From: koenraad_elst
Message: 71392
Date: 2013-10-16
Dear listfolk,
That Talageri didn't know Sanskrit when he started out is roundly admitted by Talageri himself. Meanwhile he has learned a lot, as also on historical-comparative linguistics, but his knowledge of Sanskrit still falls short of that of, say, Michael Witzel. That makes his discoveries only more sensational, but also more understandable. With his limited knowledge, he has seen a general picture which stares us in the face, and which specialists with their eyes on he trees rather than on the forest have failed to see.
The distinction between an early and a late phase in Vedic composition has been made by Western scholars, not by Talageri. Merely comparing the fauna data and the geographical data in the early part with those in the late part tells you loud and clear that there was a gradiënt from India to Afghanistan, not the other way round. The early Rg-Veda already has dometicated elephants dressed up for a pageant, while camels have to wait till the late mandala 8. The Ganga already figures in the early part, the Afghan streams only appear in the late part.
There are other general facts than Talageri's that don't require very specialized knowledge and plead against the Russian homeland. Thus, at least a dozen Indo-Europeanists have given me as their very first reason for rejecting the OIT that the homeland can't be at the far end of the area of expansion (whereas the Volga is neatly in the middle). But in fact, starting an expansion from a far corner is the rule rather than the exception: Austronesian (ca. Taiwan > south), Bantu (ca. Nigeria > southeast), Amerind (Canada > south), Turkic (western Mongolia > west); Russian (ca. Kiev > east), Arabic (Arabia < west). This is of course not enough to prove the OIT, but it undermines one of the common assumptions behind the AIT,
Talageri's forte is just plain logic. The basic framework that is so hotly questioned and ridiculed by anti-Talageri polemicists, has been provided by Hermann Oldenberg and other Western scholars. And before you go into dots and commas that Oldenberg may or may not have written: so far, all the polemic against Talageri has focused on sideshows, and has consisted of diversionary tactics not addressing the facts he has mustered. Alright that his Sanskrit isn't perfect; Witzel's logic and consistency are not perfect either, as has become clear from this debate. I have nonetheless defended Witzel's qualities agaist the Hindu noise-makers (and praised his latest book on global mythology), because human beings just happen to be a combination of qualities and defects. Any defects you can allege in Talageri's case won't annul his findings, which have so far not been addressed at all.
Kind regards,
Koenraad Elst
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I had written:
this is a linguistic list, it would be dishonest to claim here that Arnaud's> > Since
demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result".> > review does not entirely
Shivraj "Khokhla" replied:
Have you checked with Arnaud if he knows Sanskrit? Or perhaps you know> Dear Dr Brighenty,
>
>
not know Vedic Sanskrit how> Sanskrit? What about Vedic Sanskrit? If he does
Arnaud's review does not entirely> on earth is it "dishonest to claim here that
> demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result"."?
I rather think this charge could be made on Shrikant Talageri himself – see M. Witzel's review of Talageri' 2000 book at
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
"At no point in Talageri's book do we find any suggestions that he has a genuine working knowledge of Sanskrit -- let alone of the obscure Old Vedic forms of the RV. […] Talageri relies throughout on Griffith 's outdated Victorian translation (1889), which even in its own day was aimed at a popular (and not scholarly) audience. The translation is also marred by its heavy dependence on Sayana's late medieval scholastic commentary (cf. Griffith 's preface to the first edition). […] Talageri testily defends the accuracy of the translation […]. He does not reveal what philological criteria he used in judging the translation, since it is clear from Sanskrit errors in the text (discussed infra) that he cannot read the original on his own. The RV is one of the most obscure and problematic ancient texts known. It is not too much to ask that those who claim to reinterpret it radically -- and to reinterpret much of world history along with it -- be capable of reading it in its original form. At a minimum, one would expect Talageri to consult one or more of the modern scholarly translations, accompanied by critical philological notes, produced in the 20th century by Geldner (German), Renou (French), or Elizarenkova (Russian). But Talageri, who cannot read any modern scholarly language besides English, does not leave a clue that he is aware that these works exist. […] Talageri does not admit his linguistic deficiencies, of course, but they are nonetheless immediately evident in his frequent misreporting of Rgvedic phrases [examples follow -- FB]. […][H]ow someone who is incapable of reading an ancient text in the original is capable of making such judgments remains a mystery. Pace Talageri, the RV is a highly technical text composed in an archaic literary tradition that is still poorly understood -- and whose poetic forms are very imperfectly captured by Griffith ."
In his reply to Witzel's review the non-academically trained Talageri -- formerly "a bank clerk in Bombay actively involved with Hindu nationalist groups" (E. Bryant, The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture, Oxford 2001, p. 344 n. 7) -- makes an attempt to counter the above quoted criticism but, revealingly, does *not* clarify whether he has got a genuine working knowledge of Sanskrit -- particularly of Old Vedic – or not:
http://tinyurl.com/l7q5ayu (read #II.5)
Regards,
Francesco Brighenti (not "Brighenty"!)
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear Dr Brighenty,
Have you checked with Arnaud if he knows Sanskrit? Or perhaps you know Sanskrit? What about Vedic Sanskrit?
