Out-of-India - From Theory to Truth

disha · Post by **disha** » 31 Aug 2012 22:57

AntuBarwa wrote:SN Rajan... I read your last few posts and could not make sense of out of anything. Am I the only one in this conundrum?

Welcome AntuBarwa. No you are not the only one. If you were to spend more time with him you will realize you can do a piskological profile on him, you will get a profile of Rajan suffering from (with all due apologies to Rajan Sir)

a. Cognitive Dissonance. He has been brought up as a Sanskrit, Brahmin, Hindu hater and has been told that his "current" culture is superior to everything else. However his logical mind is telling him that what he currently has is inferior and actually comes from the superior culture, but is not able to digest that fact. I will not be surprised if Rajan Sir turns out to be a rice convert. OR

b. Schizophrenia. Rajan wants to make logical points and wants to view himself participating in logical discussion. But the other Rajan in him wants to make sure that AIT is what everybody accepts as the truth and without any dissidence., that will be illogical. This leads to eternal fight between logic and illogic or between dharma and adharma and he wants to find some salvation here.

Rajan Sir, very many apologies for doing a pisko on you. As I had told you earlier., please do your own homework - read all the pages and note down your points and present it here. Do not expect us to write it down for you to criticize it.

Rajeshji, I have found a map and passages from Keynoyer book that talks about Indus seals in Oman. It is a very hard proof point that trade happened between the then Oman and SIVC. Our horses could have come from there (and over sea route). Of course being imported items, they were as priced as currently imported Ferraris. I will upload images etc soon.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 31 Aug 2012 23:15

SN Rajan,

Terms such as Nazi and Sepoy have been used on this board based on specific criteria-

1) Behavior and attitude displayed by the referenced parties towards others who disagree with their positions (eg do they use terms such as Hindutvavadis for those against them; the behavior shown towards logical Anti-AIT arguments on the internet boards that they lead...)

2) Evidence of agenda-driven approach towards AIT/AMT rather than one based on dispassionate logic

3) Degree of fascist tendencies (eg in wanting to impose a certain version of history in education of school-kids, when the evidence for the theory are by no means conclusive)

The thread-owners and several of the long-standing participants of this thread have evaluated all evidence on these counts and believe that these epithets are justified. In case you don't agree with these terms - you are free to make your case as to which of these Nazi/Sepoy criteria they don't satisfy or alternatively find a board that is more conducive to your demands for political correctness.

Coming to the specific points that you raise, due to disruption from some quarters - the focus of this thread so far has been more on breaking the AIT argument rather than on making a detailed OIT case. Its surprising that you don't see that the AIT case has been very conclusively demolished by the several arguments that have appeared on the 100+ pages so far. Suggest you go through the pages again & jot down the various AIT dealbreakers listed. You could then come back to this thread with the specific dealbreaker that you don't agree with.

As regards Witzel's argument on 'ayas' etc do go through a document titled 'No scientific basis for the Aryan Invasion Theory' by TRS Prasanna that was posted earlier on this thread. You will find your answer there.

Coming to OIT, Shrikant Taligeri has a full-fledged OIT case made out in his book. You may want to go through the book and if there is a specific item in his theory that you don't agree with, feel free to raise it on this board.

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 31 Aug 2012 23:38

So you said some things that did not contribute to the thread, but imposed a workload on those who do. Then you got piled on. So you go on lurk mode and now come back with more of the same.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Sep 2012 01:59

Murugan wrote:Our Rishis not only had best hair, best beard also.
Dressing was very minimal, no extra energy was consumed by them and they had always worked for humanity and welfare of all beings irrespective of any genre these beings belonged.

The rishis also had the very best and sophisticated dress design aka Dhoti. The much cause for shivering that occurs in today SDRE. The design of the dhoti/saree is work of a genius. Looks very simplistic on the surface, but it can be used in various configurations from being elegant, to being ready for war fighting. Many wars were fought in the dhoti by the warriors and many grand upadeshas have been done while wearing dhoti.
The practical nature is so obvious:
1) The size of the waist increased/decreased because one had extra payasam or went on a diet - for various reasons, there is no need to make a run to the wardrobe collection to sort fitting clothes.
2) It is designed to accommodate the growth changes of the human body.
3) Saree- Maternity issues- no need to go on a shopping spree.
4) could be worn as similar to pants or any other style as desired.
5) Multi-purpose uses other than just for dressing.
6) Minimal wastage and less parts - less chance for weakest link in the chain.
Well next time some SDRE shivers in Dhoti, probably, it is due to being overwhelmed by the sophistication of the design.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 01 Sep 2012 02:10

^^^ JwalaMukhi ji,

For certain occasions, I love wearing the dhoti and kurta. But I have to say, in most other situations, kurta pockets seem to have been designed specifically to grab onto door-knobs. And dhotis to flash the public. Its possible that our ancestors must have been quite comfortable showing their inner thighs and even other parts, sort of like the "jhalaki darshan" in some temples in Vrindavan.

JwalaMukhi · Post by **JwalaMukhi** » 01 Sep 2012 02:15

Regarding flashing part, there are ways to wear it to either flash or not to flash.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 01 Sep 2012 02:16

Ahan!

That choice may have been a key decision in battlefield couture, I imagine.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 06:31

disha wrote:
AntuBarwa wrote:SN Rajan... I read your last few posts and could not make sense of out of anything. Am I the only one in this conundrum?
Welcome AntuBarwa. No you are not the only one. If you were to spend more time with him you will realize you can do a piskological profile on him, you will get a profile of Rajan suffering from (with all due apologies to Rajan Sir)

a. Cognitive Dissonance. He has been brought up as a Sanskrit, Brahmin, Hindu hater and has been told that his "current" culture is superior to everything else. However his logical mind is telling him that what he currently has is inferior and actually comes from the superior culture, but is not able to digest that fact. I will not be surprised if Rajan Sir turns out to be a rice convert. OR

b. Schizophrenia. Rajan wants to make logical points and wants to view himself participating in logical discussion. But the other Rajan in him wants to make sure that AIT is what everybody accepts as the truth and without any dissidence., that will be illogical. This leads to eternal fight between logic and illogic or between dharma and adharma and he wants to find some salvation here.

