Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

[shiv]

The name of Witzel's 118 page paper is

Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts.

Thetitle of the paper claims that the matter concerns "evidence". here are some examples of Harvard Professor Witzel's idea of "evidence" presented in a scholarly peer reviewed pubication.

Witzel's evidence, presented gratuitously on page 28, says the following and Witzel offers an earlier writing of his own as supporting "evidence" against Autochthonous Aryans

Scholars of the 19th/20 cent. obviously did not have the present discussion in mind
when they wrote. The best ones among them may have come to certain conclusions quite
independently of their 'ideological' background. At any rate, the better scholars of the 19th
century were not colonialists or racists. They all were, however, limited to some extent by the
general zeitgeist of the period, but so are present day scholars. We, too, must constantly strive
to overcome this bias (Witzel 1999d),

Having relieved himself the above pool of aboral patronization, Witzel goes on to use rhetorical reasoning to say why his theory of migrants bringing in a language should be accepted by Indians who disagree with him while he calls them "indigenists" and "revisionsists"

The Ārya of the RV are supposed to be just another tribe or group of tribes
that always have been resident in India, next to the Dravidians, Mundas, etc. The theory of an
immigration of IA speaking Ārya (''Aryan invasion'') is seen as a means of British policy to
justify their own intrusion into India and their subsequent colonial rule: in both cases, a 'white
race' was seen as subduing the local darker-colored population.
The irony of this line of reasoning is that the British themselves have been subject to
numerous IE immigrations and invasions (Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, Danish, and
Normans -- and now Caribbeans and South Asians).

The fact that the British may or may not have been subject to IE immigrations is neither evidence for AIT nor is it reason to oppose the people who have objections. It is mere fluff adding to a already voluminous collection of hand waving posing as scholarship

Witzel then posts this argument in his "evidence" in support of his views over those who disagree

The "Proto-Anglo-Saxons", and in fact all of Europe, have been subject to the same kind of
Indo-European "invasions". Europeans and Indians alike could thus complain, for example
with M. Gimbutas (1991, 1994), about the domination of a "peaceful matriarchal agricultural
community" by half-barbaric, patriarchal, semi-nomadic and warlike invaders. However, this
is not an issue in Europe (e.g., my own, predominantly Basque genes do not protest loudly
against having been subjected to an IE language and culture several millennia ago), while
religious and nationalistic attitudes in India have made such "invasions" the issue in recent
years. European Indologists, and American or Japanese even less, do not have an axe to grind,

In this case, Witzel makes a scholarly peer reviewed prose version of the Limerick

• An epicure dining at Crewe
  found quite a large rat in his stew
  Said the waiter "Don't shout!"
  "Or wave it about"
  "or the others will want one too"

Indians must take crap because others did not realise they were being taken for a ride? What sort of logic is that? This is a "scholarly paper" right? Peer reviewed? This paper has been thrown at us more than once as "evidence" against OIT?

But when the real hard facts, the real hard evidence goes against him Witzel resorts to mumbo jumbo. When confronted with the Surkotada horse evidence Witzel says

It should also be noted that numeral symbolism may play a role in the RV passage (1.162.18) mentioning
the 17-ribbed horse, which is part of an additional hymn of a late RV book. The number of gods is given in the RV
as 33 or 33+1, which would correspond to the 34 ribs of the horse (later on identified with the universe in BĀU 1);
note further that the horse is speculatively in brought into connection with all the gods, many of them mentioned
by name (RV 1.162-3)..

Witzel has outdone himself here. Either the Rig vedic Aryans forund a 17 ribbed horse (peresumably by X-raying them before sacrifice) or the simply lied. And because Harvard Prof Witzel says this in a peer reviewed publication I am supposed to swallow it unquestionngly. I mean how much of a sepoy must one be to take this stuff as Gospel?

On the other hand, the same Rig veda translation which precisely refer to 34 ribs, which Witzel dismisses as "numeral symbolism" becomes highly accurate and highly suggestive of what Witzel wants to say when he claims that the Rig Veda represents memories of a distant Central Asian past

Rather, the data mentioned above seem to reflect very dim memories of people and
much further west than the Panjab.

and

Therefore, words such as those for 'wolf' and 'snow' rather indicate linguistic memories of a colder climate than an export of words to Iran and Europe, such as that for the high altitude Kashmirian birch tree.

[Arjun]

I ever write a book that includes some of these issues I am certain to employ the arguments that Dubey-ji has made.

Unfortunately his demolitions have been rather one-sided. He's made a detailed case for demolishing the Sindhu-Sindhuvah argument which was an OIT argument...I would like to see how he demolishes the assigned meanings to the horse-chariot references found throughout the Vedas - which is really the *crux* of AIT.

[KLP Dubey]

So in response to the ever-growing bunch of AMT academic literature, what should the Indian response be? In case the response is that all of this does not matter - all that matters is the faith that individual Hindus have, that's not a line of thinking I am in agreement with. Belief in eternality of the Vedas does help in each individual's faith in the religion - but it does nothing to help the cause of countering the growing AMT literature with equally effective anti-AMT / OIT literature.

I have said all I want to say regarding the "Eternal Veda" principle, but I must provide a brief reply to the damaging statement you have made above. This is not an argument, it is a clarification. It has nothing to do with the AIT/OIT debate.

Conviction in the rationally and logically unfalsified axiom of an eternal and impersonal collection of sounds is NOT a matter of faith or religion. It is directly in conflict with theology and has no use for any personal God or prophet (i.e., religion). When it is historically well-attested that the Mimamsa school was constantly criticized by theologists for being "atheistic", it is silly to now state that its core axiom "helps each individual's faith in the religion".

One of the things that Vedanta did was to make the Mimamsa concept more "digestible" to the lay person by allowing a role for theological interpretation at the lower levels of understanding. But at the higher philosophical/inquiry levels, they too were criticized (especially Shankara) by theologists for being "closet Buddhists" and "atheists".

I don't believe you know the philosophy and reasoning behind the Eternal Veda. It is a rational, logical, and NON-RELIGIOUS concept. Please inform yourself better, thank you.

At a personal level: I am not religious and I have no "belief" in any god or theology whatsoever.

KL

[shiv]

I ever write a book that includes some of these issues I am certain to employ the arguments that Dubey-ji has made.

Unfortunately his demolitions have been rather one-sided. He's made a detailed case for demolishing the Sindhu-Sindhuvah argument which was an OIT argument...I would like to see how he addresses the horse-chariot references found in the Vedas - which is really the *crux* of AIT.