If he does not know vedic sanskrit how on earth is it "dishonest to claim here that Arnaud's review does not entirely demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result"."?
Regards,
Shivraj
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Koenraad Elst wrote:
> I repeat that these books have received no *competent* reply.
> The relation between the contents of Talageri's latest book and
> Arnaud Fournet's "review" is very thin.
IMHO Arnaud's review (why did you use inverted commas here?) of Talageri's 2008 book, which you yourself proposed him to write, is very apt to disprove Talageri's main linguistic thesis, that is:
“I can confidently say that this book will set the seal on the controversy, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that India was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages” (S. Talageri, The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence, New Delhi , Aditya Prakashan, 2008, pp. XVIII-XIX).
Since this is a linguistic list, it would be dishonest to claim here that Arnaud's review does not entirely demolish Talageri's main linguistic "result".
Best,
Francesco
languages.' (p.XVIII-XIX)
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear listfolk,
The titles of the books were quoted from memory, and may well be as Francisco said. Thanks.
That said, I repeat that these books have received no *competent* reply. The relation between the contents of Talageri's latest book and Arnaud Fournet's "review" is very thin. As for the review by Witzel of Talageri's 2000 book, that has in turn been answered in a separate paper by Talageri (and really found wanting) and in his latest book.
Anyway, the aim of these mails is to make clear that it will not to do to remain satisfied with these hostile "representations" of the OIT. There is no substitute for confronting the original.
Kind regards,
Koenraad Elst
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Koenraad Elst wrote:
> It is just a handful of people who have seriously developed an argument for
> the Out-of-India Theory. Anyone interested in this debate are welcome to deal with
> (and possibly refute) these few books:
>
> * Shrikant Talageri: The Rg-Veda and the Avesta (Delhi 2000) and The Rg-Veda,
> the Final Evidence (2008);
> * Koenraad Elst: Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan (2007);
> * Nicholas Kazanas: Indo-Aryan Origins (2010).
> * Michel Danino: The Lost River (2011)
>
> These books have so far received a lot of abuse, swearwords, hand-waving and
> other dismissals, but no competent reply. The solid belief in the AIT is based on
> a wilful ignorance of the arguments for the OIT.
First of all, there is no 2000 book by Shrikant G. Talageri entitled "The Rg-Veda and the Avesta;" what you actually meant to cite is certainly his _The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis_ (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2000). This was reviewed in extenso by Michael Witzel here:
http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf
Secondly, there is no 2008 book by Shrikant G. Talageri entitled "The Rg-Veda, the Final Evidence;" what you actually meant to cite is certainly his _The Rigveda and the Avesta: The Final Evidence_ (New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan, 2008). This was reviewed by Arnaud Fournet here:
http://diachronica.pagesperso-orange.fr/TMCJ_vol_2.1_Fournet_Review_of_Talageri.pdf
(By the way, in this online writing of his Arnaud also included a reply to Talageri's 'Detailed Reply to a Jojer's "Review" of my Book', only the first pages of which are available here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31680984/A-Reply-To-A-Joker
Could you, or any other member of this List, kindly find a way to upload the full text of Talageri's reply to Arnaud's review in the Files section of cybalist?)
Your book and Kazanas' one have, to my knowledge, not been reviewed by anyone so far.
As to Michel Danino's book on the Sarasvati, his arguments have been outdone by recent geological studies of the paleo-rivers of northwestern South Asia; I have repeatedly pointed Michel to such scientific studies on another List, but he has, as you know, completely retracted from these public discussions since he is probably aware of the fact that these new scientific studies sound the death knell for the "Mighty Sarasvati" theory he has propagated around the world for the last fifteen years..
Best wishes,
Francesco
Kind regards,
Dr. Koenraad Elst
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:Dear listfolk,
interesting to see this reply on this specialist list from someone who has his own list, Hinducivilization. It could be informative for those vaguely interested in this debate but unacquainted with the Hindu input.
The first doubts about the East-European Homeland Theory (in respect of India known as the Aryan Invasion Theory) arose in the 1980s among Indian (and a few Western) archaeologists, because in excavation after excavation, the evidence for any Aryans moving into India failed to turn up. At the same time, the evidence of the political use of te AIT both in Europe (colonialism, racism, Nazism) and in India (various movements and government policies pitting upper against lower castes, Indo-Aryans against Dravidians, non-tribals against tribals, also used by the Christian missionaries) was overwhelming. Some Hindu polemicists deduced from its political use that the theory had to be wrong -- a category mistake, but convincing enough to numerous Hindus, So, by the early 1990, the Aryan Non-Invasion Theory became very popular, and was embraced by the Hindu nationalist movement. An American, Edwin Bryant, gave it the name Out-of-India Theory, a flattering exaggeration because most partisans of this theory, including practically all writers about it, only dealt with (viz. denied) the Aryan immigration into India, but didn't deal with the question how Iranian and European populations came to speak cognate languages. Their horizon stopped at the Khyber pass.