Rajan Sir, very many apologies for doing a pisko on you. As I had told you earlier., please do your own homework - read all the pages and note down your points and present it here. Do not expect us to write it down for you to criticize it.

Rajeshji, I have found a map and passages from Keynoyer book that talks about Indus seals in Oman. It is a very hard proof point that trade happened between the then Oman and SIVC. Our horses could have come from there (and over sea route). Of course being imported items, they were as priced as currently imported Ferraris. I will upload images etc soon.

Oh no, you don't have to apologize.

This is what i come to expect in this forum. And, this post also exemplifies mere sujective pisko passing up as crtical scientific analysis by many.

Just to avoid getting hatred kind of arguments: i am practicing Hindu, but also want to be scientific and rational, rather than simply going by my faith. After all, if west can tolerate a richard dawkins dissecting bible scientifically, why can't we tolerate and learn what we can and need to from Witzel and co.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 06:48

I think that to have a basis for talking about OIT or AIT it is important to look at
1. What every side says
2. Consider physical evidence that is present.

In terms of speculation, linguistic evidence used for chronology whether using models like PIE or whether textual evidence like astronomical observations cannot be "proven" because they refer to past events and issues. So if we have physical evidence, and theory we have must not contradict physical evidence.

As regards the age of Sanskrit which IMO plays a major role in talking of AIT or OIT, the only firm "evidence" of Sanskrit is written texts from 150 AD (assuming Manishji is right). Sanskrit cannot be proven to be older than 150 AD unless older evidence of its existence is found. This in itself makes the AIT speculation about Rig Veda 1200-900 BC as much speculation as anything else.

There appear to be at least 3 types of "evidence" that are offered
1. Direct evidence of a text that exists (assuming that the dating of the text is accurate) This would for example be Sanskrit text in 150 AD, Behistun from 300 BC and Mitanni from 1500 BC
2. The next level of "evidence" is to look at an available text and try and correlate it with existing archaeology, geography or astronomy
3. The third type of "evidence" - is the discredited technique of glottochronology which not must be used to prove something that can be disproved by other evidence. Judging the age of languages by sound change is not proof unless there is other evidence and only proof of existence of an old and datable text can be taken as definitive proof that a particular language existed at a particular time in history. Anything less and we are not talking about "evidnce It s only speculation.

To recap, there is no direct evidence that Sanskrit existed before 150 AD. But various people have used other parameters to date Sanskrit from 6000 BC to 900 BC. No physical proof exists for any of these dates for Sanskrit. If we can consider one date, we must consider them all as possibilities.

We have spent 100 pages talking only about the 1200 BC to 900 BC dating. Let us look at what else has been said and what is on offer.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 06:52

More on IVC and RV dating:

Per wiki, IVC dates are 3300 BCE to 300 BCE, i.e, about 3000 years of civilization. Population over 5 million. And, the Indus area. The Wiki is good. (well, OIT calls it SSC - not the scientific types).

Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, i.e., about 1000 years, with the standard immigration theory, with minimal overlap during the late/terminal phase of IVC.

Now, let's say RV is dated before IVC, then, that is going to be 4300 BCE, or let' say conservatively, to 3300 BCE (plus 1000 years), i.e., 3300 BCE to 2300 BCE.

Now, IE people could have been the IVC people. If so, how come the language, society, animals, cities/purs, etc, etc are very different from IVC and RV. See the writings of Witzel, Parpola, Mahadevan, etc. In fact, just a reading these two(RV and IVC) descriptions brings out the stark contrasts.

Not only, RV. After we also have Brahmanas, Upanisads, etc... literature all over thousands of years. If first RV itself pre-dates IVC, then some of the later RV works like AV, SV, YV, and these later works all would all known and talked about IVC. After all, one doesn't forget such a 5 million people civilization so many vedas and literature.

So, I will be very interested to see if some scientific peer evidence exists linking RV and IVC.

Or, we will go by, Witzel & co, as it seems the logical that IE people are different from IVC, and IE were nomadic migrants coming later.

Parpola and Mahaven works also clearly state that IVC spoke Dravidian, and Witzel says Dravidian plus Munda/Nihali, etc.

And, no please don't tell me that Parpola and Mahadevan are also Nazis, Racists, Pisko and some such subjective Pisko blah blah.

hanumadu · Post by **hanumadu** » 01 Sep 2012 06:53

SN_Rajan wrote:
Oh no, you don't have to apologize.

This is what i come to expect in this forum. And, this post also exemplifies mere sujective pisko passing up as crtical scientific analysis by many.

Just avoid getting hatred kind of arguments: i am practicing Hindu, but also want to be scientific and rational, rather than simply going by my faith. After all, if west can tolerate a richard dawkins dissecting bible scientifically, why can't we tolerate and learn what we can and need to from Witzel and co.

The key word here is 'scientifically'. Weasel is neither scientific nor honest. Why don't you follow what you preach and do a honest analysis of the information present in this thread instread of being an AIT Sepoy.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 07:03

SN_Rajan wrote:
Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE,

Do you have a link to a Witzel paper that says this? Witzel puts the latest date for Rig Veda as around 900 BC IIRC. But I am open to correction.

member_22872 · Post by **member_22872** » 01 Sep 2012 07:07

So, I will be very interested to see if some scientific peer evidence exists linking RV and IVC.
Or, we will go by, Witzel & co, as it seems the logical that IE people are different from IVC, and IE were nomadic migrants coming later.
Parpola and Mahaven works also clearly state that IVC spoke Dravidian, and Witzel says Dravidian plus Munda/Nihali, etc.