I don't dispute what you say but I see it as a digression and a politically useful digression that allows all translations of the Rig Veda to be declared as straw men.

[KLP Dubey]

Unfortunately his demolitions have been rather one-sided. He's made a detailed case for demolishing the Sindhu-Sindhuvah argument which was an OIT argument...I would like to see how he addresses the horse-chariot references found in the Vedas - which is really the *crux* of AIT.

I don't dispute what you say but I see it as a digression and a politically useful digression that allows all translations of the Rig Veda to be declared as straw men.

All sounds great - and thanks for the good summary in your earlier post.

Indeed all translation of the RV *are* straw men, but that is not a political game, it is a fact. However, be careful with those "political games". You too will be consumed if you get too deep into them.

Somebody mentioned horses and chariots. In comparison to the study of nouns like "sindhu", the nouns of "ashva" and "ratha" offer many more opportunities to wipe the floor with the AIT/OIT attempts at RV dating and their influence in the whole PIE/Sanskrit/human migration issue. Maybe Arjun et al need to try it out on their own, instead of sitting back and asking me (or you) to do it. If they can't do it, maybe they should stop the the backseat driving.

KL

[Arjun]

Conviction in the rationally and logically unfalsified axiom of an eternal and impersonal collection of sounds is NOT a matter of faith or religion. It is directly in conflict with theology and has no use for any personal God or prophet (i.e., religion).

KL ji, Buddhism & Jainism are also termed as religions by many, so I was using the generally accepted Western meaning of 'religion'. However, while this is OT and separate from the current discussion, I do agree that it is ridiculous to club Hinduism/ Jainism / Buddhism along with the Abrahamics under one rubric of religion - when the structures and levels of rationality in the former and latter sets are so divergent.

[member_23700]

Conviction in the rationally and logically unfalsified axiom of an eternal and impersonal collection of sounds is NOT a matter of faith or religion. It is directly in conflict with theology and has no use for any personal God or prophet (i.e., religion). When it is historically well-attested that the Mimamsa school was constantly criticized by theologists for being "atheistic", it is silly to now state that its core axiom "helps each individual's faith in the religion".

One of the things that Vedanta did was to make the Mimamsa concept more "digestible" to the lay person by allowing a role for theological interpretation at the lower levels of understanding. But at the higher philosophical/inquiry levels, they too were criticized (especially Shankara) by theologists for being "closet Buddhists" and "atheists".

Why we are forced to read or inconveniently bypass such 'Hegelian' nonsense, 150+ years after his death, on BRF site.

AIT crowd does it, but then they are trained in Hegelian schooling.

[shiv]

Somebody mentioned horses and chariots. In comparison to the study of nouns like "sindhu", the nouns of "ashva" and "ratha" offer many more opportunities to wipe the floor with the AIT/OIT attempts at RV dating and their influence in the whole PIE/Sanskrit/human migration issue. Maybe Arjun et al need to try it out on their own, instead of sitting back and asking me (or you) to do it. If they can't do it, maybe they should stop the the backseat driving.

Dubeyji, let me say this clearly. While I am not against what you say, I am entirely with Arjun in his quest to call out what i see as an insult to my own sensibility in the form of the current AIT.

Could you write a few words on how the nouns "ashva" and "ratha" play out with reference to dating? It would be easier to stop arguing against your word if you posted your take on what you have said.

[KLP Dubey]

Why we are forced to read or inconveniently bypass such 'Hegelian' nonsense, 150+ years after his death, on BRF site.

Because Indian inquiry didn't give two hoots about Hegel for 3+ millennia, and neither will it do so in the future. If you see this as Hegelian, well - suck it up!

KL

[KLP Dubey]

Dubeyji, let me say this clearly. While I am not against what you say, I am entirely with Arjun in his quest to call out what i see as an insult to my own sensibility in the form of the current AIT.

Wonderful. Then let us have Arjun do something useful, like starting the analysis of RV "ashva" and "ratha". Arjun, can you start ? Maybe post from the RV some of the references to these nouns that are critical to the AIT?

Could you write a few words on how the nouns "ashva" and "ratha" play out with reference to dating? It would be easier to stop arguing against your word if you posted your take on what you have said.

I can, when I have more time.

For now, we are still awaiting further discussion on "sindhu", "rasa", and "anitabha": are they real rivers in the RV or not ?

Let's form a consensus about that before we jump to the next topic. I do not want to be "doing all the work" and have others do all the "backseat driving".

KL

[member_23700]

The chief danger to our philosophy, apart from laziness and woolliness, is scholasticism, .. which is treating what is vague as if it were precise. —F. P. RAMSEY.

The philosophy of Hegel, then, was … a scrutiny of thought so profound that it was for the most part unintelligible ... —J. H. STIRLING.

And before someone sees my comment on KLP ji write up on whatever subject he wrote two posts prior as harsh,

Here are some translations from Hegel's work on 'Sound' (how relevant to the reference of what KLP ji is discussing in relation to Rigveda... "don't try the meaning, just chant and hear the sound")

Hegel on sound....

"Sound is the change in the specific condition of segregation of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition;—merely an abstract or an ideal ideality, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, i.e.—heat. The heating up of sounding bodies, just as of beaten or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound."

[shiv]

Here are some translations from Hegel's work on 'Sound' (how relevant to the reference of what KLP ji is discussing in relation to Rigveda... "don't try the meaning, just chant and hear the sound")

Hegel on sound....

"Sound is the change in the specific condition of segregation of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition;—merely an abstract or an ideal ideality, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, i.e.—heat. The heating up of sounding bodies, just as of beaten or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound."

Hmm "sounds" familiar..
From Witzel (2002)

The basic Dravidian word structure (in the sequel ə = long or short
vowel) is (C)ə(C), and suffixes have the structure: -C, -Cə, -CCə, -CCCə; after a root -C the
vowels -a-, -i-, or -u are inserted, thus əC-a-C etc., CəC-a-C etc..; and with base final -C-u,
CəC-a-C-u (Krishnamurti, forthc. 2001). While the present Munda word structure includes
(Pinnow 1959: 449 sqq.) CəCə, CəəC, CəCə, əCCə, əVVəC, CəCCə, CəCCəC, the oldest word
structure was: (C)ə(C), Cə-CəC, CəC-Cə’C, CəC-əC, CəC-Cə’C-əC. Clearly, both Drav. and
Munda words are frequently enough quite different from IE ones with: (prefix) +
(C)(R)e(R)(C) + (suffix + ending). While Drav. and Munda share CəC, CəCəC, Munda
words can often be distinguished, as Cə- in Cə-Cəc is a prefix, something that does not exist in
Drav.; and while CəCəc may exist in IE/IA (even with a prefix Cə-), normally, CəC- will be the
IA root and -əC a suffix.

