> But Vishal, there's nothing at all to stop a speaker of
> an Indo-Aryan language from passing on stories passed down
> to him from his non-Indo-Aryan-speaking ancestors, about
> events that took place before the Indo-Aryan languages
> entered India. There are English speaking Americans who
> tell their children stories that were passed down to them
> from a native American great-grandparent, and which
> describe events that took place before European settlers
> (invaders ?) came west. Does this prove that English was
> spoken in the New World earlier than thought? Many Mexican
> families pass down both stories of events that happened
I am posting for the first time on this list and apologies if I am
breaking rules. I find these arguments presented by David somewhat
insufficiently argued. David just like Michael Witzel argues the
potentially archaic myths of the Rig veda are reminisences or
purposeful archaic constructions. But this is not a parsimonious
explanation because it multiplies the number of entities required to
explain an observation. Also it is very odd that the Rig vedic seers
had nothing but archaic reminiscences and very little to say of the
present. The mention of the Sarasvati river is not in some legendary
context as one may narrate the tale of Robinhood to one's kid but in
a very present context. Gritsamada or Vasishtha talk of living on its
banks (not their ancestors).
> early composers of folk-history, epics and myths. There
> is also the fact that if I write a story and set it in
> the year in which Haley's Comet was last visible from
> Earth, and include a description of that event in the
> story, then it can be proven that the story was written
> no EARLIER than that year, but not that it wasn't written
> any time later, and as late as there was still a memory
> of seeing the comet.
This argument is also not entirely applicable to the Vedic situation
either. Many of the astronomical references are in the present and
linked closely to ritual- not a story or a narrative of the past. The
only reason Western Indologists are so keen to contract the age of the
Vedas is to fit their date for the chariots or the Mittanian tablet
inscriptions. But this is a very dangerous as it suggests that the
linguists are not familiar with the problems in terms of the artefacts
of preservation. The first fossil bird Archaeopteryx is much older
than those of its is dinosaurian sister groups that are closer to the
ancestral state. Does this mean they were not there when Archaeopteryx
was around? No. Similarly Mitanni and chariots are merely lower bounds
not in any way the root or origin.
Regards
Rajita