When you already concluded and are satisfied with their version. Go home happy, why this kolavari?

You already concluded SSC is not scientific for you, even though satellite imagery/Pb-Zr geological proof connects SSC to be the same as IVC if that proof is not good enough, stick with what you know, you know better, we have lot of time to kill, so have wasted 100+ pages discussing crap. All power to you.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 07:19

There appear to be at least 3 types of "evidence" that are offered
1. Direct evidence of a text that exists (assuming that the dating of the text is accurate) This would for example be Sanskrit text in 150 AD, Behistun from 300 BC and Mitanni from 1500 BC
2. The next level of "evidence" is to look at an available text and try and correlate it with existing archaeology, geography or astronomy
3. The third type of "evidence" - is the discredited technique of glottochronology which not must be used to prove something that can be disproved by other evidence. Judging the age of languages by sound change is not proof unless there is other evidence and only proof of existence of an old and datable text can be taken as definitive proof that a particular language existed at a particular time in history. Anything less and we are not talking about "evidnce It s only speculation.

Another of your fine post Shiv-Ji

On Evidence type #2: In addition to the trio of Horse, Wheel and Chariot, i see that Witzel also emphasizes on Bronze and Iron Age, again which would be based on Archeological correlation. So, i see no reason ti dispute that - i hope we are not going to start trashing archeologists and carbon dating now

Again quoting the Witzel's paper the dates section:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf

§ 3. Dates
An approximation to an absolute dating of Vedic texts, however, can be reached by the
following considerations:5
(1.) The gveda whose geographical horizon is limited to the Panjab and its
surroundings does not yet know of iron but only of the hard metal copper/bronze (W. Rau
1974, 1983; ayas = Avest. aiiah 'copper/bronze'). Since iron is only found later on in Vedic
texts (it is called, just as in Drav. *cir-umpu), the ''black metal'' (śyåma, ka ayas) and as
makes its appearance in S. Asia only by c. 1200 or 1000 BCE,6 the RV must be earlier than
that.7 The RV also does not know of large cities such as that of the Indus civilization but only
of ruins (armaka, Falk 1981) and of small forts (pur, Rau 1976). Therefore, it must be later
than the disintegration of the Indus cities in the Panjab, at c. 1900 BCE A good, possible date
ad quem would be that of the Mitanni documents of N. Iraq/Syria of c. 1400 BCE that
mention the gvedic gods and some other Old IA words (however, in a form slightly
preceding that of the RV).8
(2.) The Mantra language texts (AV etc.) whose geographical horizon stretches from
Bactria (Balhika) to Aga (NW Bengal) mention iron for the first time and therefore should
be contemporaneous or slightly rather later than 1200/1000 BCE.
(3.) The YV Sahitå prose texts have a narrow horizon focusing on Haryana, U.P. and
the Chambal area; they and (4a.) the early Br. texts seem to overlap in geographical spread
and cultural inventory with the archaeologically attested Painted Gray Ware culture, an elite
pottery ware of the nobility, and may therefore be dated after c. 1200 BCE (until c. 800 BCE).
(4b.) The end of the Vedic period is marked by the spread of the Vedic culture of the
confederate Kuru-Pañcåla state of Haryana/U.P. (but generally, not of its people) eastwards
into Bihar (ŚB, late AB, etc.) and by a sudden widening of the geographical horizon to an area
from Gandhåra to Andhra (Witzel 1989). This is, again, matched by the sudden emergence
of the NBP luxury ware (700-300 BCE, Kennedy 1995: 229) and the emergence of the first
eastern kingdoms such as Kosala (but not yet of Magadha, that still is off limits to Brahmins).
The early Upaniads precede the date of the Buddha, now considered to be around 400 BCE
(Bechert 1982, 1991 sqq.), of Mahåvīra, and of the re-emergence of cities around 450 BCE
(Erdosy 1988). In short, the period of the four Vedas seems to fall roughly between c. 1500
BCE9 and c. 500 BCE. (For other and quite divergent dates and considerations, see below §
11 sqq).

On Evidence Type #3: Again, i believe linguistics as science that can say the predecessor and successor languages and words. It may not be 100% perfect like pure mathematics. However, that won't changes any this relative 'positioning' of languages and dates - i am just calling it relative 'positioning' as opposed to actual 'dating' as that needs to come from evidence type 1 and type 2. But, basically, i believe their relating dating.

OT 1: I was also reading up Wiki on Dravidian languages, and the standard understanding that Tamil is the mother language, and, all other Dravidian languages are derived from it, etc(like the IOT proposition that Sanskrit is the mother of all IE, and langues came from it), just becuase Tamil and Sanskirt are supposed to be old/oldest. However, the scientific linguistic theory has proto-dravidian as well, and how the different Dravidian languages developed over a period of time.

OT1: Also, voice recognition works in my phone. Siri is so cool. Narration is good read/listen tons of stuff. I think linguistics as a field has come up a long way.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 07:32

shiv wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote:
Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE,
Do you have a link to a Witzel paper that says this? Witzel puts the latest date for Rig Veda as around 900 BC IIRC. But I am open to correction.

Sure, Shiv-Ji. I just linked it my previous post. Here it is again.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf
(Section $3. 4b)

Btw, this is main paper i keep referring back. As it seems almost all arguments came up already, discussed in scholarly manner here(with further references/foot notes).

I hit upon this paper when first did googling on OIT vs AIT, and the debates in 'The Hindu' and 'The Frontline' and i read all of them in 1 sitting

And, developed allergy to our pseudo-scintifc OIT Wallas.

