Talk:Rigveda

Comments

I am curious about the new name. I've always seen it as two words and thought that rig defined which veda it was. Danny

In Sanskrit, Rigveda is never written as two different words Rig and veda. The names such as Samaveda, Atharvaveda, Yajurveda are each single words.

yes, sorry for not moving the old talkpage. It is a single tatpurusha compound. In English, *praise-knowledge would maybe be counted as two words (an apposition), but in Sanskrit, as in German *Lobwissen, it is counted as a single word, under a single accent. See Talk:Rig_Veda#Rigveda_or_Rig_Veda. If it was two words, it would be inflected, as *ricām veda. dab (ᛏ) 15:56, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The article seemed biased specially when it mentions Aryan Invasion Theory which is highly debated Ankit Jain 03:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Image:The Rig Veda.jpg

the image doesn't show "The Rig Veda", it shows just a printed page with two verses plus Sayana's commentary. There is no reason to show that rather than the actual text, and then on Purusha sukta or something; the same goes for the creation hymn, we can hardly begin showing the full text of individual hymns here. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Tilak

"The Orion" by Tilak is a much more important book on Vedic topics. To speak of "The Arctic Home" by Tilak is to remain fixated on Newton's Alchemy and forget his physics. MarcAurel 04:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

that's not the point, the statement you deleted was in the context of extremely far-fetched claims. Tilak is notable for claiming the Aryans came from the North Pole. If he said other, more reasonable things, by all means discuss them, but don't delete other material. dab (ᛏ) 11:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Difference in texts

Why are the texts linked to in the article different? I mean, sacred-text's and intratext's ones.

Examples:

sacred-text's edition of Book 6 has 75 hymns, and intratext's has 84. And so on.

Hymn 54 of Book 6 is different: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rvsan/rv06054.htm vs. http://www.intratext.com/IXT/SAN0010/_PE9.HTM

I have also sent an email to intratext asking this question. --Imz 01:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

their hymn count is completely garbled. I assume they used some broken automatization to break up the text. It is correct up to 2.16. 2.17 breaks off at verse 5, and "2.18" is really 2.17 6-9a. The link is worthless, and I'll remove it now. dab (ᛏ) 08:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

How Old is Rigveda?

How old is Rigveda is horribly mistaken. Most of the estimates by modern historians are based on contemplation. True logical conclusion can be seen in the below mentioned URL.

Following are the quotes from http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A09 "Rig Veda verses belie the old chronology (VI.51.14-15 mentions the winter solstice occurs when the sun rises in Revati nakshatra, only possible at 6,000bce, long before the alleged invasion.) Carbon dating confirms horses in Gujarat at 2,400bce, contradicting old model claim Aryans must have brought them. NASA satellite photos prove Sarasvati River basin is real, not a myth. Fire altars excavated at Kali Bangan in Rajasthan support existence of Rig Veda culture at 2,700 bce. Kunal, a new site in Haryana, shows use of writing and silver craft in pre-Harappan India, 6-7,000bce."

Please also see the chapter on "Myth of the Aryan invasion of India by David Frawley" at http://www.mantra.com/newsplus/aitmyth.html#A15

Regards, Prashant (s/w Engg in MNC)

Oldest text of Indo-Iranian languages

Just got curious if it's not also the oldest text in any Indo-European language? If not, which one is? deeptrivia (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The Gathas (sermons of Zarathrustra) are likely older. The reason being that the Gathas contain a much wider, much older I-Ir lexicon than the Rk, which already has numerous borrowings from Dravidian (not a great deal though). Kuiper wrote a few articles about this which I will cite when I can pull them out from my boxes. The Gathas are virtually "pure" Indo-Iranian, by contrast, though arguably, this could be due to deliberate redaction in the highly nationalistic Sassanian period when few surviving texts of the Avesta were compiled. The oldest firmly dated IE text is the Mitanni scroll which contains the names of a few I-Ir deities; I believe that is 1236 BCE, but I can't find the reference right now.--Almijisti 07:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I was way off; the earliest datable I-Ir words I am aware of appear as the names Suriias and Marutta as the names of foreign gods in a Kassite document dated to ~1760 BCE. I believe this is the earliest example of any IE, not just I-Ir, but I cannot say definitively. The famous Mitanni treaty, between the Mitannian pretender, Matiwazza and the Hittite monarch, Shupiluliumas (my favorite ancient name) is dated to ~1360 BCE (I had a couple correct digits) and has mi-it-ra, u-ru-ua-na, in-dar, and na-sa-at-ti-ia; i.e., Mitra, Varuna, Indra, and Nasatya. Had to pull out my old thesis to find this.--Almijisti 06:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dating Claims

