Indus Valley Civilization

[paarsurrey]

My position is that we don't know. But all sources agree whether OIT or AMT that the rigveda and sanskrit was in India at or before 1500bce. Hence, the 1500bce. It is the greatest common denominator. I clearly see how this "conservative" number could be and was tossed around arbitrarily in order to synch up with worldviews and narratives of the time. What I do not see is evidence that sanskrit definitively predates this estimate. We can agree that predating this time period is likely the case for sanskrit in IVC, but I see no reason to jump to such a conclusion. There are many factors we can look to such as the descriptions of flora and fauna, or the description of astronomy, but all this does is show us that the knowledge the IVC had was the likes that would not be seen in the rest of the world for millenia. The knowledge itself speaks seems to speak nothing of the language. Because, even though it is apparent that Hindus had knowledge of both lunar and tropical calendars, mathematics, the spherical shape of the planets, that the sun is a star...etc, and such knowledge would have likely only come from an advanced civilization (the IVC being the only candidate) we still see no sanskrit language in any of the discoveries of the IVC. So, whether it came from the IVC or from outside of the IVC, we are not given any proof or agreement that this language emerged prior to 1500bce. The closest we come to such is that we have a related language in 1800bce in Turkey. Now I agree it is more likely that this language developed from or was influenced by the more advanced civilisation of the IVC, but we don't know that. For all we know, that is what language looked like in the IVC as well and kultepe was a colonial outpost of the IVC. Still no written language from the IVC has been shown to match this either. Is it possible for a civilisation as advanced as the IVC to have existed without language? I doubt it. So we are left to wonder as of now as to what that language looked like. We see Sanskrit and it is natural to assume, we'll this is here so it must have been here. Such is not the case. For all we know, Sanskrit could be an invention of language study in the IVC that was a fad in 1900bce before the river dried up. My stance is we do not know what transpired, but there is agreement that sanskrit existed in 1500bce in southernew Asia. We can agree that IVC was a flourishing civilization (the greatest in the world at the time) for thousands of years before 1500bce. We can also agree that these facts are likely connected and that unraveling the history will require better understanding of the IVC.

"We can agree that IVC was a flourishing civilization (the greatest in the world at the time) for thousands of years before 1500bce."

I agree with you. Please
Regards

 

[Curious George]

"We can agree that IVC was a flourishing civilization (the greatest in the world at the time) for thousands of years before 1500bce."

I agree with one. Please
Regards

One?

 

[paarsurrey]

One?

You. Please
Regards

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Thank you for this clarification and summary of your position. it has helped frame your position better, so that we can actually start a proper debate. I asked you for evidence for the 1500BCE date, but what you have provided me is actually a circular argument, first of all you assume the 1500BCE date for the composition of the Rig Veda(I will admit now that scholars actually give a time range from 1500-1200BCE, so let us for argument sake take 1500BCE for the composition of the Rig Veda) and then you say there is no evidence for Sanskrit being in India before 1500BCE. This is not a valid argument. I asked you to provide me evidence for 1500BCE as the evidence of arrival of Aryans/composition of the Rig Veda. You need to show using actual valid evidence that 1500BCE is the date of the Rig Veda, guessing a date or using biblical chronologies is not considered valid in our modern scientific world. I hope you understand this, as I can't emphasise this enough. Hence, why I am surprised even after I have told you how this date has been fixed, you are still not skeptical of it. I think for any impartial researcher it should raise grave doubts.

If you say there is a Sanskritic language in West Asia in 1800BCE we only know this because we have found inscriptions at that date which have been decyphered. We also find inscriptions of some script in IVC, and because it is undecyphered, we don't know that it isn't Sanskrit. The absence of this type of evidence is not the evidence of absence. However, we have other evidence, the Rig Veda itself. The descriptions of flora and fauna, the description of rivers and mountains, the description of places, the description of lunar constellations and other celestial positions. We also have evidence from post-Vedic literature which are also describe rivers and mountains, description of places, lunar constellations and positions of planets which help us fix dates.

Here is a summary of the evidence:

1) The positions of lunar constellations etc, which help us fix their date as far back as 7000BCE. The fact that the Kali yuga calender which is post-Vedic is real and describes actual positions of the planets at 3102BCE. And before you discredit this approach, I will remind you a similar approach is used to date the Homeric wars and the seige of Troy etc based on interpreting an eclipse in the text. Remember I told you about double standards, you can use archeoastronomy to date Western history, but not Indian history. The earliest astronomers like Jacobi to use this method to date the Rig Veda arrived at 4000BCE.

Astronomical record matches the textual record

2) All the rivers in India from West to East, including Saraswati river are described. They describe their settlements as being alongside the mighty river of Saraswati. In the earlier hymns the Saraswati is described, but in the later hymns the Saraswati is progressively described less and less and other rivers become more important Ganga, Yamuna, effectively replacing the position of the Saraswati. Then in the earliest post-Vedic literature the river is described as now starting to dry up and and ending in the Thar desert. The geological record matches the sequence of events described in the texts. This is only possible if the Rig Veda was really composed in 4000BCE and prior.