Btw, those links are also below:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... r-veda.htm
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewitzel/opinion.htm

Also, there is an excellent paper on sub-strata:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... trates.pdf
(after reading you get the picture layers upon layers like earth excavation layer view - he starts from what - aboriginals ! )

And, his home page is:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm
Know your enemy well

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 07:34

SN_Rajan wrote: On Evidence type #2: In addition to the trio of Horse, Wheel and Chariot, i see that Witzel also emphasizes on Bronze and Iron Age, again which would be based on Archeological correlation. So, i see no reason ti dispute that - i hope we are not going to start trashing archeologists and carbon dating now

Rajan let me first accuse you of being a a troll because you have read most of my posts and you are now attempting to taunt me with the needless statement

i hope we are not going to start trashing archeologists and carbon dating now

You see, I am also a skilled forum troll and I often aim to out-troll trolls. If you can leave out bullshit like the taunt you have made we might have a discussion. You are already on my ignore list but I will show you some courtesy in reading your posts. If they contain taunts aimed at me you are welcome to keep posting, but I will not be reading your posts. You are welcome to keep devouring my posts if you think they are fine posts. Not my concern.

I have a quite from a Witzel paper that says Iron age in India started around 1000 BC so 900 BC is probably the latest date he can put on the Rig veda. I have no dispute with that. I dispute the earlier date of 1200 BC. I see nothing in the linguistic evidence that proves that the Sanskrit did not exist earlier than that.

There is nothing in the Indus Valley civilization that tells us what language was spoken by the people. No one has unambiguously identified the language.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 07:48

shiv wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote: On Evidence type #2: In addition to the trio of Horse, Wheel and Chariot, i see that Witzel also emphasizes on Bronze and Iron Age, again which would be based on Archeological correlation. So, i see no reason ti dispute that - i hope we are not going to start trashing archeologists and carbon dating now

Rajan let me first accuse you of being a a troll because you have read most of my posts and you are now attempting to taunt me with the needless statement
i hope we are not going to start trashing archeologists and carbon dating now
You see, I am also a skilled forum troll and I often aim to out-troll trolls. If you can leave out bullshit like the taunt you have made we might have a discussion. You are already on my ignore list but I will show you some courtesy in reading your posts. If they contain taunts aimed at me you are welcome to keep posting, but I will not be reading your posts. You are welcome to keep devouring my posts if you think they are fine posts. Not my concern.

I have a quite from a Witzel paper that says Iron age in India started around 1000 BC so 900 BC is probably the latest date he can put on the Rig veda. I have no dispute with that. I dispute the earlier date of 1200 BC. I see nothing in the linguistic evidence that proves that the Sanskrit did not exist earlier than that.

There is nothing in the Indus Valley civilization that tells us what language was spoken by the people. No one has unambiguously identified the language.

Shiv-Ji,

Apologies if you feel I am trying to taunt you or anybody. That's certainly not the case.

However, i feel certain amount indiscriminate trashing is happening on opposing views(again, not accusing you personally) - just a general statement, and i just use some rhetric to drive home the point. that's all. i will be more restrained.

on IVC language, well, nothing 100% conclusive on the language. The best available advice is Parpola, and he says it Dravidian. And, i have not seen anyone saying IE. That's why i am saying IVC is big elephant in the room.

If RV is pre-dated, then the later RV works, or other Vedsa(YV, SV, AV) and further works, would have been contemporary to IVC, and would have said some something about it - after all it is such large civilization both in population and gergraphical wise.

That also needs to corroborated with Bronze Age and Iron Age dating.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 07:52

Shiv wrote:I have a quite from a Witzel paper that says Iron age in India started around 1000 BC so 900 BC is probably the latest date he can put on the Rig veda. I have no dispute with that. I dispute the earlier date of 1200 BC. I see nothing in the linguistic evidence that proves that the Sanskrit did not exist earlier than that.

Hm - his conclusion is at the end of Section 3.
In short, the period of the four Vedas seems to fall roughly between c. 1500 BCE and c. 500 BCE.

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Sep 2012 07:55

SN_Rajan wrote:Btw, this is main paper i keep referring back.

Did you take the trouble of going through TRS Prasanna's response relating to the 'ayas' argument?

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 07:58

venug wrote:
So, I will be very interested to see if some scientific peer evidence exists linking RV and IVC.
Or, we will go by, Witzel & co, as it seems the logical that IE people are different from IVC, and IE were nomadic migrants coming later.
Parpola and Mahaven works also clearly state that IVC spoke Dravidian, and Witzel says Dravidian plus Munda/Nihali, etc.
When you already concluded and are satisfied with their version. Go home happy, why this kolavari?

You already concluded SSC is not scientific for you, even though satellite imagery/Pb-Zr geological proof connects SSC to be the same as IVC if that proof is not good enough, stick with what you know, you know better, we have lot of time to kill, so have wasted 100+ pages discussing crap. All power to you.

Venug-Ji:

Maybe can you just please pass that URL of that satellite evidence that you mention on SSC. i have not come across the one you that you might be mentioning.

Btw, Witzel said something might related to it in 2001. Same paper section 11.2

Further, in spite of the stress on the 'hard sciences', all too frequently 'scientific
facts' are quoted which, on closer observation, are not hard facts at all. For example, an
unsuspecting reader may take for granted that "LANDSAT photos show the drying up of the
Sarasvatī river in 1900 BCE" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995). But LANDSAT or aerial photos
cannot by themselves indicate historical dates. (For an update, with much more cautious
claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999).

But, maybe your reference is different and is more scientific and conclusive. Please share it.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 08:05

shiv wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote:
Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE,
Do you have a link to a Witzel paper that says this? Witzel puts the latest date for Rig Veda as around 900 BC IIRC. But I am open to correction.

