Re: Why India?

--- In cybalist@..., "rajitarajvasishth" <rajita_rajvasishth@...>
wrote:

>
> 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.

Not in the eyes of all Indians. There are many agnostic and atheist
Indians. There were also several ancient Indian schools that were
atheist or that rejected the mystical inspiration and authority of
the Vedas. And finally there are also Muslim Indians.

> If you do not consider them seers that is not my problem

It's not anybody's problem.

> and nor can you convert my views on the matter

Are you admiting that your mind is closed in some areas? (^:

> 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.

I agree that this is all very compelling, but contradictory evidence
from other sources is also compelling. My problem with all this is
that while I try to offer some sort of answers to objections of the
type you're offering here, I've yet to see any attempts to explain
the evidence from linguistics. Is that so much to ask considering
the list topic?

> 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.

What I was objecting to was your imputing dishonest motives to a
whole field of scholars, "Western indologists are keen to ...
because...". Is it not possible that at least some Western
scholars say what they do because it is what they honestly believe?
I am a Westerner, consider myself very honest, try to be objective,
and get rather tired of statements of this sort. Do you like
statements like "Indian Indologists are keen to push back the date
of the Vedas so as to (insert any religious or political motive you
like)"? Can you point to where I personally have ever made
such a broad generalization of any Indians or Easterners?

> 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.

Thanks for clarifying that, and I do agree with you somewhat that
the oldest remains discovered of a chariot aren't necessarily as
old as the oldest chariot that ever was. However, what else do
we have to go by, at least strictly within archaeology itself?

David