The geological record also matches the archaeological record. After 1900BCE we see the number of sites appear eastwards in the Gangatic plains. Hence, clearly it caused people to start migrating looking for new lands to populate. This is also exactly when we see Sanskritic languages and kingdoms appearing as far as West Asia.

Geological record matches the textual record.

3) There is no mention of iron in the early books of the Rig Veda, the first mention of iron takes place in the later books, this means the Rig Veda was composed during the bronze age. It is now known that iron working began in India from early 2000BCE and the earliest iron implements have been found at 1800BCE. See: The origins of Iron-working in India. The earliest mention of iron is in the Yajur and Atharva Veda which are dated from 1200-1000BCE. This is consistent with the metallurgical record, there was no iron during the Rig Veda, but there is mention of iron in post-Vedic texts. The Rig Veda is therefore a bronze age text.

Metallurgical record matches the textual record.

4) The Rig Veda does not describe an urban civilisation, it describes an agrarian, nomadic tribal people, but in 1500BCE urban civilisations still existed in India. We know from archaeological excavations that the IVC did not die out at all or decline, rather it continues into the late Harappa phase. Wiki:

Previously, scholars believed that the decline of the Harappan civilisation led to an interruption of urban life in the Indian subcontinent. However, the Indus Valley Civilisation did not disappear suddenly, and many elements of the Indus Civilisation appear in later cultures. David Gordon White cites three other mainstream scholars who "have emphatically demonstrated" that Vedic religion derives partially from the Indus Valley Civilisations.[133]

As of 2016, archaeological data suggests that the material culture classified as Late Harappan may have persisted until at least c. 1000–900 BCE and was partially contemporaneous with the Painted Grey Ware culture.[134] Harvard archaeologist Richard Meadow points to the late Harappan settlement of Pirak, which thrived continuously from 1800 BCE to the time of the invasion of Alexander the Great in 325 BCE.[129]

Archaeological excavations indicate that the decline of Harappa drove people eastward.[135] After 1900 BCE the number of sites in India increased from 218 to 853. Excavations in the Gangetic plain show that urban settlement began around 1200 BCE, only a few centuries after the decline of Harappa and much earlier than previously expected.[129] Archaeologists have emphasised that, just as in most areas of the world, there was a continuous series of cultural developments. These link "the so-called two major phases of urbanisation in South Asia".[134]​

This matches the Indian historical record, it records a continuous genealogy of dynasties and kings going back to 7000BCE. All the cities and places described match with the the IVC settlements so far found, including the most recent the submerged Dwaraka. Its submerging is also described. In other words the archeaological record matches with the textual record.

Notice the part I emboldened in the past quote. It is now strongly believed by scholars that the Vedic religion has completely developed in India and they trace its origins to the IVC. We already find as I mentioned earlier in the IVC everything that is described in post-Vedic texts in every field art, city planning, medicine, mathematics, navigation, religion, symbols.

Archaeological record matches the textual record.


5) The Vedic rules of geometry, as observed by a famous historian of Mathematics, used in the Sulb Sutras which describe rules like Pythagoras rule, rules for pi, squaring the circle and building ritual altars are used in bronze age cultures like Egyptian and Babylonian culture. If the rules were created in 800-600BCE, how can they be used in 3000-2000BCE?

Mathematical record matches the textual record.

6) The biggest irony I find in this is while Aryans have no memory of ever migrating from Central to India in 1500BCE, they certainly have memory of all the IE tribes mentioned by name, including the Greeks, Celts, Persians etc as once residing in India as hill and mountain tribes. The earliest attested evidence we find of the IE languages outside of India is between 2000BCE and 1000BCE, coinciding exactly with the drying up of the river Saraswati and migrations we see happening from all the settlements alongside the Saraswati in all directions.
We all see how beginning from India the IE languages become less complex as we move along space from India to Europe, losing their cases and complex grammar rules as they go along and Sanskrit is the only IE language that has retained all the original PIE features

The linguistic record matches the textual record, the geological record and the archaeological record

7) Not only has India retained all the features of PIE language, it also also retained all the features of the PIE religion. Again, as we move along space from India to Europe, the memory of the original PIE religion becomes lesser and lesser, some deities are dropped, myths get corrupted, hymns are lost, practices are lost like fire sacrifices, the philosophical doctrines get diluted and weaker(such as Greek philosophy vs Indian philosophy) and the caste like society becomes less rigid. As it was shown above scholars now completely agree the Vedic religion developed in India and there is no reason to posit an outside origin for it. If that is true, then India becomes by default the homeland of the PIE religion.