All the same, a few very vocal and influential "Hindu noise-makers" announced, and millions of Hindus swallowed, that "nobody believes the Aryan Invasion Theory anymore" -- this at a time when a great many Indo-Europeanists had not even heard that India was proposed as a candidate for homeland status, while the others just dismissed it and didn't consider it worth any study. So, when in 2005 the school textbooks in California came up for review, two Hindu organizations proposed a series of edits to the chapter on Hinduism. Some were uncontroversial, e.g. replacing the photograph of a mosque with the caption "Hindu temple" by the photograph of a proper Hindu temple. Some were cases of intra-Hindu infighting, e.g. replacing the philosophical "self-realization" as the goal of Hinduism with the devotional "God-realization". Outsiders who took an interest in this, could have an opinion on this, but it was not serious enough to warrant interference. But when Hindus proposed that "the Aryan Invasion Theory is wrong" and "nobody believes in it anymore", a revolutionary c.q. a plainly wrong statement, this alerted a number of Hindu-bashing groups including several academics with a say in the Aryan question.
What followed was procedurally not very kosher, with the academics gate-crashing into the debate with a very partisan stance being accepted by the educational authorities as arbiters to a controversy which they themselves had started. However, American Hindus who don't live on another planet could have known that something like this would happen. They could have proposed that the AIT is "controversial", the "the jury is still out" on Vedic origins, or so, but to assert that the AIT has been found to be unequivocally wrong, and that this finding is generally accepted, just had to provoke a reaction.
So, the Hindus involved were soundly defeated: this edit, and many others which otherwise would have passed, were rejected. This is the work of the "Hindu noise-makers" who were deluded and misinformed their own flock.
I occasionally get what some call "hate mail" from Hindus who are angry with me for calling this outcome a "defeat". Yes, what else was it? The best proof is that they themselves started a court case to overrule the decision of the educational authorities. After spending 40.000 dollars or so, they lost that one too. It seems to me that a community which can't distinguish a victory from a defeat is in really serious trouble. Moreover, this way they don't learn from their defeat and fail to improve themselves to score a victory in the future.
Well, at least the noise-makers got their come-uppance, and we can ignore them further. As for the archaeological and now also the genetic evidence: it is certainly relevant and important, but it cannot decide what language the poeple concerned spoke. In one immigration, the immigrants adopt the languuage of the natives, in another they impose their own language, in a third a more complex in-between situation develops. No excavation can decide on language. So, sciences dealing with products of the human mind have to be considered, chiefly linguistis, and where applicable, comparative mythology and other philological disciplines.
It is just a handful of people who have seriously developed an argument for the Out-of-India Theory. Anyone interested in this debate are welcome to deal with (and possibly refute) these few books:
* Shrikant Talageri: The Rg-Veda and the Avesta (Delhi 2000) and The Rg-Veda, the Final Evidence (2008);
* Koenraad Elst: Asterisk in Bharopiyasthan (2007);
* Nicholas Kazanas: Indo-Aryan Origins (2010).
These books have so far received a lot of abuse, swearwords, hand-waving and other dismissals, but no competent reply. The solid belief in the AIT is based on a wilful ignorance of the arguments for the OIT.
Kind regards,
Dr. Koenraad Elst
* Michel Danino: The Lost River (2011).
---In cybalist@yahoogroups.com, <cybalist@yahoogroups.com> wrote:http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com/2013/10/hindu-noise-makers-elst-and-oit-review.html
OCT 11
Hindu noise-makers, Elst and OIT -- a review of book by Harald Haarman (2012).
Unwarranted generalisation.
I take exception to Elst's categorisation of Hindus in a sweeping generalization even thoughthe comment, hopefully, meant --as a guide from an elder researcher -- to promote serious
research and falsifiable theories based on collation of evidences . California textbook case
was NOT lost because of Hindu noise-makers, Elst. It was an issue sponsored by a few
motivated academics and led by church-oriented bigots from Colorado.
"Thus, a leading French IE philologist who was given a prize at the Louvain-la-Neuve conference,said that he had read a review of Michel Danino’s book on Harappan civilization (The Lost River:
On the Trail of the Saraswati, Penguin, Delhi 2010), countering the AIT, but that he wouldn’t waste
his time on actually reading the book, as its main thesis was “obviously ridiculous”... This state
of affairs would not be very surprising, given that the limelight for the OIT has been captured by
Hindu noise-makers, whose arrogance rivals only with their ignorance. "
http://koenraadelst.blogspot.be/2013/10/the-varna-event-and-indo-european.html
It is good to note that Elst differentiates himself from Hindu noise-makers and hopefully considershimself to be non- noise-maker, though non-Hindu !!
It ain't scholarship to make sweeping comments categorising Hindus who study their indigenousevolution and spread into Euroasia, out of India, as noise-makers. In fact, Elst, non-Hindu, will top
the list of OIT noise-makers ! He may recall that savants like Chatterjee, Kane DID believe in AIT.
And, as a neo-linguist, Elst with Talageri and others are positing an OIT.
Who knows? The debate can go on forever without facts and with intellectual manthan or grindingof limited anecdotes, of bits and pieces, covered in linguistic jargon.
Kalyanaraman
[Excessive quoting and HTML deleted. -BMS]