[member_23700]

KLP ji wrote on something to do with 'axiom, sound, theology, Mimansa'

Conviction in the rationally and logically unfalsified axiom of an eternal and impersonal collection of sounds is NOT a matter of faith or religion. It is directly in conflict with theology and has no use for any personal God or prophet (i.e., religion). When it is historically well-attested that the Mimamsa school was constantly criticized by theologists for being "atheistic", it is silly to now state that its core axiom "helps each individual's faith in the religion".

One of the things that Vedanta did was to make the Mimamsa concept more "digestible" to the lay person by allowing a role for theological interpretation at the lower levels of understanding. But at the higher philosophical/inquiry levels, they too were criticized (especially Shankara) by theologists for being "closet Buddhists" and "atheists".

I don't believe you know the philosophy and reasoning behind the Eternal Veda. It is a rational, logical, and NON-RELIGIOUS concept. Please inform yourself better, thank you.

At a personal level: I am not religious and I have no "belief" in any god or theology whatsoever.

Hegel wrote on sound...( I think)

"Sound is the change in the specific condition of segregation of the material parts, and in the negation of this condition;—merely an abstract or an ideal ideality, as it were, of that specification. But this change, accordingly, is itself immediately the negation of the material specific subsistence; which is, therefore, real ideality of specific gravity and cohesion, i.e.—heat. The heating up of sounding bodies, just as of beaten or rubbed ones, is the appearance of heat, originating conceptually together with sound."

I rest my case. Adios.

[Arjun]

Wonderful. Then let us have Arjun do something useful, like starting the analysis of RV "ashva" and "ratha". Arjun, can you start ? Maybe post from the RV some of the references to these nouns that are critical to the AIT?

KLP, this is getting a little silly. You made this claim in the previous page

I can conclusively demolish all the arguments of these AIT/OIT guys *without ever having to take recourse to any "Veda is eternal" principle..

All I am asking is that you back up this claim by demolishing the key AIT argument, in addition to the easier OIT argument on Proper nouns that you've already taken on.

If suggesting that you back up your claim is 'back-seat driving' - then I am quite happy to be guilty of it.

[KLP Dubey]

All I am asking is that you back up this claim by demolishing the key AIT argument, in addition to the easier OIT argument on Proper nouns that you've already taken on.

1) There seems some misunderstanding. The "proper noun" issue is not an "AIT or OIT argument". It deflates ALL arguments that try to find names and places in the RV and then try to use them to find history and geography in the RV (some guys even start talking about botany and zoology).

2) I said I *can* demolish it, not that "I will be happy to drop everything else and spend my time on it". I've already given one small example of what can be done, let us see what the rest of the participants have to say.

3) Let us have consensus about "rivers" before moving on. To state again: Is it tenable and reliable to identify the nouns such as "sindhu", "rasa", in the RV etc with rivers located in greater India for the purpose of chronological "dating" of the RV ? My answer is NO. Anyone want to argue YES ?

If suggesting that you back up your claim is 'back-seat driving' - then I am quite happy to be guilty of it.

So I take it you are not planning to help.

KL

[Arjun]

1) There seems some misunderstanding. The "proper noun" issue is not an "AIT or OIT argument". It deflates ALL arguments that try to find names and places in the RV and then try to use them to find history and geography in the RV (some guys even start talking about botany and zoology).

The most important AMT arguments include linguistics (already conclusively demolished in this thread), horse/chariot references in Vedas, soma reference in Vedas, reference to krishna ayas translated as meaning iron (already demolished by Bryant and others), & lack of well-understood relationship between IVC and Vedic society. Horse/chariot has already been well-refuted on this thread through non-philological arguments - but a philological argument would certainly be of value.

Some of the more important anti-AMT philological arguments include references to Sapta Sindhu, Saraswati, east-to-west movement of river names, clan names that knew of Soma, archeo-astronomy....There are of course others - both philological and non-philological, maybe other members can add to this list.

So I take it you are not planning to help.

Did I say that?

I understand there are 200+ references to ashva in Rig Veda alone...Lets see if we can find a way of getting these references for Dubey-ji over the next few days.

Here's a good book on chariot (ratha) references in the Vedas: Chariots in the Veda

[Arjun]

Witzel then posts this argument in his "evidence" in support of his views over those who disagree

The "Proto-Anglo-Saxons", and in fact all of Europe, have been subject to the same kind of
Indo-European "invasions". Europeans and Indians alike could thus complain, for example
with M. Gimbutas (1991, 1994), about the domination of a "peaceful matriarchal agricultural
community" by half-barbaric, patriarchal, semi-nomadic and warlike invaders. However, this
is not an issue in Europe (e.g., my own, predominantly Basque genes do not protest loudly
against having been subjected to an IE language and culture several millennia ago), while
religious and nationalistic attitudes in India have made such "invasions" the issue in recent
years. European Indologists, and American or Japanese even less, do not have an axe to grind,

^ A good example of the heights of idiocy reached by these AIT morons. If I remember right, ManishH used a similar argument on this thread - the Greeks don't protest when they are told they came from elsewhere, why do only Indians do so?

The fact that India alone of all countries seems to have a societal belief in its own antiquity - while practically all other countries have a social memory of having migrated in from elsewhere - should actually qualify as evidence and basis for the autochthonous hypothesis. But then its a probably a bit too much to look for logic in the backwaters of Western social sciences, that Witzel represents.

[RajeshA]

I can conclusively demolish all the arguments of these AIT/OIT guys *without ever having to take recourse to any "Veda is eternal" principle.. But I do not want to drag myself into these silly arguments beyond a point.

1) For heavens sake why would anybody here (except perhaps a few who give us net practice) would want the arguments of OIT "guys" to be demolished? Isn't this the OIT Thread?

2) As far as AIT is concerned, its debilitating impact on India has been very severe, and this impact is something we have gone into to some extent in this thread! Most here are aware of this impact!

You however say "I do not want to drag myself into these silly arguments beyond a point"

KLP Dubey ji,

you obviously have missed out on what is at stake! Either that or your statement earlier makes one shudder with even more disbelief! It alludes to a scenario where somebody attacks one's family and the well-built man in the family says, he didn't wish to get involved in the fighting because he didn't wish to either get his clothes soiled or to to interrupt his tea-break! Or one can extend the analogy to an attack on one's country!

But perhaps I am just misunderstanding the import of what you wished to say!

