Urheimat were mentioned in the Rigveda if the Aryans had only arrived in India some centuries before the composition of the earliest Rigvedic hymns. They argue that other migration stories of other Indo-european people have been documented historically or archaeologically, and that the same would be expectable if the Indo-Aryans had migrated into India. Mention of Hapta-Hendu and Airyanam Vaejo, two of sixteen Iranian lands in the Zoroastrian scripture Vendidad is taken as evidence of an Iranian Urheimat. The argument is then that the absence of migration stories and mentions of a homeland outside of India suggests that there were no such migrations and no such homeland for the Indo-Aryans.(Elst 1999: Ch 4.6)

From the mainstream viewpoint this argument is problematic for several reasons: It is an argument relying of the absence of something that we cannot really expect to find. No Indo-European mythology does in fact preserve memories of an Urheimat, notably Greek mythology, preserving texts of comparable antiquity to that of the Vedas, has no trace of an immigration myth. The reason for this is that nomadic tribal societies typically emphasize on tribal unity rather than on a geographic homeland due to their continuing mobility. Many memories, and indeed historiographical records, of Iron Age migrations are preserved, and the Rigveda is no exception, presenting evidence, primarily based on hydronomy, of a gradual expansion from Gandhara to the Gangetic plain, and Gandhara is indeed often identified as the "Rigvedic Urheimat", Asko Parpola locating "Proto-Rigvedic" and and Proto-Dardic in the Swat culture. Another concern is the degree of historical accuracy that can be expected from the Rigveda, which is a collection of hymns, not an account of tribal history, and those hymns assumed to reach back to within a few centuries of the period of Indo-Aryan arrival in Gandhara make for just a small portion of the text.

For a mainstream historian the Rigveda's failure to clearly record the period prior to the crossing of the Hindukush isn't more surprising than Hesiod's failure to account for the origin and location of the Proto-Greeks.

Indo Iranian and Avesta
Talageri (Talageri, 2000: Ch 6: The Indo-Iranian Homeland) argues that the documented evidence shows Indo-Iranian were present earlier in Eastern region. Talageri quotes P. Oktor Skjærvø "the earliest evidence for the Iranians is 835 BC in the case of Iran, and 521 BC in the case of Central Asia. The earliest geographical names … inherited from Indo-Iranian times” indicate an area in southern Afghanistan, as per Skjærvø’s". He also quotes Gnoli (1980) as stating that "very clearly [...] the oldest regions known to the Iranians were Afghanistan and areas to its east". Gnoli repeatedly stresses "the fact that Avestan geography, particularly the list in Vd. I, is confined to the east," and points out that this list is "remarkably important in reconstructing the early history of Zoroastrianism". Talageri (chapter 6) states that The Rigveda and the Avesta are united in testifying to the fact that the Saptasindhu or Hapta-HAndu was a homeland of the Iranians.

Talageri states "The development of the common Indo-Iranian culture, reconstructed from linguistic, religious, and cultural elements in the Rigveda and the Avesta, took place in the 'later Vedic period'." He quotes J.C. Tavadia and Helmut Humbach to show the period of RV 8 is the period of composition of the major part of the Avesta. This indicates the possibility of a rivalry between the Proto-Indo-Iranian which eventually led to split of the culture to the Iranian and Indo-Aryan cultures. The Avesta also shows that Iranians of the time called themselves Dahas, a term also used by other ancient authors to refer to peoples in the area occupied by Indo-Iranian tribes.. .

Archaeology
thumb|200px|Ancient [[Lothal, dating 2400 BCE, as envisaged by the Archaeological Survey of India. The OIT suggests that the Indo-Aryans had built this advanced city. ]]

The opinion of the majority of professional archaeologists interviewed seems to be that there is no archaeological evidence to support external Indo-Aryan origins.

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

The examination of 300 skeletons from the Indus Valley Civilization and comparison of those skeletons with modern-day Indians by Kenneth Kennedy has also been a supporting argument for the OIT. Kennedy claims that the Harappan inhabitants of the Indus Valley Civilization are no different from the inhabitants of India in the following millennia. However, this does not rule out one version of the Aryan Migration Hypothesis which suggests that the only "migration" was one of languages as opposed to a complete displacement of the indigenous population.

Archaeogenetics
Several genetic studies have argued that, in contrast to the relative uniformity of mtDNA, the Y chromosomes of Indian populations display relatively small genetic distances to those of West Eurasians, linking this finding to hypothetical migrations by Indo-Aryan speakers, a view that is challenged by a 2006 study concluding that the Y-chromosomal data suggest a largely South Asian origin for Indian caste communities, making unnecessary "to look beyond South Asia for the origins of the paternal heritage of the majority of Indians at the time of the onset of settled agriculture."

Other geneticists have carried out studies amongst varying castes of India. Dr. Vijendra Kashyap carried out a study of 936 Y chromosomes and determined that people living in India 10,000 years ago carry the same genetic traits as those living in India in modern times. However, this does not necessarily rules out one model for Indo-Aryan migration which proposes that instead of an influx of migrants from Central Asia, the Indo-European languages travelled via a small group of people who carried their languages and cultures throughout Asia.

Criticism

 * 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. ..


 * 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.

Bibliography and References

 * The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis, by Shrikant G. Talageri published by Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi in 2000 ISBN 81-7742-010-0
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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.