The religious record matches the textual record

In conclusion: This is called presenting evidence. I am providing you actual solid scientific empirical research from various fields of science astronomy, geology, metallurgy, archaeology, mathematics, linguistics and religious and mythological studies and they overwhelmingly corroborate the Indian textual record or OIT. This means the Indian history is definitely no myth, it is solidly backed up by scientific evidence.



In contrast, you are presenting me nothing more than philological speculations and guessing, which even some contemporary linguists call a pseudoscience. You need to step up your game, otherwise it is clear I am winning this debate by miles.

 

[Curious George]

Thank you for this clarification and summary of your position...

You have it framed wrong if you think you are debating me here. You asked why I have chosen to use the date of 1500bce. I did not say that the Rig Veda was composed in 1500bce, so if this were a debate between you and I you have already acted with intellectual dishonesty by creating straw men.

Now, I have no qualms with using flora and fauna, stars and rivers, or anything else described within the Rig Veda.

But your argument that because such descriptionsof a period of time exist in a language therefore means that language existed in such a time period is logically disconnected with reality. Is it possible? Sure. But we can have descriptions in modern English of that same time period, does that mean modern English existed in that time period?

What you are failing to bring to the table is evidence that sanskrit definitively existed before 1500bce. If you are thinking that I am over here arguing that it is unlikely that sanskrit existed before 1500bce, you are twice wrong.

I am only suggesting that we have a general consensus that sanskrit existed in at least 1500bce. I am not sure if you are familiar with the term at least? Or perhaps I am using it incorrectly here. Let me clarify, my position is only assuming that sanskrit existed sometime before 1499bce. So 3000bce falls within that time frame, so does 10,000bce. But I see no consensus that suggests a earlier date to use as a point beyond this date.

Imagine a three witnesses to a robbery alleged a different number of robbers. The first saying there were 5, the second saying there were 7, and the third saying there were 12. If someone said by all accounts there were at least 5 robbers, they would be correct.

While I have seen people suggesting 1500-1000bce, I have seen many other sources calling 1500bce a "conservative" estimate. It would seem strange that Sanskritic names were preserved in the order in which they appear in the Rig Veda, in non-Sanskritic texts in 1350BCE if the Rig Veda did not exist in Sanskritic text prior to this time. But I suppose it is possible since I suppose it is possible that the names existed in another language and we're attributed to sanskrit after the fact. Therefore I am happy to use the later side of the estimates if you would prefer, however, because that I do believe it likely that sanskrit existed in IVC prior to 1500bce, I prefer to use 1500bce.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Dear Curious George, it does actually sound like you don't know what you are talking about, you seem to have very poor knowledge in this field, as you betrayed earlier when you said "PIE entered India" betraying you did not know about IE language family and the classification and dating of the language families. Now, you are saying "We don't know what is the original language of the Rig Veda" We do, it is Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of Sanskrit. The Vedas were not written down in manuscript form until far later in Indian history, they were an oral tradition, that mantras(samhitas) passed on from generation to generation using very sophisticated methods of error checking, so through this artificial method the chants were preserved in their original form with no variations. As we have no manuscript of the Rig Veda, even in in 1500BCE, it is dated using internal evidence based on what kind of flora, fauna, rivers, material culture, position of stars and planets etc and then we can situate in a time and place.

Now, I have no qualms with using flora and fauna, stars and rivers, or anything else described within the Rig Veda.

You have no qualms but you do. I just presented you a highly solid case for OIT backed with scientific evidence from various fields of science. However, you are yet to present a single shred of evidence for the 1500BCE date you keep repeating for the arrival of Aryans, as if by repeating it over and over again, you will prove it. The 1500BCE for the arrival of Aryans and Muller original date of 1200BCE for the composition of the Rig Veda(now the margin for the Rig Veda is 1500-1200BCE) means the Rig Veda was composed in 1200BCE in India. You have obviously not been listening to a thing I have said. I told you scholars agree Rig Veda was composed in India. It was composed in the earliest known form of Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit and was passed on from generation to generation, until it was written down around 300-100BCE. Hence, why 1500-1200BCE is called the start of the Vedic age.

So Vedas and Vedic religion was created in India and as I cited last post, scholars now believe the Vedic religion is believed to have partly its origins in the IVC, as we already find Vedic features there. No scholars today believe Vedic religion was created outside of India or that the Rig Veda came from outside of India.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

AMT stands only on a linguistic assumption that a people called the Indo-Aryans arrived at some point in India, because we know Sanskrit the language of India is an IE language. So linguists using a method called 'historical linguistics' which as I say many consider a pseudoscience, have to reconstruct the history of the beginning of the IE languages by assigning dates to when the various IE languages arose, again based on speculation. Here is the history they claim to construct:

1. Anatolian (Asia Minor), the earliest attested branch. Emerged around 4200 BC.[10] Isolated terms in Luwian/Hittite mentioned in Semitic Old Assyrian texts from the 20th and 19th centuries BC, Hittite texts from about 1650 BC;[11][12] extinct by Late Antiquity.
2. Tocharian, emerged between 3300 and 2800 BC, and proposed to be linked to the Afanasevo culture.[13] Extant in two dialects (Turfanian and Kuchean, or Tocharian A and B), attested from roughly the 6th to the 9th century AD. Marginalized by the Old Turkic Uyghur Khaganate and probably extinct by the 10th century.
3. Germanic (from Proto-Germanic), emerged around 3300 BC,[10] earliest testimonies in runic inscriptions from around the 2nd century AD, earliest coherent texts in Gothic, 4th century AD. Old English manuscript tradition from about the 8th century AD.
4. Italic, (from Proto-Italic) including Latin and its descendants (the Romance languages), emerged around 3000 BC,[10] attested from the 7th century BC.
5. Celtic, descended from Proto-Celtic, emerged around 3000 BC.[10] Lepontic inscriptions date as early as the 6th century BC; Celtiberian from the 2nd century BC; Primitive Irish Ogham inscriptions from the 4th or 5th century AD, earliest inscriptions in Old Welsh from the 8th century AD.
6. Armenian, emerged around 2800 BC.[10] Alphabet writings known from the beginning of the 5th century AD.
7. Balto-Slavic, emerged around 2800 BC,[10] believed by most Indo-Europeanists[14] to form a phylogenetic unit, while a minority ascribes similarities to prolonged language contact.
   • Slavic (from Proto-Slavic), attested from the 9th century AD (possibly earlier; see Slavic runes), earliest texts in Old Church Slavonic.
   • Baltic, attested from the 14th century AD; for languages attested that late, they retain unusually many archaic features attributed to Proto-Indo-European (PIE).
8. Hellenic, emerged around 3000 BC.[10] Fragmentary records in Mycenaean Greek from between 1450 and 1350 BC have been found.[15] Homeric texts date to the 8th century BC. (See Proto-Greek, History of Greek.)
9. Indo-Iranian, emerged around 2200 BC,[10] attested circa 1400 BC, descended from Proto-Indo-Iranian (dated to the late 3rd millennium BC).
   • Indo-Aryan (including Dardic), attested from around 1400 BC in Hittite texts from Asia Minor, showing traces of Indo-Aryan words.[16][17] Epigraphically from the 3rd century BC in the form of Prakrit (Edicts of Ashoka). The Rigveda is assumed to preserve intact records via oral tradition dating from about the mid-2nd millennium BC in the form of Vedic Sanskrit.
   • Iranian or Iranic, attested from roughly 1000 BC in the form of Avestan. Epigraphically from 520 BC in the form of Old Persian (Behistun inscription).
   • Nuristani
10. Albanian, emerged from the 12th century AD, attested from the 14th century AD; Proto-Albanian language evolved from Paleo-Balkan predecessors, usually taken to be Illyrian.[18][19][20]

Date of attesting is the first time we actually find that language being used. Date of emergence is based on linguistic speculations. Linguistics data tells us nothing about what date a language emerged. The earliest evidence we have for German is 2CE and the earliest for Sanskrit 1400BCE, but historical linguists have somehow been able to posit German emerged in 3200BCE and Sanskrit in 2200BCE. This is why this method is called by many a pseudoscience.

Invite any linguists reading this debate to show me the method that these dates are arrived at and how you can be 100% certain?

By the way I am still waiting for this evidence in the way I presented it for my position to show the Rig Veda is at least 4000BCE, to support this 1500BCE date for the arrival of Aryans into India and composition of Rig Veda . If you don't have any, don't bother replying, you just forfeit the debate by default.

 

[paarsurrey]

Dear Curious George, it does actually sound like you don't know what you are talking about, you seem to have very poor knowledge in this field, as you betrayed earlier when you said "PIE entered India" betraying you did not know about IE language family and the classification and dating of the language families. Now, you are saying "We don't know what is the original language of the Rig Veda" We do, it is Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of Sanskrit. The Vedas were not written down in manuscript form until far later in Indian history, they were an oral tradition, that mantras(samhitas) passed on from generation to generation using very sophisticated methods of error checking, so through this artificial method the chants were preserved in their original form with no variations. As we have no manuscript of the Rig Veda, even in in 1500BCE, it is dated using internal evidence based on what kind of flora, fauna, rivers, material culture, position of stars and planets etc and then we can situate in a time and place.

"it is dated using internal evidence based on what kind of flora, fauna, rivers, material culture, position of stars and planets etc and then we can situate in a time and place."

Has every chapter of Veda/Yajurveda been analysed from "internal evidence" of the Veda not only from the flora, fauna and other events mentioned in it, to ascertain time and place it was written?
Regards

 

[Curious George]

Dear Curious George, it does actually sound like you don't know what you are talking about, you seem to have very poor knowledge in this field, as you betrayed earlier when you said "PIE entered India" betraying you did not know about IE language family and the classification and dating of the language families.