Coming back to the AIT agenda:

Their main statement is simply that some Indo-European speaking people entered Indian Subcontinent from elsewhere and introduced Sanskrit to the Indian Subcontinent, also introducing their pantheon of "Indo-European" deities to the Subcontinent.

That is all they wish to prove, for they will get what they want - a non-Indian Indo-European Urheimat for themselves and in the process if the history of India is smothered, who cares! Perhaps the Christianists and others can pick up the crumbs!

Rig Veda for them is an obstacle. It is the oldest evidence of a full-fledged Indo-European (Sanskrit) text and that too from the Indian Subcontinent, and so they wish to push the dates to a much later composition!

All their analysis of Rig Veda is directed only at dating it to a much later phase and if possible to geographically place Rig Veda somewhere in Central Asia, so that it gives them more time for explaining both a later migration into India as well as explaining the vast scriptural literature of India! Moreover the deities in the Rig Veda which find cognates in other Indo-European cultures, should preferably not be associated with the geography of India or be considered Indian developments.

So what is the Indigenist/OIT claim?

Sanskrit has its origin in India and developed from languages spoken in India. It was NOT introduced from outside through any invasion/migration! Rig Vedic deities are also of Indian origin!

And if any linguistic or cultural or religious expansion of Sanskrit or Proto-Sanskritic languages and associated Rig Vedic deities took place, which seems to be the accepted opinion, then the origin must be considered as Indian Subcontinent!

So what is it that exactly anchors this claim?

1. It is the fact that Rig Veda testifies to it that there is no mention of any migration into India, all references in it suggest an Indian Subcontinental geography, and as such Sanskrit is of a purely Indian origin and so too must be the Rig Vedic deities!
   
   Since Rig Veda is the most expansive and comprehensive piece of Indo-European language and religion, its testimony carries authority in this tug-of-war between AIT and OIT! And the Rig Veda says in Sanskrit that Indian Subcontinent is HOME, SWEET HOME!
2. If one can in some other way show that Rig Veda and hence Sanskrit in which it is written, is indeed very archaic, then it would break down the AIT-Nazi's historical and comparative linguistic models!
   
   1. One way of dating Rig Veda is the push towards antiquity that it receives from the vast textual material that is available in India and purportedly comes after Rig Veda which also makes references to certain historical occurrences or simply needed time to develop or have archaeo-astronomical evidence pointing to an earlier date.
   2. Then one tries to find out a possible date based on what is or is not mentioned in the Rig Veda - cities, iron, grain, horse, wheel, chariots, etc.
   3. A more convincing way is of course to look for archaeo-astronomical evidence in the Rig Veda and try to ascertain its historicity! This, we hope, Nilesh Oak ji would in due time provide us with more information.
3. The other way to prove that Sanskrit and also the origin of Indo-European languages was at home in the Indian Subcontinent is to find archaeological corroboration with evidence of Sanskrit or other proto-Sanskrit Indo-European languages in the Indian Subcontinent.
   
   The linguistic evidence we have from the Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization is both somewhat sparse (IVC script) and more importantly it is still considered undeciphered. Without a Rosetta Stone or a Behistun inscription with multiple languages side by side, any decipherment would be considered by many quarters as simply a guess and would not be accepted in general especially if it debunks their theories of Indo-European languages coming from the outside of the Indian Subcontinent.
   
   So possibly this may remain an active battlefield for a long long time!

The AIT guys would be glad to place Rig Veda in Afghanistan or somewhere else in North! It is ONLY THE PROPER NOUNS in the Rig Veda, the rivers, the fauna, the flora, the monsoon, etc. which really anchor Rig Veda and thus Sanskrit in the Indian Subcontinent and provides us, the Indians to claim, their origin to be in India, for India to be the source of Indo-European language and culture expansion.

Quote from here:

The use of the Rk 5.53.9 to project "Sindhu" as the name of the Indus river is first of all nailed lock stock and barrel by the appearance of the plural "sindhavah" just two Rks above in 5.53.7. Fact of the matter is "sindhu" is not a proper noun here. This also exposes the tendency of both AIT and OIT quacks to lift words from here and there without regard to the context.

Secondly, there is a detailed and reasoned discussion in Mimamsa regarding so-called "proper nouns" indicating names of people, places etc in the Veda. The dispassionate conclusion is that such names cannot be really proper nouns but rather have been *assigned* as personal/place names by humans in history.

Quote from here:

All I am asking is that you back up this claim by demolishing the key AIT argument, in addition to the easier OIT argument on Proper nouns that you've already taken on.

1) There seems some misunderstanding. The "proper noun" issue is not an "AIT or OIT argument". It deflates ALL arguments that try to find names and places in the RV and then try to use them to find history and geography in the RV (some guys even start talking about botany and zoology).

2) I said I *can* demolish it, not that "I will be happy to drop everything else and spend my time on it". I've already given one small example of what can be done, let us see what the rest of the participants have to say.

3) Let us have consensus about "rivers" before moving on. To state again: Is it tenable and reliable to identify the nouns such as "sindhu", "rasa", in the RV etc with rivers located in greater India for the purpose of chronological "dating" of the RV ? My answer is NO. Anyone want to argue YES ?

Quote from here:

(2) If you read the entire RV, you find that the word "sindhu" can NEVER be interpreted successfully in a consistent manner by assuming that it is an earthly river. The same is true for every single noun in the RV. Pick any noun you want (that appears more than once in the RV) and I will show you.

(3) What about the other 250 words in RV 5.53 ? If the word "sindhu" is being confidently declared to be a reliable earthly object, then the same assumption MUST be made about all the other words. There is no rational way out of that. You cannot pick and choose which word-meanings you consider to be reliable and which you do not, unless there is an *independent and reliable testimony* regarding the method/basis upon which to make the distinction.

It seems if AIT-Nazis wish to dissolve all Rig Vedic and Sanskrit anchors to Indian Subcontinent, then all they need to do is to give some employment to Mimamsa scholars and use Mimamsa cannons against Proper Nouns!

Without the Proper Nouns, the anchor would dissolve by itself! And I am bemused by efforts of Vedic scholars to do just that! The Proper Nouns are our only shield, and if you go about demolishing, you are not even scratching the AIT claims but fully deflating the OIT arguments!

KLP Dubey ji,

I very much understand the need for the axiom "Vedas are eternal and authorless" and am very much in favor of seeing that that axiom is not shaken, but the Mimamsa school is going about it in a very wrong way, at least from the OIT perspective!