SN_Rajan wrote:Sure, Shiv-Ji. I just linked it my previous post. Here it is again.
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/%7Ewi ... VS-7-3.pdf
(Section $3. 4b)

Sir you have misquoted Witzel. This is what he says in the 118 page paper

In short, the period of the four Vedas seems to fall roughly between c. 1500
BCE9 and c. 500 BCE.

He has dated all Vedas up to 500 BC. Not just Rig Veda

There is no physical proof of Sanskrit having existed as a language till 150 AD just as there is no physical proof of Mycenaean Greek having existed before 1800 BC. To that extent whatever Witzel says is his analysis. Those who agree with him are welcome to do that. I am not sure I agree with his analysis for reasons I have stated earlier in this thread.

Witzel is not my enemy. I may disagree with his views and may be bitterly critical of his doggedly ignoring physical evidence and hiding behind linguistic "evidence" about which I have my own views.

I realize that Witzel is an authority and I am a nobody in this area. That is what makes it ironic and funny. The authority is unconvincing. Authorities who are unconvincing even if they are telling the truth is a situation where all sorts of alternate fairy tales can become mainstream. But to prevent that Witzel has to be more convincing. He is not. The onus is on him to get his act together and not on me to show belief and faith in Witzel. No one is under pressure to believe what I write. If anyone pays attention to what I say, he does so at his own risk.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 08:13

SN_Rajan wrote:
Shiv wrote:I have a quite from a Witzel paper that says Iron age in India started around 1000 BC so 900 BC is probably the latest date he can put on the Rig veda. I have no dispute with that. I dispute the earlier date of 1200 BC. I see nothing in the linguistic evidence that proves that the Sanskrit did not exist earlier than that.
Hm - his conclusion is at the end of Section 3.
In short, the period of the four Vedas seems to fall roughly between c. 1500 BCE and c. 500 BCE.

This is indeed what Witzel wrote.

But this is what you wrote

SN_Rajan wrote:
Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE,

You have misread Witzel and have posted that quote without reading. A small error and excusable maybe. But I see linguists theories as a series of small errors that have been excused for too long. You see, in this line 500 years is tossed around like we might lose or gain one minute. That allows a lot of bluffing to take place.

And in a 118 page document your error in quoting Witzel would not have been picked up unless one actually has read some of what Witzel writes. He writes a lot. Even more than me and I welcome people to pick holes in what I write as I pick holes in what others write

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 08:45

SN_Rajan wrote: Btw, Witzel said something might related to it in 2001. Same paper section 11.2

Further, in spite of the stress on the 'hard sciences', all too frequently 'scientific
facts' are quoted which, on closer observation, are not hard facts at all. For example, an
unsuspecting reader may take for granted that "LANDSAT photos show the drying up of the
Sarasvatī river in 1900 BCE" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995). But LANDSAT or aerial photos
cannot by themselves indicate historical dates. (For an update, with much more cautious
claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999).

Witzel is 100% right here. The only objection I have is that he does not apply the same crticism to his own writing. Much of what he says are not "hard facts" and he says so much that it is equally easy for me to quote a 100 page Witzel paper and declare it as trash as it might be for someone else to quote the same paper and declare it as all accurate.

For this reason I believe that we have to reach our own judgements. Some people may want to believe Witzel and others may want to believe what someone else says. Neither party has hard facts. What fascinates me about such a situation in which "scholars" are arguing sans facts is that even I can come up with theories minus hard facts especially when I can play with dates of +/- 500 to 1000 years. The field is a free for all, which is so so different from the sciences.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 01 Sep 2012 09:30

May I point out an observation I have made about Witzel's works?

Here is a quote from Witzel that was posted above

Further, in spite of the stress on the 'hard sciences', all too frequently 'scientific
facts' are quoted which, on closer observation, are not hard facts at all. For example, an
unsuspecting reader may take for granted that "LANDSAT photos show the drying up of the
Sarasvatī river in 1900 BCE" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995). But LANDSAT or aerial photos
cannot by themselves indicate historical dates. (For an update, with much more cautious
claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999).

See teh way he mentions cross references?
" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995)"
" (For an update, with much more cautious claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999)."

Cross references and sources are mentioned in a casual, cavalier fashion like something one might have heard at last night's cocktail dinner. This may appear very scholarly to some, but in fact it is rubbish. When you post a cross refercne it has to be quoted accurately. Witzel seems to quote articles (sometimes his own) with a year of publication and no name of journal or book

Here is an example medical paper and how references are normally posted in peer reviewed scientific journals:
http://www.la-press.com/redirect_file.p ... leType=pdf
Ref no 4, taken at random is:

Luksza L, Homziuk M, Nowakowska-Klimek M, Glasner L, Iwaszkiewicz-
Bilikiewicz. Traumatic hyphaema caused by eye injuries. Klin Oczna.
2005;107(4–6):250–1.

Look at any Witzel publication and you find Witzel fdoing this. So what's wrong with this? What happens is it adds to the difficulty in cross checking information. When Witzel refers to himself as (Witzel, 2001) you have no easy way of actuall finding out the specific work that he has quoted. nd when you find it, it has even more quotes of the same type.

Do I hold this against Harvard Prof Witzel?

Yeah. You're damned right I do.

ShauryaT · Post by **ShauryaT** » 01 Sep 2012 09:33

Where has Subhash Kak stated that it is Landsat pictures that prove 1900 BCE as the proof for the drying of Sarasvati?

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 09:54

You have misread Witzel and have posted that quote without reading. A small error and excusable maybe. But I see linguists theories as a series of small errors that have been excused for too long. You see, in this line 500 years is tossed around like we might lose or gain one minute. That allows a lot of bluffing to take place.