It was easier than saying a PIE language family. Lol. You seem to be trying to attack me here? Bad form?

Now, you are saying "We don't know what is the original language of the Rig Veda"

nope, I am saying that the knowledge could have existed prior to the language in which it is written.

We do, it is Vedic Sanskrit, an archaic form of Sanskrit. The Vedas were not written down in manuscript form until far later in Indian history, they were an oral tradition, that mantras(samhitas) passed on from generation to generation using very sophisticated methods of error checking, so through this artificial method the chants were preserved in their original form with no variations. As we have no manuscript of the Rig Veda, even in in 1500BCE, it is dated using internal evidence based on what kind of flora, fauna, rivers, material culture, position of stars and planets etc and then we can situate in a time and place.

Are you implying that if a description of some temporal period exists in a language then that language existed when that temporal period occurred?

You have no qualms but you do. I just presented you a highly solid case for OIT backed with scientific evidence from various fields of science. However, you are yet to present a single shred of evidence for the 1500BCE date you keep repeating for the arrival of Aryans, as if by repeating it over and over again, you will prove it.

You are having a discussion with ghosts here...I am not repeating 1500bce as the "arrival of the Aryans." I have repeated the date of 1500bce, because this date is repeated in plenty of journals. You hold that all of those journals are biased, that is fine. But the date is still left as the earliest dare that there is academic agreement for the existence of Sanskrit in India.

The 1500BCE for the arrival of Aryans and Muller original date of 1200BCE for the composition of the Rig Veda(now the margin for the Rig Veda is 1500-1200BCE) means the Rig Veda was composed in 1200BCE in India. You have obviously not been listening to a thing I have said. I told you scholars agree Rig Veda was composed in India. It was composed in the earliest known form of Sanskrit, Vedic Sanskrit and was passed on from generation to generation, until it was written down around 300-100BCE. Hence, why 1500-1200BCE is called the start of the Vedic age.

So Vedas and Vedic religion was created in India and as I cited last post, scholars now believe the Vedic religion is believed to have partly its origins in the IVC, as we already find Vedic features there. No scholars today believe Vedic religion was created outside of India or that the Rig Veda came from outside of India.

Yet you agree that the IVC religion is not demonstrative of Hinduism the way we see it today. Where is this glaring gap filled? I really would like to jump on board with you here but I know of no evidence from the IVC that shows us that Hinduism culture was IVC culture, all we have is evidence that they were related, and IVC influenced Hinduism. Not that the two were one and the same.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

It was easier than saying a PIE language family. Lol. You seem to be trying to attack me here? Bad form?

It is not really an attack to point out when your opponent does not have knowledge in the topic they are debating You are still calling it "PIE" language, even after it has been pointed out to you several times the language family is called 'Indo-European' Do you simply just refuse to learn and correct your errors?

nope, I am saying that the knowledge could have existed prior to the language in which it is written.



Are you implying that if a description of some temporal period exists in a language then that language existed when that temporal period occurred?

I don't think you understand. The Rig Veda is dated by AMT scholars to about 1500-1200BCE, meaning that the original compositions of the Rig Veda which were remembered through an oral tradition originated then. They come down to us in the language of Vedic Sanskrit, this is how we know they were composed in Vedic Sanskrit. This really is very basic stuff. I am really tiring of saying it, it does not make me feel a bad a bit but it is not an attack, you seem to generally just be very ignorant on this subject. This is not a bad thing, but you do expect your debating opponent to have done their homework pr have basic knowledge about what they debating on. If you don't know something, allow yourself to learn from others more knowledgable.

The Rig Veda is hard to translate accurately, because it is the oldest Indo-Aryan text, composed in the archaic Vedic Sanskrit.[106][107] There are no closely contemporary extant texts, which makes it difficult to interpret.[108]​

See: Rigveda - Wikipedia

You are having a discussion with ghosts here...I am not repeating 1500bce as the "arrival of the Aryans." I have repeated the date of 1500bce, because this date is repeated in plenty of journals. You hold that all of those journals are biased, that is fine. But the date is still left as the earliest dare that there is academic agreement for the existence of Sanskrit in India.

I asked you to provide me evidence to support the 1500-1200BCE date for arrival of Aryans and the composition of the Rig Veda. All you have told me "this is what scholars agree on" your relying on just an appeal to authority which is not evidence for me. The reason I have asked for evidence because the original method the data was arrived is not a valid method, so the date is not valid either. It does not matter how many times you repeat a lie, it never becomes a truth.

Anyway I am not going to keep repeating my request for evidence, it is now plainly clear you don't have any evidence for this date. You claim to be skeptical, but you are obviously not skeptical about a date which has been arrived at by using the bible lol

Yet you agree that the IVC religion is not demonstrative of Hinduism the way we see it today. Where is this glaring gap filled? I really would like to jump on board with you here but I know of no evidence from the IVC that shows us that Hinduism culture was IVC culture, all we have is evidence that they were related, and IVC influenced Hinduism. Not that the two were one and the same.