The impression one gets is that the Vedic scholars are only concerned about the purity of their axiom theology, and some about their personal Moksha, and what happens to the country and its people, its culture, its history, and if it burns, it is of no concern to them!

Here is what shiv saar said in the beginning:

Kishen Lal ji. You are not wrong. But I see people like you as occupants of the palace, and I see myself as the chowkidar at the door chasing away dogs, cattle and human riff raff.

And the thing is that the chowkidars get regular slaps and scorn for doing their duty!

If you wish to help, then your offer of dissolving the ontology of proper nouns as used by AIT/OIT people is not going to be of any use, because it is more directly targeted at the OIT shield rather than the AIT sword! If you wish to help, then how about using your knowledge of Sanskrit and the scriptures, to show that their origin is India, and nowhere else, that India is the origin of Indo-European languages!

If you can do that without the Vedas, then all power to you, and we all would only chant Vedas and never think of it as something composed in Sanskrit!

[RajeshA]

As I see it among the Indics there are a few different positions and axioms, which need to be reconciled!

1) The Vedas as Śruti, as divinely revealed cosmic sounds of Truth to the ancient Indian Ṛṣis!

2) The Vedas as being understandable as a Sanskrit text!

3) The Vedas, when read as a Sanskrit text, also revealing the thoughts and impressions of the Ṛṣis of his environment, in a truthful way, albeit its poetry making comprehension of it by the modern man difficult!

4) Sanskrit being a language refined from pre-Sanskrit Prakrits existing in India during and before the revelation of the Vedas to the Indian Ṛṣis.

If Vedas are a repository of Dharma and Divine Truth, then their earthly existence needs to be made infallible through a proper fusion of the above requirements. If all the above requirements can co-exist in a single narrative of how the Vedas came into human existence and why its reading in Sanskrit may not reveal the true nature of the Vedic sounds, then one would have made the Vedas immune to being undermined!

[RajeshA]

Books for the Library



Publication Date: 1992
Author: Satya Swarup Misra
The Aryan Problem: A Linguistic Approach [Google] [Amazon]



Publication Date: September 24, 2005
Editors: Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton
Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History [@scribd] Online Book

Chapter 6, Page 181
The Date of the Rigveda and the Aryan Migration: Fresh Linguistic Evidence
By Satya Swarup Misra


Publication Date: 1975
Author: Satya Swarup Misra
New Lights on Indo-European Comparative Grammar


Publication Date: 1972
Author: Satya Swarup Misra
The Avestan: a Historical and Comparative Grammar


Publication Date: 1968
Author: Satya Swarup Misra
A Comparative Grammar of Sanskrit, Greek and Hittite

[RajeshA]

shiv saar,

I would recommend the above article by Satya Swarup Misra (S.S. Misra) in the book "Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History".

It shows that Dravidian, Uralic and Indo-European are related. It also questions why Sanskrit cannot be considered the Proto-Indo-European language!

He places Rig Vedic Sanskrit to around 5,000 BCE!

[member_23630]

My 'test' of OIT vs AMT in simple words:

1. My benchmark is IVC. The 'attested' date range for IVC is from 3300 BC to 1300 BC - spanning 2000 years, population of 5 million plus, area of 1,260, 000 sq.km( making it the largest ancient civilization) and consisting of 1052 cities plus('nagara'). There is no dispute on these dates and areas, etc. It is all archeologically attested.

2. Now, if IE speakers are 'different && later' population in the IVC area, i consider that as 'Migration'. If the IE speakers are pre-existing natives or even contemporary, then, there is no 'Migration' to speak of. My test is as simple as that.

3. For that i just compare the IVC and IE/RV 'locations && attributes && dates'.

4. Now that IVC dates are known, we just have to compare the RV dates, to see if it is 'completed' before 3300 BCE or not. That is my boundary condition.

5. From all the scholarly accounts, the dates i get is roughly around 1500 BCE to 500 BCE - with some acceptable errors: say type 1 error of x, and type 2 error of y. As i am interested in the 3300 BCE boundary condition, i am okay some error in RV dating.

6. And, i do trust RV date of 1500 BCE to 500 BCE because of the following reasoning:

a. RV does not mention of 'nagaras' but only of 'pur' and 'armaka'.

b. Because of Bronze Age and Iron Age relative dating. (i do not believe the iron ore, Ganges theory).

c. I also in trust linguistics relative dating of Mittani, Avestian and RV, by the linguistics rules and principles, and by also using 'locatable' and 'datable' markers such as the horse, wheel and chariot as there are numerous and detailed references for them in RV. (i do not believe in questioning linguistics as a science, and i accept some errors, and i also do not believe in attributing motives and other ad-hominess on linguistics).

d. I also trust that IVC language is not IE, could have have Dravidian, plus Munda / Nihali, per Parploa, Witzel and Mahadevan, all of whom i consider scholars with lifetime of contribution(again, i do not believe in attributing motives and other ad-hominess on any of these).

e. Considering that IVC spanned 2000 years and RV spanned about 1000 years, it could also not have been contemporary as there are 'no' references / relations in any 'early' RV texts about IVC type of attributes, but of only 'armaka'.

f. Also, the 'new attributes' brought in RV into the landscape show that it is new in the IVC areas.

My main reference is of course the Witzel 2001 paper, sections 3, 8, 10 14, etc.
Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. EJVS May 2001 pdf
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf

For reference on 'nagara':
Moving Targets? Texts, language, archaeology, and history in the Late Vedic and early Buddhist periods.Indo-Iranian Journal 52, 2009, 287-310
http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rct=j& ... 0CvJFfZj_A

The late Vedic texts are not yet aware of cities46 before
the so-called second urbanization of India of c. 450 BCE.
The word nagara occurs only in very Late Brāhmaṇa and
Āraṇyaka texts, such as in the post-Pāṇinean part of
Gopatha Br. (1.1.23), and in the Puraṇic-time part of
Taittirīya Āraṇyaka (1.11.7, 1.31.2).47

Added later: corrected IVC dates.

[Nilesh Oak]

shiv saar,

I would recommend the above article by Satya Swarup Misra (S.S. Misra) in the book "Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History".

It shows that Dravidian, Uralic and Indo-European are related. It also questions why Sanskrit cannot be considered the Proto-Indo-European language!

This is the important part.

He places Rig Vedic Sanskrit to around 5,000 BCE!

All he is saying here is that Rigveda is older than 1500 BC, (1500 BC being std. AIT chronology). SS Misra does not present any evidence, nor claims it to be so for 5000 BC.

