--- In cybalist@..., "wtsdv" <liberty@...> wrote:
> will realize that it is the body of observations made about
> the languages of the Indo-European family. If you're trying
> to explain anything less than that, then I'm not at all
> surprised to read that you can do it more parsimoniously.
> By chopping off the larger part of the question and discarding
> it, you're left with much less to explain. However if you
> really are aware of all that needs explanation, and actually
I understand fully well what the topic is about. However, before
trying to test if AIT or OIT is a superior model you must get your
reconstructions straight for which ever scenario you want to test. The
point I wished to stress is a very artificial set of explanations you
offer regarding the potential markers for an early date of the
Rigveda. Personally, I am agnostic about OIT/AIT, but the current AIT
with a late date for the R^igveda just does not seem to explain the
Vedic evidence. So one has to try the kinds of artificial explanations
you offer. If the vedic texts are much older than 1500 BC as the
Indians believe, then its implications are profound for both OIT or
AIT. That is all I am trying to say.
> Well I don't believe that there were ever such things as "Rig
> vedic seers", only Rig Vedic poets. The poets would have
Seer means one credited with great spiritual insight. That is what the
R^igvedic Rishis were in the eyes of the Indians. If you do not
consider them seers that is not my problem and nor can you convert my
views on the matter
> An actual Gritsamada or Vasishtha may well have lived on the
> banks of a river and called it the Sarasvati, but where that river
> was or when, if ever, it dried up, I don't believe is yet proven.
Do not just look at the Sarasvati. The R^igveda is full of the
geography of the North of the Indian subcontinent with an emphasis on
many other rivers like Indus, Yamuna, Vipas etc. So Sarasvati must be
viewed in that context and not as some river. The geographical
allusion of Vasishtha or Gritsamada are very consistent with places in
Northern India and I see no reason to make exceptions for Sarasvati.
> When did any Western Indologist ever say that they were keen to
> contract the age of the Vedas for this reason? I'm not saying
> that they didn't, but this is very surprising. Could you tell
> me the names of the Indologists who said this, and your source
> for this information? By the way, I'm not an Indologist and
> couldn't provide a date for the Mittani inscriptions to save my
> life. But then I don't really think pushing the Vedas back one
> or two thousand more years is going to fix the problems with the
> O.I.T. explanation anyway. So I'm not keen to expand or contract
> anything for any other reasons but logical ones.
Well Burrow says that the Indo-Aryans and Mittanians were the same
broad band of invaders into south Asia-middle east, who were later
interrupted by the Iranians wave. So vedas and mittani should have a
similar age. Witzel states that Vedas and Avesta mention chariots so
they should have an age lesser than that of the oldest chariots. That
is why I used the bird dinosaur example. The earlist fossil bird is
much older than the dinosaurs that is likely to have been close to its
ancestry. This only means that that those kinds of dinosaurs existed
for a very long time and their fossil were found quite late. Similarly
the earliest chariots found by archaeologist may not be anywhere close
to the earliest chariot itself.
-Rajita