I removed some nonsense (such as "new evidence turning up all the time", and by edit conflict also reverted the addition of a list of ancient texts. This is offtopic here, go to Ancient literature (where we are linking to from this article at the appropriate location). dab (ᛏ) 20:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I could agree that the place for the detail you removed does not need to be here, and I updated Ancient literature. However, the dating claims are still not documented, and the paragraphs point is hardly nuetral. The unspoken assumptions appear to be:

1) the RigVeda is the oldest literature

2) the RigVeda is the source of all religious thought

3) "recent finds" related to the RigVeda equal adequate evidence

I am happy to see the RigVeda represented as the oldest of all literatures, if that is what it is. I humbly (not sarcasticaly) ask for objective peer reviewed evidence before being told that is the case. If there are those whose religious or nationalistic sensibilities are offended by this, consider another approach: if the RigVeda really is the "truth", does it matter if it is the oldest, the source, or adequately supported archaeologically? If so, we need the objective citations. If not, we need verifiable claims to form an objective opinion. Thank you for the attention to this. mamgeorge 20:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

not at all -- the "recent finds" stuff was a recent addition by an anon, and I removed it. If we say somewhere that the RV is the "source of all religious thought", I didn't spot it, and the statement should of course be removed. I don't see where we are claiming that the RV is "oldest literature". Oldest Indo-Iranian, for sure, and oldest with unbroken oral tradition, but not "oldest", golbally, by a long shot. I don't see where you read something like this into the article. As explained in the "dating" section, the 1500-1200 range is the general rough consensus in philology; I'll see if the date goes back to Oldenberg and insert a proper reference. Since the composition of the hymns certainly spans several centuries, and the redaction is several centuries later still, the date is not particularly controversial. You could say that the RV as we know it evolved over a millennium, say 1800-800 BC, with the earliest nucleus in the early part of this range, and the final redaction in its final phase. dab (ᛏ) 20:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, thanks for the checks; I appreciate you dedication. I have some questions, if you can bear them; they seem appropriate to the topic. I do not have a quick way of verifying these details; do you?:

1) Limiting the scope to Indo-Iranian may be correct. I was thinking Elamite, Hittite, Hurrian, Ugarit etc. would apply to those boundaries though; do you have a link that clears that up?

2) A redaction is editing for publication. Are you saying the Vedas were published in the 800 BC? Do we really know how old it is? How are we determining this?

3) How old are the oldest existing copies? Where are the oldest documents kept? How are they classified? Have they been dated? Have any Bibliographical analysis been applied to them? What is their percentage or error?

4) Oldest oral tradition... I have no reason to doubt that. On the other hand, how do we know what people believed prior to when it was written (which is why I asked...to begin with)?

Just got your latest comment: "look, this is totally undisputed. You won't find a single scholar saying otherwise". Many history based websites show much younger dates; I will not cite them because I can not evaluate their claims objectively. Can you? Without a citation, I have only another opinion about what the opinion is.

Thank you, mamgeorge 21:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I have also been curious about the dating of the Vedas. They are supposed to have been transmitted orally with no diglossia for millennia and I find it hard to swallow. A [paper] (pdf, page 5) by Prof. Witzel, which among other things defends the dating of the earliest parts of the Rg Veda to 1500BCE, makes a case based on the fact that iron and fortified cities are 'not' mentioned in it, so it must precede the Iron Age in the Punjab.