Beware, that in their genuine and logical efforts to show that Rigveda is LONG BEFORE 1500 BC, the whole team of India researchers appear to give impression that Rigveda was composed soemtime from 5000 BC - 3500 BC. Many of them do clearly mark statements such as 'at least around 3000 BC, 4000 BC, 5000 BC' etc. Unfortunately, the words preceding exact year mentioned are lost. In addition, these researchers, at times, do create the impression as if Rigveda was composed during 5000 BC, 4000 BC, 3000 BC. etc.

Something to keep in mind as one reads SS Misra, Talageri, Frawley, Elst, Kak, Danino and many others.

[member_20317]

RE. - SN_Rajan Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 03 Sep 2012 19:30

SN_Rajan ji, if RV people are nostalgic about Horses why are they not nostalgic about their Purs/Armaka whatever? And if they are where are these Purs/Armakas?

[RajeshA]

SN_Rajan ji,

You seem to have a lot of automatic trust is various AIT personalities. Has that trust anything to do with their arguments or is it in reality based on your own need to believe? If it has to do with arguments, then we can surely take them up! If on the other hand it has to do with your beliefs, then you are of course entitled to them!

Let's take up 'nagara'!

Why should the absence of 'nagara' in early Sanskrit texts but presence in late Sanskrit texts not be considered as a corroboration of a posterior urbanization after the main Vedic phase was over, i.e. Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC, IVC) succeeded the Vedic Age?

[member_20317]

SN_Rajan ji, the only thing that you are sure of is who you want to trust.

Again if RV people are the usurpers of SIVC then why are they not gloating over their winning ways. Or do you already trust that Dasas are SIVC people who got killed by Indra?

[member_23630]

Like I said earlier, it is important to read Witzel and I can see from this thread that even people who support Witzel or choose to post humongous passages from Witzel's exceedingly voluminous works do not actually read what he has written other than what catches their eye as being supportive of their viewpoint. I deem it necessary to see what else Witzel writes in his "scholarly, peer reviewed" papers. The words "peer review" reflect very poorly on Witzel's peers because it shows them up to be as biased as Witzel himself.

If I were to judge BRFites I would judge them as being more science and data oriented than rhetoric oriented. Witzel too talks of "hard facts" when he needs to talk about himself and be critical of those who disagree with him, but his papers are full of rhetoric and sarcastic ad homiem. I find it painful to get people on here who use these papers as knowledge and ask for "peer reviewed" data against Witzel's views. if peer review is the sort of trash that appears in Witzels "schoalarly works - then peer review beocmes very easy for me indeed for the emulation of trash and rhetoric.

For example, taking quotes from his 118 page textual Blitzkrieg from which we have already had stupendously long quotes earlier posted by SN-Rajanji
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.pdf

Here is what Witzel says about SS Misra in a footnote using his Harvard style pirethetical reference system:

71No doubt due to his complete (self-imposed?) scholarly isolation at Benares. His (lone?) trip to an
international meeting in Dushanbe, duly noted in his introduction his 1992 book, provided him with some
contacts, -- unfortunately not the best ones, see his rather uncritical use of Harmatta's materials (below § 12.2,
n.97).

Talageri and Elst get this from Witzel, for daring to put up a stand against his schLOLarly Panzerdivision

70Talageri, though mentioning --unlike other OIT advocates-- the value of linguistics (2000: 415), merely lists
some words and compares them as look-alikes, in Nirukta fashion. Data are listed and discussed without any
apparent linguistic background and with lack of any critical, linguistic faculty. Elst is better prepared
philologically and linguistically, yet still lacks linguistic sophistication; his linguistic evaluation (1999: 118 sqq,
137) is lacuneous and misses much of what is discussed in this paper; this lack is substituted for by a lot of
gratuitous speculation of when and how the hypothetical Indian Indo-Europeans could have emigrated from
India.

But what really tickled me is that even in this 2001 paper Witzel is clearly hurt by the internet and the democratization of knowledge that it brought about. The internet sources chipping at him ARE important because he does not like them

74The list of such internet and printed publications waxes greatly, by the month. There now exists a closely knit,
self-adulatory group, members of which often write conjointly and/or copy from each other. Quite boringly, they
also churn out long identical passages, in book after book, sometimes paragraph by paragraph, all copied in
cottage industry fashion from earlier books and papers; the whole scene has become one virtually
indistinguishable hotchpotch. A 'canonical' list would include, among others: Choudhury 1993, Elst 1999,
Danino 1996, Feuerstein, Kak, and Frawley 1995, Frawley 1994, Kak 1994, Klostermaier (in Rajaram and
Frawley 1997), Misra 1992, Rajaram 1993, 1995, Rajaram and Frawley 1995, 1997, Rajaram and Jha 2000, Sethna
1980, 1981, 1989, 1992, Talageri 1993, 2000. Among them, Choudhury stands somewhat apart by his extreme
chauvinism. -- These and many others frequent the internet with letters and statements ranging from scholarly
opinions and prepublications to inane accusations and blatant politics and hate speech; such ephemeral 'sources'
are not listed here; I have, however, been collecting them as they will form interesting source material for a study
of the landscape of (expatriate) Indian mind of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

.. so Witzel wants to study the "landscape of (expatriate) Indian mind of the late 20th and early 21st centuries."
Witzel is a man after my own heart. He applies piskology like a master. But it is a game that two can play! I don't suppose he would want to study the minds of those Indians who support him. But I could do that no?

This post is long enough, so I will save more data from his paper to show how low his Stuka dive bomber can dive while he uses weasely rhetoric passed off as scholarship, egged on as a respected Pir by his sepoy cheerleaders for another post.

Shiv Ji,

Please forgive me and indulge me.

I see lots of trashing of Harvard and Witzel.

So, I would like to use this post as an example to highlight some the 'fallacies', 'biases' and 'pre-judice' on OIT too, with some 2 paisa pisko and rhetoric from my side too.

1. In every communication, there is always some noise. In Engineering, we try to 'filter-out' the noise and 'amplify' the signal, so that communication happens. Not the other way around. In fact, that is a way of jamming. I see that you chose to 'highlight' the noises.

2. It is not my case that Witzel is perfect. Everybody makes mistakes and everybody has their biases. We just have to acknowledge and adjust and discount accordingly.

3. In fact, i don't have even care about him or anybody mentioned there personally. I just need to 'extract' the signal from their works - here, it is the RV dates. It does not matter to me what Witzel thinks of other people, or what anyone else thinks of Witzel. There are all noise, not signal.

