So I would say that German existed in at least 2CE
OK, that is fair enough. You approach reminds me almost of the Indian skeptical school Charvaka, that only accept perception as the only means of knowledge. However, as I told you science does not work like that, science is about
inference to the best explanation. If we just wait for empirical evidence all the time, even though I admit it is the gold standard in evidence, we wouldn't have science. Rather we infer something to create a theory of something and the theory makes certain predictions, which we can later empirically verify.
Anyway, even if you not accept that German existed in 3200BCE, linguistics does. Linguistics does not require empirical evidence to posit that. So the same applies to Sanskrit, we do not have need to have empirical evidence in the form of Sanskrit in 4000BCE, to say that Sanskrit existed then. We infer it existed based on the internal evidence in the Rig Veda
Yout mean demonstrating that we have script from the IVC that is distinct from ancient sanskrit doesn't indicate that ancient sanskrit as found in the rigveda was at least not a widely circulating script in the IVC doesn't support the idea that IVC was not awash in sanskrit?
You are confusing your terms again. Script is not language. We have found a script in the IVC, but because it undecyphered, we don't know what language it is. It could be Sanskrit, it could be Tamil, or it could be some other language. The devanagari script that is used for Sanskrit today is a far later invention. By the way devnagari script can be used for English too. Here is the word 'English' in devanagari: इंग्लीश
You have now shown that evidence is emerging of a half way point between Indus script and Brahmi, which is also hinting that it is Sanskrit.
You have shown that the composers of the Rig Veda had knowledge that could have only come from the IVC. I agree with this. This is found in the mathematics, astronomy, and biology described within the Rigveda.
Sure, I get your point, that if the composers of Rig Veda were to arrive in India in 1500BCE they could just incorporate the knowledge of the IVC into the Rig Veda.
However, this is not the
best explanation because it involves multiplying several unknowns and creates several inconsistencies and absurdities. I already mentioned some. If the Rig Veda was composed in 1500-1200BCE
Why would the Rig Veda describe the Saraswati river as a mighty river as thriving, and state their settlements are alongside it, and describe its course. Furthermore, why would the early books describe, the later start to describe it less, and then by the time we reach post-Vedic books like the Mahabharata it would say "it is starting to dry up, ending in the Thar desert" When in fact the river was long dead and gone when the composers arrived.
Why would the Rig Veda not describe any iron and in fact use the word 'Ayus' which is the common IE word for bronze and the only in the later Vedic books by the time of Yajur Veda and Atharva iron is first mentioned and then by the time of post-vedic books, iron is abundantly mentioned. When in fact when the composers arrived, iron working was already established by early as 2000BCE.
Why would the Rig Veda describe a agrarian, tribal and pastoral people, when in fact in 1500BCE India was still heavily urbanised. And again why would the later Vedic texts then gradually start to mention urban settlements arising?
Why would the Rig Veda describe as naked observations stars as rising in certain lunar constellations that could only have taken place in 4000BCE and prior?
Why would none of the original place names of the IVC cities remain either in the Rig Veda or in the Post-Vedic texts? Even in America places which were conquered still retain their original names, like California, Kentucky, Mississippi why is every place name, every river, every mountain name in Sanskrit? Why does nothing of the IVC language, if it was not Sanskrit, survive?
You could come up with really far fetched explanations to explain every one of these facts away, just as young earth biblical creationist could to explain away every bit of evidence pointing to an old Earth. I have heard some really bizarre explanations e.g. If the universe is only 6000 years old, why do we find that the radiocarbon etc of carbon gives us all billion year old dates and measuring background radiation gives us 13 billion years since big bang --- explained away by saying God created the universe in one go to make it look like it was old. If then you say why do we find different animals and humans are different strata, with dinosaurs at the bottom and humans at the top, they would reply because after the great flood, the slower and dumber animals were left at the bottom and the faster and smarter animals and humans ran up the mountains (lol)
-- Similarly, you could come up with very elaborate explanations for to explain away every fact we have found that shows the Rig Veda was composed 4000BCE or prior. However, that is not
inference to the best explanation and it is not science. This is why science demands the explanation be simple, account for every fact and does not multiply unknowns.