Anyways, from what I've seen, dating the earliest parts of the Rg to 1500BCE does seem to have mainstream scholarly support, and that is all that matters. - Kingsley2.com 08:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

that's interesting. I've had to defend this article against pious attempts to insert Neolithic if not Paleolithic dates, and suddenly find myself forced to defend the dates as being not too early. Scholarship is certainly unanimous in dating the text to the 2nd millennium. Of course it may well contain ideas that go back as far as you like (such as PIE Dyaus Pita, who may well date to the 5th millennium), but as a text there is just no way it predates 2000 BC. Now while the youngest parts may rather confidently and uncontroversially be placed in the 12th century (give or take a century), it is undisputed that the earliest parts predate this by several centuries. Just, how many centuries? I am confident that most scholars would date the bulk of the text to after 1500. But the 'bulk' is not the earliest hymn. Oberlies settles for 1700. While few people would insist that the earliest parts must date to this early, I am sure most people would willingly grant the possibility. Therefore let us stick with Oberlies' 1100-1700: Oberlies did not try to forward a hypothesis with this, he rather reviewed scholarship and found that this is more or less the consensus.

regarding "writing" and "publication", I suggest you read the entire article for background. I added some stuff regarding writing in ancient India. The point is that writing is irrelevant when discussing the Rigveda. I suppose it would have been written down from the 8th century or so. The oldest scraps of manuscripts will be a couple of centuries old. The Vedic methods of highly organized, professional oral tradition really rendered the introduction of writing a side issue. dab (ᛏ) 14:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Linguistically speaking the Gathas are arguably at least as old, perhaps much older than the RV, according to research by Boyce, Haug, Kellens, etc.--all reputable Iranicists. It is, of course, even more difficult to attempt dating of any of the Avesta, owing to the centuries of privations following Alexander's victory over the Achaemenids and the deliberately artificial compilations attempted under the Sassanids. That said, it is far from settled in the I-Ir scholastic world that the RV is older than the Gathas or vice versa. It's difficult to say, really, because it is likely that the dialect of the RV isn't even the same as later Vedic Skt and may be closer to that of the Gathas than the rest of the Samhitas. One mustn't overlook the fact that the Gathas are almost devoid of non-I-Ir words, while the RV has numerous Dravidian and Munda borrowings (see Kuiper 1991; Aalto 1971). This is ambiguous, admittedly, but it could point to an earlier redaction than the RV; that is, maybe Zarathustra's audience had not yet fully split into Iranian and Indic worlds (perhaps significantly, the sermons themselves depict a society that was on the verge of a terrific collapse).

At any rate, there are portions of RV x that may even predate ii-ix, particularly the akhyana hymns, which perhaps were remnants of a very ancient epic or cosmogony. I believe that establishing a terminus a quo for the RV is next to impossible; for one thing, only one of the five known rescensions exists. As for the other samhitas, the Samaveda has several hymns that do not appear in the Sakalya recension and may be remnants of the other rescensions or, perhaps, apocrypha. The Sakalya rescension was not compiled into final form until the 6th or 5th centuries (this date is, at least relatively well accepted even according to indigenous tradition, ascribing the work to the sage Vyasa). Even the "serious" literature on the subject of RV dating is about 10% evidence and 90% conjecture; nearly all of it that derives from a lingustic analysis is devoid of any real understanding of the archaeology and most archaeologists have only cursory knowledge of the texts (Rau was a notable exception). Muller originally thought 1200 BCE then he revised this downward to 1500 later in his life; Haug was convinced that it was at least 2400 BCE (Haug was perhaps the greatest of the early Indo-Iranicists), and Kaegi thought it was even earlier. The idea some have that 19th Century Europeans had any consensus on or need for a late chronology for the Vedic literature is simply false. I have elsewhere pointed out the circular reasoning that goes on in most of Vedic dating articles. The situation is not comparable to any other field of ancient studies, owing to the singular importance of I-Ir research to the entire field of historical linguistics and IE linguistics in particular. It's unlikely to resolve in my lifetime. On top of all the traditional academic slowness, Vedic dating has in recent years become one of the most politicized topics in all of humanities research.--Almijisti 07:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Almijisti, Avesta mentions Hapta-Hendu as the fifteenth home of Aryans and Rangha as the sixteenth and the last. That means that the Avestans first came to India and went later to Rangha (because of heat and fever) before Avesta was complied. So definitely the RigVeda is older. I do agree that Avesta remembered some stories better (example, deluge with snow), while Vedics remembered other stories better. Aupmanyav 15:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversial 'Out of India' theory