I am sorry to be blunt, but the fact that things which have been plainly said to you in this thread in the English language and you still misunderstand, is starting to make me think English is probably not your first language. This is the only way to explain you continued misunderstanding of everything that is being said. I have repeatedly told you the opposite of what you just said to me. I said that the IVC shows evidence of later Hinduism as described in post-Vedic texts. I even outlined in one post a few pages back that every feature of the IVC is consistent with Hinduism, which is one the reasons why scholars agree that Hinduism has its origins in the IVC and was not brought to India by Aryans. I also told you in the previous post that scholars now agree even the Vedic religion is now believed by scholars to have partly its origins in IVC.

You are either not reading my posts or you are misunderstanding them, even though they are written in plain and clear English.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

See this post again where I show you exactly what we find in the IVC which is consistent with later Hinduism in the post-vedic period Indus Valley Civilization


If virtually every feature of post-Vedic Hinduism is already found in the IVC, what is the need to posit that Indo -Aryans brought anything to India? It is a superfluous assumption.

There is clearly one ONLY reason why linguists are cocksure that Aryans brought in Vedic religion and Sanskrit into India, it is simply based on Jones observation that Sanskrit is an IE language. Sure, that is true, but how do you get from that the direction of migration from West to East? Why can't it be from East to West? Well the answer is obvious racism. How can Europeans owe their languages and ancestry to a heathen dark-skinned and conquered people.

As I told you earlier you cannot get dates or direction of migration of people just from linguistic data. However, my challenge is still open for any linguists reading this debate to show how it is done.

 

[paarsurrey]

Yet you agree that the IVC religion is not demonstrative of Hinduism the way we see it today. Where is this glaring gap filled? I really would like to jump on board with you here but I know of no evidence from the IVC that shows us that Hinduism culture was IVC culture, all we have is evidence that they were related, and IVC influenced Hinduism. Not that the two were one and the same.

"I know of no evidence from the IVC that shows us that Hinduism culture was IVC culture, all we have is evidence that they were related, and IVC influenced Hinduism. Not that the two were one and the same."

That is right.
Regards

 

[Curious George]

It is not really an attack to point out when your opponent does not have knowledge in the topic they are debating You are still calling it "PIE" language, even after it has been pointed out to you several times the language family is called 'Indo-European' Do you simply just refuse to learn and correct your errors?



I don't think you understand. The Rig Veda is dated by AMT scholars to about 1500-1200BCE, meaning that the original compositions of the Rig Veda which were remembered through an oral tradition originated then. They come down to us in the language of Vedic Sanskrit, this is how we know they were composed in Vedic Sanskrit. This really is very basic stuff. I am really tiring of saying it, it does not make me feel a bad a bit but it is not an attack, you seem to generally just be very ignorant on this subject. This is not a bad thing, but you do expect your debating opponent to have done their homework pr have basic knowledge about what they debating on. If you don't know something, allow yourself to learn from others more knowledgable.

The Rig Veda is hard to translate accurately, because it is the oldest Indo-Aryan text, composed in the archaic Vedic Sanskrit.[106][107] There are no closely contemporary extant texts, which makes it difficult to interpret.[108]​

See: Rigveda - Wikipedia



I asked you to provide me evidence to support the 1500-1200BCE date for arrival of Aryans and the composition of the Rig Veda. All you have told me "this is what scholars agree on" your relying on just an appeal to authority which is not evidence for me. The reason I have asked for evidence because the original method the data was arrived is not a valid method, so the date is not valid either. It does not matter how many times you repeat a lie, it never becomes a truth.

Anyway I am not going to keep repeating my request for evidence, it is now plainly clear you don't have any evidence for this date. You claim to be skeptical, but you are obviously not skeptical about a date which has been arrived at by using the bible lol





I am sorry to be blunt, but the fact that things which have been plainly said to you in this thread in the English language and you still misunderstand, is starting to make me think English is probably not your first language. This is the only way to explain you continued misunderstanding of everything that is being said. I have repeatedly told you the opposite of what you just said to me. I said that the IVC shows evidence of later Hinduism as described in post-Vedic texts. I even outlined in one post a few pages back that every feature of the IVC is consistent with Hinduism, which is one the reasons why scholars agree that Hinduism has its origins in the IVC and was not brought to India by Aryans. I also told you in the previous post that scholars now agree even the Vedic religion is now believed by scholars to have partly its origins in IVC.

You are either not reading my posts or you are misunderstanding them, even though they are written in plain and clear English.