4. Now, few questions or thought experiments;

a. just imagine that all these 'works/writings' came from an imaginary 'Rajiv Sharma' from an IIT. Would you have responded differently?

b. Just imagine that all these 'works/writings' lands in up in your inbox from, say, anonymous@anonymous.com. How would you have treated it?

5. Something even more disturbing the more i think about: I also see that you consistently abused Harvard and Witzel for these 100+ pages. Yet only 01-Sep-2012 you comment on The Standard Harvard Style Citation and question Witzel's date of RV for 300 years difference. Does it mean that till 01-Sep-2012, you never cared to read any Harvard paper or Witzel or never bothered to check any Harvard reference, and still abused Harvard and Witzel for 100+ pages, and still continue to do so.

6. Maybe i am wrong. In fact, i will be glad to be proven wrong.

[member_23630]

RE. - SN_Rajan Post subject: Re: Out-of-India - From Theory to TruthPosted: 03 Sep 2012 19:30

SN_Rajan ji, if RV people are nostalgic about Horses why are they not nostalgic about their Purs/Armaka whatever? And if they are where are these Purs/Armakas?

Simple. It is not theirs. And, they came in after the IVC became Armaka.

[member_23630]

SN_Rajan ji,

You seem to have a lot of automatic trust is various AIT personalities. Has that trust anything to do with their arguments or is it in reality based on your own need to believe? If it has to do with arguments, then we can surely take them up! If on the other hand it has to do with your beliefs, then you are of course entitled to them!

Let's take up 'nagara'!

Why should the absence of 'nagara' in early Sanskrit texts but presence in late Sanskrit texts not be considered as a corroboration of a posterior urbanization after the main Vedic phase was over, i.e. Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC, IVC) succeeded the Vedic Age?

RajesA Ji,

It is not just 'nagara'. It is all the points put together - which i have tried explian briefly my post.

I logically do not think any theory that can explain all points other than AMT - Occam's razor.

And, no, i go by cold logic - i don't go by personalities. And, as i have mentioned in my old posts - i am comfortable with accepting that we all came from Africa, and before that monkeys.

[member_23630]

SN_Rajan ji, the only thing that you are sure of is who you want to trust.

Again if RV people are the usurpers of SIVC then why are they not gloating over their winning ways. Or do you already trust that Dasas are SIVC people who got killed by Indra?

ravi_g Ji,

Same as my previous answer: Simple. It is not theirs. And, they came in after the IVC became Armaka.

Maybe late/terminal stages of IVC. And, there is no evidence of 'Invasion' or 'usurping' in the current scholarship.

[gashish]

SN_Rajanji

My 'test' of OIT vs AMT in simple words:

1. My benchmark is IVC. The 'attested' date range for IVC is from 3300 BC to 300 BC - spanning 3000 years, population of 5 million plus, area of 1,260, 000 sq.km( making it the largest ancient civilization) and consisting of 1052 cities plus('nagara'). There is no dispute on these dates and areas, etc. It is all archeologically attested.
<snip>
6. And, i do trust RV date of 1500 BCE to 500 BCE because of the following reasoning:
<snip>

Doesn't the bolded statements put RV bang in the middle of IVC timeframe (as well space)? Then how does your following conclusion about IVC & RV of not being contemporary follow?:

e. Considering that IVC spanned 3000 years and RV spanned about 1000 years, it could also not have been contemporary as there are 'no' references / relations in any 'early' RV texts about IVC type of attributes, but of only 'armaka'.

[member_22872]

Rajan ji, could you please format your sentences? May be word wrap? It is difficult to read when the sentences don't continue on to next line without a fixed word limit per line....just a request

[member_23700]

4. Now, few questions or thought experiments;

a. just imagine that all these 'works/writings' came from an imaginary 'Rajiv Sharma' from an IIT. Would you have responded differently?

b. Just imagine that all these 'works/writings' lands in up in your inbox from, say, anonymous@anonymous.com. How would you have treated it?

Rajan ji.

Read responses of forum members to KLP ji who is proclaiming Rigveda to be beyond comprehension and also that he does not give a hoot to AIT and also that he is capable of disproving AIT. He should be responded the same way you are being responded. Same should be the response for likes of ManishH ji.

Aren't you imaginary SP_Rajan, the engineer, of Indian background. Forum members treating you, in spite of your meaningless write up, is due to their kindness, but also to ensure that they don't cast judgement, without giving due benefit of doubt'.

I am new to this forum and thread and I don't know the rules. But IMHO, you and likes of KLP ji have overstayed forum members welcome, at least as it relates to this specific thread.

[shiv]

3. In fact, i don't have even care about him or anybody mentioned there personally. I just need to 'extract' the signal from their works - here, it is the RV dates. It does not matter to me what Witzel thinks of other people, or what anyone else thinks of Witzel. There are all noise, not signal.
<snip>
5. Something even more disturbing the more i think about: I also see that you consistently abused Harvard and Witzel for these 100+ pages. Yet only 01-Sep-2012 you comment on The Standard Harvard Style Citation and question Witzel's date of RV for 300 years difference. Does it mean that till 01-Sep-2012, you never cared to read any Harvard paper or Witzel or never bothered to check any Harvard reference, and still abused Harvard and Witzel for 100+ pages, and still continue to do so.

You have answereed the question yourself but you don't know it. I have learned as this thread progressed. When you have 100 pages or more to read one mines for data. But in the case of AIT I find the same articles by Witzel being posted again and again and again. An each time i look at an article by Witzel I see things that I had missed while "mining" for data on an earlier occasion. You will see more as time progresses. Witzel is not a nromal man. He is a vicious and jealous person and publishes more rhetoric than fact. One only needs to mine for it and one will find it.

The comment about the Harvard Pir-enthetical citation can be understood by anyone who has studied anything. I accept references (whatever they might be) as true until I start having doubts and when I have doubts I want to cross refer. That is where Witzel simply puts a spoke by quoting himself by saying (Witzel, 1997) or (Rau, 1964). Combined with extreme and vulgar verbosity, vicious ad hominem, sarcastic digs and a gratuitous style of obfuscation Witzel comes across as a star buffoon.

In any field of study, coming across as concise, precise and knowledgeable scores over sarcasm, vindictveness, rhetoric, obfuscation and verbosity which Witzel displays in abundance. For me it is amusing because I have spent my life reading scholaraly works from someone or the other. I stopped reading fiction 30 years ago aside from Harry Potter. Witzel is in a class of his own.