And in a 118 page document your error in quoting Witzel would not have been picked up unless one actually has read some of what Witzel writes. He writes a lot. Even more than me and I welcome people to pick holes in what I write as I pick holes in what others write

Yes, Shiv Ji. It was mistake on my part - excusable maybe

He mentioned that date range for all 4 vedas - not just RV.

However, how does it change the big picture? Even as per this the earliest date for RV is 1500 BCE. In my last few posts, i was trying contrast this with IVC dates(and language), and Bronze and Iron Age dates - in addition to the already hot trio of horse, wheel and chariot.

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 09:57

shiv wrote:May I point out an observation I have made about Witzel's works?

Here is a quote from Witzel that was posted above
Further, in spite of the stress on the 'hard sciences', all too frequently 'scientific
facts' are quoted which, on closer observation, are not hard facts at all. For example, an
unsuspecting reader may take for granted that "LANDSAT photos show the drying up of the
Sarasvatī river in 1900 BCE" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995). But LANDSAT or aerial photos
cannot by themselves indicate historical dates. (For an update, with much more cautious
claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999).
See teh way he mentions cross references?
" (Kak 1994, cf. S.P. Gupta 1995)"
" (For an update, with much more cautious claims by scientists, see now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999)."

Cross references and sources are mentioned in a casual, cavalier fashion like something one might have heard at last night's cocktail dinner. This may appear very scholarly to some, but in fact it is rubbish. When you post a cross refercne it has to be quoted accurately. Witzel seems to quote articles (sometimes his own) with a year of publication and no name of journal or book

Here is an example medical paper and how references are normally posted in peer reviewed scientific journals:
http://www.la-press.com/redirect_file.p ... leType=pdf
Ref no 4, taken at random is:
Luksza L, Homziuk M, Nowakowska-Klimek M, Glasner L, Iwaszkiewicz-
Bilikiewicz. Traumatic hyphaema caused by eye injuries. Klin Oczna.
2005;107(4–6):250–1.
Look at any Witzel publication and you find Witzel fdoing this. So what's wrong with this? What happens is it adds to the difficulty in cross checking information. When Witzel refers to himself as (Witzel, 2001) you have no easy way of actuall finding out the specific work that he has quoted. nd when you find it, it has even more quotes of the same type.

Do I hold this against Harvard Prof Witzel?

Yeah. You're damned right I do.

Wow, that's quite a harsh statement to make for a standard Harvard style citation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parenthetical_referencing

member_23630 · Post by **member_23630** » 01 Sep 2012 10:35

Arjun wrote:
SN_Rajan wrote:Btw, this is main paper i keep referring back.
Did you take the trouble of going through TRS Prasanna's response relating to the 'ayas' argument?

Arjun Ji,

I just read the section on 'ayas'. Basically, he tries to pre-date RV by saying it is not smelted iron but actually iron ore. What can i say

In general, Iron Age refers using the processed iron, not just finding iron ore. Well, If we can stretch this argument it bit, it might even refer to Iron Ore in mother earth(like PC says for coal

), and then we can date RV much much before...

Anyways, i find this as another ingenious argument much like the 'domesticated horse with bit' vs the wild horse( or was it donkey) that was referred in RV !

Thank you anyways for the paper - i will read again sometime.

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 01 Sep 2012 10:44

SN_Rajan wrote:

on IVC language, well, nothing 100% conclusive on the language. The best available advice is Parpola, and he says it Dravidian. And, i have not seen anyone saying IE. That's why i am saying IVC is big elephant in the room.

If RV is pre-dated, then the later RV works, or other Vedsa(YV, SV, AV) and further works, would have been contemporary to IVC, and would have said some something about it - after all it is such large civilization both in population and gergraphical wise.

That also needs to corroborated with Bronze Age and Iron Age dating.

Can you explain your reasoning why Parpola is the best advice and what proof does he have that IVC spoke dravidian? Is he able to read the seals?

How would you determine if Literature is describing IVC? Do they describe any other archeological cities from 1500bc to 500bc time period?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 Sep 2012 10:50

SN_Rajan ji, kindly do not bother Shivji with my stand.

Archeology and Carbon Dating are art and not science is my stand. Especially so with Archeology. Isotope dating has certainly advanced but if I gathered it right there was a time when supplying dates to the labs before they had put out their data was practiced. Kind of like a Linguist passing up a Pharra/Notes to an examinee.

With Archeology you basically want us to believe that things that were definately not preserved for the benefit of the Archeologist in the first place can be startified and we have had cases of Axes being found in Tamil Nadu and fantastic Grave structures being passed up for evidence. If this is science then WTH are fine arts for.

Also kindly notice I did mention that Archeology is an Art implying thereby that with discipline in data sets analysis they can reach some acceptable conclusions, like for example find an excess of SIVC seals in other parts of the world makes you think. But without discipline Archeologist are just as blind. I mean going strictly by Archeology. There was nothing before & then between 'Narmada Man'

and Lithics. And then people who used rocks did nothing else but eat game and chip rocks. Yeh right! thats science. All history indeed started 6000 or 7500 years back.

But SN_Rajan ji I promise you, I will not loose patience with you and will try to learn from you too.

RE. your query regarding OIT timelines. Notice that even after two pages of your first putting up this query people are not answering it. Let me guess most do not know. Only to be expected from a bunch that is waiting for some discipline bound studies to throw more light. I am a moodha agyani type so I will stick my neck out:

All the people who ever lived in history and who had largely the same kind of genetic structure and brain size as yours and mine were intelligent enough to understand thing well enough and thus OIT is tied up with the genetic movements. Which implies that language as we know it today, has been around for something like 50k probably even 80k ybp (The earliest dates are hidden in time and I am afraid will require the intervention of God Shiva. Scientific discipline of Archeology will not be much help here). And if all these people had at least a language if not more, then they had something to talk about too. 'Something' as in whatever they needed to get bye in life and quite unlike what is your understanding of what is needed thusly. Also I know I do not know much so dates I will not be able to confirm but yes ideas mentioned in RV are some of the earliest ideas. The difference between the essense of the unrecorded start of RV and the 'Dreaming' of the Abrogines could be as simple as the linguistic discipline that was used to enhance and propogate the two practices. RV being a Sanskrit interpretation of Brahmanaad had a clear head start and people to this day benefit from the message and 'Dreaming' being in Prakrits was lost for the most part and whatever remains will be lost simply by loss of the people who were supposed to have taken care of it. I guess karma is a biatch.

