Re: a discussion on OIT

From: koenraad_elst
Message: 58841
Date: 2008-05-25

--- In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "Francesco Brighenti" <frabrig@...>
wrote:
>
> this update is apparently based on Shrikant
> Talageri's forthcoming book, which you (as you recently revealed to
> us on this List) have proofread, but which is not in print yet.
>

The essence of it is already in his book The Rigveda, a Historical
Analysis (Aditya Prakashan, Delhi 2000), but the forthcoming one is
better argued and far more complete in its presentation of data. I
have also learned some unconventional insights into early Indian
toponymy from a European academic indologist who understandably
prefers not be named. But if ever the opinion tide turns, I'll give
him public credit.


> Your argument seemingly mainly rests on the following thesis, which
> I quote verbatim from your post:
>
> > ...we must face the pieces of evidence that we already have.
> > One of these is the geographical information in the RV, which is
> > plentiful and consistently points in only one [sic! -- Francesco]
> > direction: the RV people were familiar with the western Ganga
> > plain (Uttar Pradesh), had settled between Yamuna and Saraswati
> > (Haryana), and later expanded into Panjab and ventured beyond the
> > Indus into Afghanistan...
>
> ...which constitute a complete reversal of what Vedic scholars (the
> greatest majority of them) have been maintaining for the last
> hundred years -- up to very recent times, with adding on new and
> more detailed analyses of the geography of the Rigveda.

I am perfectly aware that the thesis I presented is supported by a
minority of only very few. That's the usual fate of newcomer
theories, but in this case it is also aggravated by the negative
political connotations the OIT has acquired. It doesn't matter,
eventually the evidence will prevail.

> I guess the
> scenario sketched in your post rests on Talageri's new book,
> especially when you sum up the chronology of Rigvedic hymns in the
> following manner:
>
> > old: book 6,3,7;
> > middle: 2,4;
> > late: 5,1,8,9,10.
>
> This is, however, yet to be proved, and we will see the reactions
> to, and the reviews of Talageri's new book when it comes out.
>

It is in expectation of the reactions that I sent in this little
summary of the latest OIT developments. For the AIT to be supported
by the Rg-Veda, someone should at least prove that the fairly Afghan-
centred book 8 is the oldest. Let us see.


> In the meantime, please allow me to express my provisional (?)
> profound skepticism toward such "revolutionary" statements as the
> following one:
>
> > The Vedic heartland was on the eastern border of the Harappan
> > cities [viz., in Haryana and western Uttar Pradesh -- Francesco].
>

As you have pointed out in a later post, I didn't originally think so
either; but this is what the literary evidence seems to indicate.


> As for the dates of early iron in South Asia, about which you state:
>
> > [The Rigveda] is a bronze-age text that doesn't know of iron. But
> > iron implements were already produced in Uttar Pradesh, bordering
> > on the Yamuna-Saraswati heartland of the RV, from at least 1800
BC
> > onwards:
> >
> > http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/tewari/tewari.pdf
>
> Even conceding that archaeologist Rakesh Tewari's dates for iron
> working in the Ganges valley at c. 1800 BCE are correct (which I
> doubt), from this it doesn't descend that the Rigvedic Aryans knew
> of iron. It is well known that South Asian archaeological cultures
> of the second millennium BCE are markedly regional, with little or
> no trade going on among the discrete regional cultures of the
> subcontinent. If you don't manage to convince me that the Vedic
> heartland was NOT situated in the nothwestern part of the
> subcontinent (as I continue to think based on the mainstream
> scholarly paradigm of Vedic philology), the hypothesized (by Tewari)
> existence of one or more cultures that knew how to smelt iron in
the
> early second millennium Gangetic plains will not suffice to
persuade
> me that the Rigvedic Aryans too were familiar with iron smelting --
> simply because the cultures of the early second millennium BCE
> Greater Panjab (where iron started to be around 1000-900 BCE
> according to G.L Possehl and P. Gullapalli's 1999 article) are not
> known to have entertained any trade or cultural relations with the
> coeval culture(s) of the Gangetic plains...
>
> Reference:
>
> G.L. Possehl & P. Gullapalli, "Early Iron Age in South Asia," in V.
> Pigott (ed.), _The Archaeometallurgy of the Asian Old World_,
> Philadelphia, The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania,
> 1999, pp. 153-175.
>

Let's say I am aware that archaeological evidence is hard to
interpret unless a written explanation is given along with it.
Tewari is just one source and there may be others. So there's
nothing definitive about his expert testimony. But it is as good as
most others. So far, nothing indicates that it is archaeology that
will decide the Urheimat debate. All attempts to identify
archaeological findings with linguistic branches of IE have been
competently dismissed. In the Bryant-Patton volume, Parpola
identifies a whole series of archaeological sites in Russia with the
successively emigrating or splitting branches of not only IE and
Uralic,-- this in an area where writing appeared fully five thousand
years after his purported genesis of IE. So what are those
identifications worth? Andronovo Indo-Iranian? No actual proof that
I've seen. Harappa is declared non-Aryan because no horses have been
dug up there, while the BMAC is labelled Aryan eventhough it has
reportedly not yielded any horse bones either. So, it is my
impression that such identifications based only on archaeo findings
can't go very far. That is why it is time to give the literary
evidence a new hearing. The Indus "script" whenever we get to
understand it, but for now already the Rg-Veda.

Kind regards,

KE