You are welcome to hold your own view on this. I am not going to argue against your viewpoint but if you throw humongous Witzel quotes on the forum I know that you have probably not read them and are unable to quote what you need to quote to make it understandable and have no opinions of your own outside of your Witzel copy-paste quotes. And you might hide behind the excuse that you are a non expert, as you did do at least on one occasion. Remember, no one is an expert here so the title is not yours to hold. Witzel is supposed to be the expert and he does not come across as anything but a man who is desperate to hold on to his theories by bringing his critics down and demeaning them rather than by any inherent strength in what he says.

[shiv]

My 'test' of OIT vs AMT in simple words:

Good. You have an opinion that you are entitled to hold even if I disagree. There is only one thing in your post that caught my attention. You said:

My benchmark is IVC. The 'attested' date range for IVC is from 3300 BC to 300 BC

I would be interested in a source for these dates because this is the first time I am hearing these dates for an IVC that predates and post dates the dates for the Vedas as quoted by the AIT Nazis. But for me, these are "fun dates" that offer a lot of possibilities.

[shiv]

I logically do not think any theory that can explain all points other than AMT - Occam's razor.

I believe you are guilty of being vague which exactly suits the theory you support. Which AMT do you subscribe to? Specifically, by what method has the source of Indo European langauges (also known as PIE) pinned down to a specific geograophic area? Where is that area? What was the route of migration? What are the timelines for migration? And finally what hard facts, also known as "attested proof" exists for any of these? I too am willing to believe your ideas if you can offer what no one, including Witzel has done.

Everyone has theories and everyone subscribes to one. But the facts available do not always fit in the absence of obfuscation and bluff.

[shiv]

shiv saar,

I would recommend the above article by Satya Swarup Misra (S.S. Misra) in the book "Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History".

It shows that Dravidian, Uralic and Indo-European are related. It also questions why Sanskrit cannot be considered the Proto-Indo-European language!

He places Rig Vedic Sanskrit to around 5,000 BCE!

Rajesh, read it I will because he has caused Witzel enough pain for the latter to bitch about him sarcastically in his compendium of mothers of all verbal diarrhoeas - this is what Witzel says about Misra as "evidence" against Autocthonous Aryans

No doubt due to his complete (self-imposed?) scholarly isolation at Benares. His (lone?) trip to an
international meeting in Dushanbe, duly noted in his introduction his 1992 book, provided him with some
contacts, -- unfortunately not the best ones,

[RajeshA]

SN_Rajan ji,

You seem to have a lot of automatic trust is various AIT personalities. Has that trust anything to do with their arguments or is it in reality based on your own need to believe? If it has to do with arguments, then we can surely take them up! If on the other hand it has to do with your beliefs, then you are of course entitled to them!

Let's take up 'nagara'!

Why should the absence of 'nagara' in early Sanskrit texts but presence in late Sanskrit texts not be considered as a corroboration of a posterior urbanization after the main Vedic phase was over, i.e. Saraswati-Sindhu Civilization (SSC, IVC) succeeded the Vedic Age?

RajesA Ji,

It is not just 'nagara'. It is all the points put together - which i have tried explian briefly my post.

If I can remember there weren't really that many arguments you offered. It was more on the lines of "I trust X, I trust Y, I trust Z"!

Your only other argument was about 'ayas'! It is not really clear what you wished to say! But 'ayas' is a general term for metal, and elsewhere (e.g. Atharvaveda) it is qualified sometimes with 'red' and sometimes with 'black'! Also its cognate in other Indo-European languages also refer to metal in general. In fact, the fact that iron is not mentioned specifically in Rig Veda, shows that it precedes the Iron Age in India.

So both your mentions actually debunks AMT! So if the two arguments you provided are in fact in favor of OIT, which arguments did you provide, which are in favor of AMT?

I logically do not think any theory that can explain all points other than AMT - Occam's razor.

That is the whole issue! There aren't really that many points AMT likes to take up! For example what does you Occam's razor speak of the question of Saraswati being a mighty river fed by glaciers in the mountains?

On the other hand we all believe in AMT, except that it is about the Aryans migrating Out-of-India and not the other way round!

And, no, i go by cold logic - i don't go by personalities. And, as i have mentioned in my old posts - i am comfortable with accepting that we all came from Africa, and before that monkeys.

Oh for most "modern" Hindus, it is really easy to believe in Out-of-Africa and Evolution! That does not provide any evidence of any openness to accept scientific evidence! People can believe in Out-of-Africa and Evolution, if the people they 'trust' vouch for it, regardless of the evidence! It is the other scientific theories, which have political implications like AIT vs. OIT, where the true colors become apparent. Then one begins to ignore scientific evidence and goes only for 'trusted' parties!

[RajeshA]

I am new to this forum and thread and I don't know the rules. But IMHO, you and likes of KLP ji have overstayed forum members welcome, at least as it relates to this specific thread.

AntuBarwa ji,

I would disagree. As long as one is polite and argues logically, one is more than welcome, regardless of opinion one may hold! I personally believe KLP Dubey ji has contributed much to the discussion bringing back the focus on what the Vedas really mean for the Hindus, and that one should not ignore that fact in this discussion. SN_Rajan ji is contributing in his own way in showing just how weak the AIT/AMT position really is!

[member_23630]

My 'test' of OIT vs AMT in simple words:

Good. You have an opinion that you are entitled to hold even if I disagree. There is only one thing in your post that caught my attention. You said:

My benchmark is IVC. The 'attested' date range for IVC is from 3300 BC to 300 BC

I would be interested in a source for these dates because this is the first time I am hearing these dates for an IVC that predates and post dates the dates for the Vedas as quoted by the AIT Nazis. But for me, these are "fun dates" that offer a lot of possibilities.

Sorry. My mistake/typo. Just edited my original post too.

I just referred to Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization

The Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) was a Bronze Age civilization (3300–1300 BCE; mature period 2600–1900 BCE) that was located in the northwestern region[1] of the Indian subcontinent,[2][3] consisting of what is now mainly present-day Pakistan and northwest India.[4] Flourishing around the Indus River basin, the civilization[n 1] extended east into the Ghaggar-Hakra River valley[8] and the upper reaches Ganges-Yamuna Doab;[9][10] it extended west to the Makran coast of Balochistan, north to northeastern Afghanistan and south to Daimabad in Maharashtra. The civilization was spread over some 1,260,000 km², making it the largest ancient civilization.

The Indus Valley is one of the world's earliest urban civilizations, along with its contemporaries, Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. At its peak, the Indus Civilization may have had a population of well over five million. Inhabitants of the ancient Indus river valley developed new techniques in handicraft (carnelian products, seal carving) and metallurgy (copper, bronze, lead, and tin). The civilization is noted for its cities built of brick, roadside drainage system, and multistoried houses.