If only there was sanskrit found in the IVC. That dated earlier. We do have cypher from that period: We have language bits, but I have not seen a connection to sanskrit. Do you know of one? Sort of throws a wrench in your whole what is today was yesterday, and yesteryear, and for all time. I think you believe the story you have told yourself, and I will be happy to climb on board with you once reliable evidence emerges. But your evidence is only the oral tradition of the Rig Veda. While I think it merits consideration, it does not justify your conclusion. I was not debating or planning on debating any point in this thread. I created this thread, because I was curious, and wanted to learn. But you seem to emotional with regard to the dates. Even when my dates do not disagree with your point. I have trouble understanding your animosity. Maybe you have become so sensitive trying to make your point that you envision everyone as opposing you who doesn't accept your narrative. Maybe you just need a hug. I am not sure. But, I found this,(if you forgive the 1500bce date see quote below) So, we have in the IVC text that relates to the origin of the semitic language and also the PIE language. Perhaps all languages came from India. But "at least 1500bce" is still a thing.

"Excavations in Dvārakā have led to the discovery of a site larger than
Mohenjo Daro, dated ca. 1500 bce with architectural structures, use
of iron, and a script halfway between Harappan and Brahmī. Dvārakā
has been associated with Kṛṣṇa and the end of the Vedic period."

Survey of hinduism. Klostermair.

Perhaps we will find more evidence as time progresses, but as of now this is the closest I could find that demonstrate sanskrit as it relates to bother Tamil and prakrit.

Cheers.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I was not debating or planning on debating any point in this thread. I created this thread, because I was curious, and wanted to learn. But you seem to emotional with regard to the dates. Even when my dates do not disagree with your point. I have trouble understanding your animosity. Maybe you have become so sensitive trying to make your point that you envision everyone as opposing you who doesn't accept your narrative. Maybe you just need a hug. I am not sure

OK, I will be less emotional.

If only there was sanskrit found in the IVC. That dated earlier. We do have cypher from that period: We have language bits, but I have not seen a connection to sanskrit. Do you know of one? Sort of throws a wrench in your whole what is today was yesterday, and yesteryear, and for all time. I think you believe the story you have told yourself, and I will be happy to climb on board with you once reliable evidence emerges. But your evidence is only the oral tradition of the Rig Veda.

Linguistics does not work like that. The earliest written evidence we find of old German is 2CE, but its date of emergence is 3200BCE. We do not find any written evidence or even any oral tradition of German from 3200BCE.

But "at least 1500bce" is still a thing.

I think you have pretty much fore-fitted this debate, because you repeatedly ignored my requests to justify this date. At one time 4004BCE as the date of creation was a "thing" but we rejected it because obviously it was not arrived at with a valid method. The 1500BCE was not arrived at with a valid method either and it has been maintained because it has been repeated.

If you are not going to acknowledge and answer the points I am making this debate is pointless.

Perhaps we will find more evidence as time progresses, but as of now this is the closest I could find that demonstrate sanskrit as it relates to bother Tamil and prakrit.

Science does not work like that. In science we posit things based on inferences, that do not have to wait for empirical validation e.g. we have not seen atoms, we infer they exist. Until recently we had not seen gravity waves or Higgs bosons, they were inferred.

You are looking exclusively at only linguistic evidence which is inconclusive, to the exclusion of every other type of evidence metallurgical, astronomical, geological, archaeological, mathematical and textual in addition to linguistic evidence. I have made a far stronger case for OIT than you have, well to be honest, you haven't made a case at all for AMT,. You have ignored everyone of the points I made in a recent post showing how all evidence converges with the textual record. I will repeat one again --- the Rig Veda does not mention iron, but mentions 'ayus' which is a common IE word to refer to bronze. Iron is only mentioned in late Vedic texts like Atharveda and Yajurveda. I have shown you now we know iron working started in India from the early second millennium BCE. Hence if 1500-1200BCE is the date of the composition of the Rig veda, they would know iron. It does not know iron, because it is a bronze age text.

How about responding to the arguments I am making rather than ignoring them? Otherwise I am going to call it a day.

 

[Curious George]

OK, I will be less emotional.



Linguistics does not work like that. The earliest written evidence we find of old German is 2CE, but its date of emergence is 3200BCE. We do not find any written evidence or even any oral tradition of German from 3200BCE.

So I would say that German existed in at least 2CE

I think you have pretty much fore-fitted this debate, because you repeatedly ignored my requests to justify this date. At one time 4004BCE as the date of creation was a "thing" but we rejected it because obviously it was not arrived at with a valid method. The 1500BCE was not arrived at with a valid method either and it has been maintained because it has been repeated.

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?

If you are not going to acknowledge and answer the points I am making this debate is pointless.

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.

Science does not work like that. In science we posit things based on inferences, that do not have to wait for empirical validation e.g. we have not seen atoms, we infer they exist. Until recently we had not seen gravity waves or Higgs bosons, they were inferred.

You are looking exclusively at only linguistic evidence which is inconclusive, to the exclusion of every other type of evidence metallurgical, astronomical, geological, archaeological, mathematical and textual in addition to linguistic evidence. I have made a far stronger case for OIT than you have, well to be honest, you haven't made a case at all for AMT,.