Added later:

About SIVC seals being Sanskrit or not well I do not have any proof, so I cannot claim its Sanskrit. Nor do I need it to be. I will be quite happy if Sanskrit is used only by forest bound Rishi & Rishikas. Also since you are so insistent on SIVC seals being everything except Sanskrit. I think I will muddy the waters for you. What proof do you have that it is everthing other then Sanskrit. Yes I know you have citations but I am asking for proof. Big difference.

member_23686 · Post by **member_23686** » 01 Sep 2012 10:54

SN_Rajan wrote:More on IVC and RV dating:

Per wiki, IVC dates are 3300 BCE to 300 BCE, i.e, about 3000 years of civilization. Population over 5 million. And, the Indus area. The Wiki is good. (well, OIT calls it SSC - not the scientific types).

Now, per Witzel, RV is dated 1500 BCE to 500 BCE, i.e., about 1000 years, with the standard immigration theory, with minimal overlap during the late/terminal phase of IVC.

Now, let's say RV is dated before IVC, then, that is going to be 4300 BCE, or let' say conservatively, to 3300 BCE (plus 1000 years), i.e., 3300 BCE to 2300 BCE.

Now, IE people could have been the IVC people. If so, how come the language, society, animals, cities/purs, etc, etc are very different from IVC and RV. See the writings of Witzel, Parpola, Mahadevan, etc. In fact, just a reading these two(RV and IVC) descriptions brings out the stark contrasts.

Not only, RV. After we also have Brahmanas, Upanisads, etc... literature all over thousands of years. If first RV itself pre-dates IVC, then some of the later RV works like AV, SV, YV, and these later works all would all known and talked about IVC. After all, one doesn't forget such a 5 million people civilization so many vedas and literature.

So, I will be very interested to see if some scientific peer evidence exists linking RV and IVC.

Or, we will go by, Witzel & co, as it seems the logical that IE people are different from IVC, and IE were nomadic migrants coming later.

Parpola and Mahaven works also clearly state that IVC spoke Dravidian, and Witzel says Dravidian plus Munda/Nihali, etc.

And, no please don't tell me that Parpola and Mahadevan are also Nazis, Racists, Pisko and some such subjective Pisko blah blah.

Rajan ji, given your faith in pir reviewed scientific jernails, I assume that they translated IVC script

Murugan · Post by **Murugan** » 01 Sep 2012 11:01

Oldest rigved manuscripts : 1464 AD

Exercise of dating vedas is distracting and misguiding if they are done with the help of vidvaans who have ignoble and anarya ways of living and teaching and doubtful background. Cant be trusted.

Imho, we have to make independent enquiry on our own without giving any weightage to arrogant manuscript smugglers

member_23686 · Post by **member_23686** » 01 Sep 2012 11:03

ravi_g wrote:
Archeology and Carbon Dating are art and not science is my stand. Especially so with Archeology. Isotope dating has certainly advanced but if I gathered it right there was a time when supplying dates to the labs before they had put out their data was practiced. Kind of like a Linguist passing up a Pharra/Notes to an examinee.

With Archeology you basically want us to believe that things that were definately not preserved for the benefit of the Archeologist in the first place can be startified and we have had cases of Axes being found in Tamil Nadu and fantastic Grave structures being passed up for evidence. If this is science then WTH are fine arts for.

Also kindly notice I did mention that Archeology is an Art implying thereby that with discipline in data sets analysis they can reach some acceptable conclusions, like for example find an excess of SIVC seals in other parts of the world makes you think. But without discipline Archeologist are just as blind. I mean going strictly by Archeology. There was nothing before & then between 'Narmada Man' and Lithics. And then people who used rocks did nothing else but eat game and chip rocks. Yeh right! thats science. All history indeed started 6000 or 7500 years back.

Ravi ji, I believe that archeology would be more scientific if we dig enough. Given the size and timeline of Bhartiya civilization we need more archeological sites and bigger budgets.

ukumar · Post by **ukumar** » 01 Sep 2012 11:18

SN_Rajan wrote: Or, we will go by, Witzel & co, as it seems the logical that IE people are different from IVC, and IE were nomadic migrants coming later.

Ranajanji, I am interested to know your logic behind this conclusion. It is obvious that people who wrote Rigveda did not describe IVC. Lets also assume that they were after IVC. How do you conclude that they were migrant? How do you know that IVC were not IE people predating Rigveda? Can you explain it without first assuming that IE came to India from Kurgan?

Arjun · Post by **Arjun** » 01 Sep 2012 11:22

SN_Rajan wrote:I just read the section on 'ayas'. Basically, he tries to pre-date RV by saying it is not smelted iron but actually iron ore. What can i say

SN Rajan,

For someone who makes grandiose claims of 'scientific honesty' - your statement above is astonishingly intellectually dishonest.

There are at least 4 different arguments used in that Ayas section of Prasanna's article:

1. Krishna Ayas literally refers to 'black metal'. That is the direct translation of the phrase. On what basis does one translate this to meaning 'smelted iron ore' ? There have been archeological finds of objects made of black iron ore as far back as 2600 BC - and there is absolutely no basis to reject the suggestion that krishna ayas could have referred to these objects.