Please refer to the following paragraph, 'Kazanas (2000) in a polemic .. diametral opposition to views in mainstream historical linguistics, and supports the controversial Out of India theory,.. ' Let me point out that 'from within India' theory is even more controversial. Aupmanyav 15:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

huh? "Out of India" and "from within India" are the same thing. (ᛎ) qɐp 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting/Font test (sorry, can be deleted in some minutes)

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

The Rigveda (Sanskrit: ऋग्वेद ṛgveda

you should use {{lang}}: ऋग्वेद dab (ᛏ) 10:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

thx for the hint. just exploring different handling here and in de:. See http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer_Diskussion:Pjacobi#Vorlage:IAST

Introduction

• The introduction "Rigveda, a tatpurush compound of etc...." appears vague. Its as though a knowledgeable audience is being addressed. What, whose, when, where etc. are addressed quite later in the introduction. Are such kind of introductions in fashion or what ? I propose to change it to a more conventional one like the one for Avesta.IAF
  • how is it vague? Do you mean, overly specific? This is the brief bracket explaining the Sanskrit term, too short for a separate "etymology" section, and too central to be banished to a footnote imho. I see nothing wrong with it. As always, if people don't know what a tatpurusha is, and would like to find out, they can click on the link. dab (ᛏ) 13:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• It's vague for a first-time reader who may think its quite uninteresting or may wonder what is it. That tatpurush is a mouse-click away is not as far-away as the patience that is tested by introducing literary prowess right in the beginning. Besides, the order of merit usually is what, when, whose, etc. Its finer meaning can come in between this list or sometime later. This trend is seen in the pages like Ashok and Sanskrit also. I would like the opinions of others on not only this page, but other such pages also because we must make them readable for the quick-surfer, and for the average Joe. IAF

• OK just keep it simple like HAL Tejas, instead of a "tatpurush compound of...". That its a tatpurush can be mentioned later. Indian Air Force (IAF)

this is nonsense. Practically every article on Sanskrit terms on Wikipedia gives a brief translation, and an analysis of the components if the term is a compound. See Yajurveda, Ashvamedha, or any other article you care to look at. And no, we will not dumb down articles towards your image of a "quick surfer average Joe", we have simple: for that sort of approach. dab (𒁳) 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Nylon, Human, Aircraft and electricity, all of which either provide a separate mention on the etymology of the same in a section dedicated to explaining the same, or a very short and brief one (as in the electricity article).

Ashvamedha, and Yajurveda similarly need to be cleaned-up from this imagined stretch of yours that "we will not dumb down articles". Excuse me, this is a publicly viewable, highly accessible encyclopaedia meant for all. Thus, the more serious researcher would look at the tatpurusha compound blabber down in the history or etymology section, whereas the high-school student doing an assignment would be more than content with the info provided in the introduction. Indian_Air_Force.

what is your problem? If you don't want to know what a tatpurusha is, simply ignore it. We cannot taylor articles according to what you think people are looking for. You have some cleanup ahead of you if you want to see this through, buddy. I suggest you begin by removing the superfluous Devanagari from all India-related articles. Feel free to come back here once you have cleansed Category:Hindu deities of such redundancy of no interest to high-schoolers. dab (𒁳) 13:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

• I can easily slap your own argument back at you by saying what is your problem if the tatpurusha mumbo-jumbo is included somewhere later in the article. Till now, you have not given one valid reason why such technical terms need to be planted right at the top in the introduction, when it is very clear that most average readers, quick-surfers etc. are just looking for a definition, and a brief intro. That is the primary reason all encyclopaedic articles have an introduction in the first place.