The simplest explanation that accounts for every bit of evidence we have of dating of ancient Indian history archaeological, geological, astronomical etc is OIT. Nor does it reject linguistic evidence, as I already told you OIT predicts already that Sanskrit would be found between 2000-1000BCE as appearing as far as West Asia, because that is when the Saraswarti river completely dried up, forcing the IVC cities to empty and that is when we see the earliest evidence of mass migrations in every direction from the settlements alongside it. It is consistent also with how as you move along space from India towards Germany, the IE language lose more of the features of PIE(hypothetical) and Sanskrit retains all of them. Similarly, the same is seen in PIE religion, the further you move away from India, the more memories are forgotten.
Finally, the sum of all this evidence is fully consistent with the textual record as well which records this history.
Now, what I find the most ironic, and even funny actually, while there is no record preserved by Germans, or Greeks or Celtics or Lithuanians of migrating to India, there are actually records by Aryans of migrating out of India and conquering the Mleccha kingdoms. I am sorry to bring up the colonialism card again, but I can see how embarrassing it would have been to colonial scholars to admit that India had colonised them thousands of years ago. This is why I am saying by sheer dogma AMT is being maintained because the West has the power, but as the power now goes back to India and China, we will set the record straight. AMT will be gone by the close of this century I can guarantee it. Ill come back in my next life to say "I told you so"
That is because I am not arguing AMT. I think I have tried to state this numerous times.
But you keep insisting on 1500BCE date. Why? Because that is what the consensus on Indian history holds. Why? Because that is the date that has been repeated for the last century or so in every book about Indian history, every journal etc
But if I just asked you to to just forget you ever heard this date. Position yourself in Max Mullers shoes coming to India for the first time and finding out about the Rig Veda, how would you arrive back at the date of 1500BCE? What would be your method?
When you assert something by dogma, the burden of proof is not carried by those who are trying to disprove it, but by those who asserted it in the first place. Even if centuries of time passes since the dogma was first asserted, it still carries the same burden of proof. Take this as example
Pluto theory: Pluto the dog is actually a highly intelligent animal which is sending top secret information to the Martians
Disprover question it:
Disprover: That is not possible, because there is no life on Mars and Pluto is just a dumb dog
Pluto theorist: That is because the martians have technology to make it look like there is no life on Mars and Pluto is just playing dumb
Disprover: We have sent rovers to Mars and all we see are rocks, and Pluto could not be communicating with anybody because we have found no receivers and transmitters on him
Pluto theorist: That is because the Martians live in underground cities and Pluto has implanted advanced chips that communicate with Martians
You could offer explanation after explanation ad infinitum to maintain the Pluto theory. In very much the same way AIT/AMT theorists have explained away every fact and evidence that supports OIT. The fact the evidence is so great has forced AIT to be demoted to AMT. Now, a growing number of scientists are challenging even this weakened AMT version. Hence, why I am confidently telling you it will be gone. Future generations will probably ridicule us for ever believing it, just as we ridicule past generations for believing in 4004BCE as the creation of the universe.
Friend, if you wish to call it a day, I wish you well. I am certainly not ignoring your posts or points. Of your points, I am most interested in the Puranic dynasties. Specifically, whether the names attributed therein are Sanskritic. Though even this doesn't show sanskrit in that time period as whatever predated sanskrit would likely produce names that would translate into sanskrit. But it certainly does bolster the point.
This debate can only continue if you actually justify this arbitrary date of 1500BCE for me. As I already told you the fact that it has been repeated over and over again is not justification. I want you to provide me evidence like I have to justify Rig Veda is 4000BCE or prior.