That is because I am not arguing AMT. I think I have tried to state this numerous times.

You have ignored everyone of the points I made in a recent post showing how all evidence converges with the textual record. I will repeat one again --- the Rig Veda does not mention iron, but mentions 'ayus' which is a common IE word to refer to bronze. Iron is only mentioned in late Vedic texts like Atharveda and Yajurveda. I have shown you now we know iron working started in India from the early second millennium BCE. Hence if 1500-1200BCE is the date of the composition of the Rig veda, they would know iron. It does not know iron, because it is a bronze age text.

How about responding to the arguments I am making rather than ignoring them? Otherwise I am going to call it a day.

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.

 

[paarsurrey]

OK, I will be less emotional.

Linguistics does not work like that. The earliest written evidence we find of old German is 2CE, but its date of emergence is 3200BCE. We do not find any written evidence or even any oral tradition of German from 3200BCE.

I think you have pretty much fore-fitted this debate, because you repeatedly ignored my requests to justify this date. At one time 4004BCE as the date of creation was a "thing" but we rejected it because obviously it was not arrived at with a valid method. The 1500BCE was not arrived at with a valid method either and it has been maintained because it has been repeated.

If you are not going to acknowledge and answer the points I am making this debate is pointless.

Science does not work like that. In science we posit things based on inferences, that do not have to wait for empirical validation e.g. we have not seen atoms, we infer they exist. Until recently we had not seen gravity waves or Higgs bosons, they were inferred.

You are looking exclusively at only linguistic evidence which is inconclusive, to the exclusion of every other type of evidence metallurgical, astronomical, geological, archaeological, mathematical and textual in addition to linguistic evidence. I have made a far stronger case for OIT than you have, well to be honest, you haven't made a case at all for AMT,. You have ignored everyone of the points I made in a recent post showing how all evidence converges with the textual record. I will repeat one again --- the Rig Veda does not mention iron, but mentions 'ayus' which is a common IE word to refer to bronze. Iron is only mentioned in late Vedic texts like Atharveda and Yajurveda. I have shown you now we know iron working started in India from the early second millennium BCE. Hence if 1500-1200BCE is the date of the composition of the Rig veda, they would know iron. It does not know iron, because it is a bronze age text.

How about responding to the arguments I am making rather than ignoring them? Otherwise I am going to call it a day.

"the Rig Veda does not mention iron, but mentions 'ayus' which is a common IE word to refer to bronze. Iron is only mentioned in late Vedic texts like Atharveda and Yajurveda.I have shown you now we know iron working started in India from the early second millennium BCE. Hence if 1500-1200BCE is the date of the composition of the Rig veda, they would know iron. It does not know iron, because it is a bronze age text."

Veda was one book/narration to start with, it is later that it was divided into four, and much later in many.
It must be one metal, until of course something had been added into it by later people, and that should not be its legitimate part. Right? Please
Regards

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

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.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

"the Rig Veda does not mention iron, but mentions 'ayus' which is a common IE word to refer to bronze. Iron is only mentioned in late Vedic texts like Atharveda and Yajurveda.I have shown you now we know iron working started in India from the early second millennium BCE. Hence if 1500-1200BCE is the date of the composition of the Rig veda, they would know iron. It does not know iron, because it is a bronze age text."

Veda was one book/narration to start with, it is later that it was divided into four, and much later in many.
It must be one metal, until of course something had been added into it by later people, and that should not be its legitimate part. Right? Please
Regards

Nah not true, the Rig Veda was composed first, and the other books Yajur, Sama and Atharva Veda were composed later.

You are confusing the Hindu mythological belief that the Veda was revealed all at once and then later edited by Vyassa with actually what scholarship is telling us. If that is the case then you would also believe the Vedas were originally revealed when the universe was created lol In case you didn't know most of the Yajur and Sama Veda consists of the same mantras that were in the Rig Veda, which shows us the Rig Veda was composed first, and the mantras were passed on and then repeated in later compositions.

 

[Curious George]

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?

Because whatever preceded sanskrit in the IVC became part of Sanskrit as language evolved.

 

[Curious George]

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.

There you go with the word arrive again. It doesn't have to be "arrive"

Doestrogen the composer of perlscript need to have "arrived" from the land of perl? It is just as well that the language was invented for the purpose of writing the Rig Veda. My point is that we do not know what you presume to know. Somehow saying this means I am assuming that "Aryans " arrived. Such, is not the case. I am only trying to look at what we know. It seems to me that we know at least 1500bce. Could it have been 4000bce? Absolutely. Could it have been 7000bce? Sure. But we know at least 1500bce.

I really do not understand why you keep insisting I defend AIT/AMT. I would imagine that any civilisation that was as large as IVC would draw people from outside, and if such a civilization did colonize places that would bring some form of migration/admixture but I am not suggesting that AMT occurred.