2. Witzel's date anyway goes for a toss - based on the recent dating of archeological smelted iron ore in Ganga plains to 1800 BC

3. The Ganga smelted iron ore finds and the type and quantity of these finds indicate that the core technological advancement of iron ore smelting must have occured much earlier. So the argument is that, as in the modern period - there is often huge time lag between the introduction of a particular technological know-how and its mass acceptance in society. If the evidence of mass acceptance in society dates back to 1800 BC, how much further back can we go for the initial introduction of the technological know-how?

4. Edwin Bryant (a widely known Indologist) has been quoted as saying that the ayas evidence is NOT conclusive. Leading Indian archeologists - Chakrabarti & Tiwari have been quoted for their views that dismiss Witzel's claims. Lahiri (a leading historian) is quoted disagreeing with Witzel. On what basis do you claim that Witzel is right and all these other worthies are wrong?

member_20317 · Post by **member_20317** » 01 Sep 2012 11:32

dharmaraj ji, pranaam (interesting choice of handle, congrats)

Yes I do agree Archeologists have shown a much better understanding of Science compared to linguists. But their problem quite like that of the rest of the world is that things were never meant to be kept for benefit of analysis as a time-capsule and since you have only a highly limited set of data you can reach strange conclusions. Like for example you have a Rock Silbatta in your home to grind masalas so if you find one in say SIVC what kinds of conclusions would you like to draw therefrom. Archeology is limited by a lot of theorising which in turn depend on a lot of assumptions. So basically it is 'x' assumption against 'y'. Implements of different metals can be found even today. So does that mean metal ages started bang XYZ date attested by Harvard and runs till date say a duration of Bronze=5600 years and Iron=3500 years. And if it so then why cannot these ages be taken a like duration before the earliest found Bronze and Iron relic.

Do Earliest Relics == Earliest Usage. What if the earlier maal is simply reused and consumed due to normal depreciative wear and tear (Added later : even more plausible is recycled) and when the supply exceeded demand then these implements just got thrown out after a normal useful life and that is what the Archeologist found.

Nonetheless I do agree Archeologists are a considerably better set of people then certain other kinds of people.

KLP Dubey · Post by **KLP Dubey** » 01 Sep 2012 11:41

RajeshA wrote:AIT-Sepoy Rajesh Kochhar in his book made the case that Afghanistan-Eastern Iran is better suited to be the area where Rig Veda was written.

One reason he offered was that the Soma plant which some have identified with the Ephedra plant does not grow in Punjab or India generally, but it grows in Afghanistan and Iran region.

Haoma (Soma) I Botany: Encyclopedia Iranica
Haoma (Soma) II Rituals: Encyclopedia Iranica

However Shrikant Talageri in his book "The Rigveda - A Historical Analysis"! sends Rajesh Kochhar for a six!

Both Kochhar and Talageri are purveyors of utter tripe and nonsense. Just when you think one of them couldn't be any greater an idiot, the other one immediately tries to outdo him with even more ridiculous claims and "brilliant" theories.

The "meaning" of the Rgveda is ONLY in the correct utterance of its sounds. There is no history, geography, botany, or zoology in the Veda. These are humanly-derived subjects. The sounds of the Veda represent the Rules/Laws of Nature.

KL

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Sep 2012 12:05

Dear Thread-Lovers,

I would like to urge everybody to not indulge in either name-calling or creating psychological profiles of other BRF members. This thread deserves better than to be a repository of psycho-analysis of individual members. For someone to be worthy of psycho-analysis one has to have accomplished much more in their lives and made a bigger name for themselves outside BRF like the worthies of Harvard and who are given considerations for Padma Bhushans for their stellar work in derecognizing Indian achievements.

We here on BRF are SDRE nobodies and therefore do not deserve to be made the subjects of psycho-analysis on this thread. This thread is there to honor those who have a name outside BRF!

The 'official' position is that anybody without a worthy resumé obtained outside BRF posting here is neither AIT-Nazi or AIT-Sepoy! AIT-Nazis would not dare post here

, because they may lose their chaddi. Any BRFite posting here who is less than convinced of the "Indigenist"/OIT position, is simply that.

AIT-Nazis and AIT-Sepoys have been spreading so much AIT-Maya in India for so long, that it is to be expected that many Indians would be convinced of the AIT-position. This is not necessary culpability in the AIT-agenda. To be harsh, it is simply an affliction, and perhaps we can help cure our inquisitive visitors of it. Most probably we wouldn't, and even if we can't many passive readers may profit from the gyaan posted here.

Thanks for your cooperation!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Sep 2012 12:09

KPL Dubey ji,

Could you perhaps have a look at the following possible view, and see if that is allowed from your perspective? Thank you!

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Sep 2012 12:31

SN_Rajan ji,

welcome to the thread and thanks for your fresh look at it!

1) From your posts, I have the impression that you are presuming we have not gone into the various arguments that the AIT-Nazis throw at us. I would urge you to read through the thread and if you see something which has gone unanswered please do point it out! You are welcome to ask for help if you are not making progress in your search here.

2) Please desist from making any untoward innuendos towards the believers in Indigenism or OIT! I would urge you to stick to the subject matter and debate it with a more serious disposition. Light banter is however welcome!

2) Quoting Wikipedia here is really useless as on controversial issues it is more a meter for activism than any objective study. However Wikipedia itself refers to various studies and articles and we are here more than willing to discuss them as long as they have not been discussed previously thread-bare.

3) Arjun ji has summarized the reasons why some people have earned themselves the epithets AIT-Nazis and AIT-Sepoys! They have been calling anti-AIT stance by various names - Hindu fundamentalists, Hindu fascists, Hindu nationalists, Hindutvavadis, etc and thus ignoring all arguments coming from the Indigenist/OIT-camp. and they have been doing this for quite some time now. They have drawn first blood. So it is time they themselves also receive some honors from us!