Re: [tied] Re: reply to Mr. Watson

----- Original Message -----
From: "mkelkar2003" <smykelkar@...>
To: <cybalist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 1:46 AM
Subject: [tied] Re: reply to Mr. Watson


> DW: 1) The Rig Veda refers in the present tense to a still
> flowing Sarasvati river.
>
> 2) It's impossible for the Rig Veda to refer in the
> present tense to any event that wasn't actually
> contemporary.
>
> 3) A particular ancient Indian river has been proved to
> have dried up long before 1500 B.C.
>
> 4) The Sarasvati river referred to in the Rig Veda is
> that same river.
>
> 5) Comparative linguistics proves that the Rig Veda was
> composed around 1500 B.C.
>
> MK: I agree with you that 1 and 3 are beyond doubt.

David was trying to reconstruct _your_ line of reasoning, so it seems you
actually agree with yourself. Point 1) is a fact, but premise 2) is of
course false. You must have heard of the historical use of the present tense
(in the narration of past events). As for 3), a mighty river system parallel
to the Indus (and on the same scale if not bigger) is a recently created
myth. I haven't seen it supported by any serious geologists outside the
close circle of "Sarasvati scholars" and Kalyanaraman's fan club. Rivers
have changed their courses and dried up during the Holocene, but the
Sarasvati as envisioned by Dr. K. has never existed in the real world. It's
a factoid like the "sunken city" in the Gulf of Cambay.

> At least for me 4
> is beyond doubt. I have read the Rig Veda myself and a river is
> described as a mighty one flowing to the ocean, along with a dozen
> other rivers which are stil flowing. The Mahabharata refers to a
> dimnished Sarasvati. Nearly six hundered settlements have been found
> on the banks of this dried up river.

A river that never existed. There are, to be sure, plenty of archeological
sites of Harappan (and pre- or post-Harappan) age along the dry river beds
of the extinct Ghaggar/Hakra system (many of them just places where some
pottery has been found rather than "settlements" sensu stricto). That's
because the desert environment favours the preservation of artifacts. The
Indus Valley has remained densely inhabited and traces of innumarable small
settlements must have been obliterated there due to human activity. Have you
ever heard the word "taphonomy"? Not everything that existed has become part
of the archaeological record, and the density of modern finds doesn't
necessarily reflect the density of ancient settlement. As for the Sarasvati
flowing into the ocean, it only does so with the help of those translators
who insist that the Rigvedic samudra- must mean 'ocean' :-)

> If i am rejecting 5 then, linguists must reject 4 which i find just
> unbelievable given the overwhelming physical and textual evidence. Are
> the linguists expecting high way signs saying "Watch out. Slippery
> Pavement. Marshland ahead"
>
> You are absoultely right in conlcuding that i am not an OIT believer.
> I have no reason to believe in OIT for it is based on linguistics too!
>
> Therefore, thank your for understanding where i am coming from.
>
>
> But lets back up a little. My questions are about number 5.
>
> How do the linguists arrive at this date, 1500 BCE?
>
> What is the starting point for the spread of languages?
>
> How is the starting point decided chronolgically?
>
> I know about the problems with the spatiality issue of the "homeland."
> Linguistic experts have claimed nearly every place in Europe and Asia
> as a possible homeland. The current consensus is South Russia(?). So
> lets talk about the time question only.

Gotta go and teach my class. I'll get back to point 5) later. I'm sure David
will reply as well.

Piotr