Devanagiri scripts are not "technical terms". They are a translation and people understand that. You know the crux of my logic DBachmann, but are skillfully skirting the issue by bringing in the similar but unconvincing argument of Devanagiri scripts into the discussion. The tactic of "if this, so why not this" does not apply here. Devanagiri can remain, but tatpurusha compound etc does not. Indian_Air_Force(IAF)

Reorganization of the bibliography of editions

It is good that we are updating the editions. For editions that I cannot verify directly I am referring to Wendy Doniger's reiew which appears in her book cited in the article. I notice that some of the dates and titling she gives differ from those in the article. If any of the dates or edition details differ from what others may know, could you please add additional citations rather than removing what I give to Doniger? If we add multiple variants we can reconcile any differences over the next week. Buddhipriya 19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Location

The first hymns of Rgveda were composed in Southern Afghanistan according to Dr Rajesh Kochar (The Vedic People, Orient Longman, 2000). His arguments based on relationship of Vedic Sanskrit with Avestan language, location of Ephedra plants (Soma), names of the rivers etc were very logical. As Indo-Aryans gradually movesd east towards Punjab bulk of Vedas were composed in that region.Kumarrao 14:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

mathematics

A few months ago a change to History of mathematics asserted that this work was relevant to the history, yet there is no mention of it on this article. Is there some truth to the anons edit? John Vandenberg 13:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopkins

In one of his ingenious if extravagant articles, Brunnhofer, writing to prove that the Rig-Veda was composed before the Aryans entered India, lays stress on the fact that the family-name of one of the Vedic seers means 'dog'; whence, as our author conclues, the poet must have been a 'dog-revering Iranian.'

This statement surely implies that there is something unusual in finding 'dog' as a man's name in the Rig-Veda, and shows that the author thinks the dog to have been despised in the Vedic period. But, in point of fact, in the Rig-Veda we find 'Dog's Tail' as a proper name, and in the Brahmanic period we learn that a good Brahman gave this canine name in three different forms to his three sons, so that Çunaḥpuccha, Çunaḥçepa and Çunolāńgūla (Ait. Br. vii. 15) all rise as witnesses against Brunnhofer; while later still, withal in the most Brahmanic period, we find Dog's Ear, Çunaskarṇa, handed down as a respectable name. Āçvalāyana's teacher was a Çāunaka. Even were the animal despised, the name, then, was unobjectionable; as actually happens in the parallel case of the jackal, which is found as a proper name, although the beast was contemptible. Brunnhofer, to be sure, relegates all jackal-names, for the same reason, to the Turanians; but this is rather absurd, in view of the fact that as late as the grammatical period we have a scholar called Jackal-son. Like Çunaka, Çāunaka, we find Kroṭuka, Krāuṣṭuki, both the name and the patronymic (kroṣṭar, common and proper name), and both good Hindu names.

But it is the implication that the dog was a despicable beast in the eyes of the Vedic Aryans that the strongest exception may

Composed versus recorded

Rather than just revert each other, could we please have discussion on this issue on the talk page? The back and forth edit wars are unproductive: [1]. It seems that this is another of the debates about dating? Please, can we try to get the discussion about which sources are to be used, and then focus on what those sources actually say? Buddhipriya 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well composed seems to be the POV of one user, conveniently discussing somewhere else. Books use recorded [2], and composed is used mainly in sentences like "The Vedas are composed of four segments: Rigveda, Yajurveda, etc."Bakaman 03:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Baka, thanks for the background. It seems to me that the debate is really just a foil for the usual debate about dating. It may be cleaner to just deal with that directly if it is the issue. When I read the sentences in the article that are affected by this language it seems to me that the semantics are about whether or not the Vedas were "first written" (composed) at the time or "transferred from oral form to written form" (recorded). This obviously affects the age of the work, with "composed" suggesting a later date than "recorded". But other readers may react differently to the language. The issue of dating of the material is also undergoing debate at Vedas, and there we are seeing the removal of cited material in favor of some of the political materials. I looked at the use of the word "recorded" at [3] but I can't quite see that citation as being directly relevant (I actually am not sure what it means there). I would agree on your second point that "the Vedas are composed of ..." would make sense, but there the word is being used to mean "containing" as opposed to "being written". How about this as an intellectual challenge? What if each time the word was used, you needed to say it some other way, not using either of the trigger words? Would thinking of another term help? Another way out would be to actually give a quote to a specific WP:RS to make the points when they arise, using whatever language that WP:RS chose. That would help keep the focus on sourcing. In looking at the specific edits involved, some may also benefit from the addition of more citations to bring in additional material. I will add one additional citation now to the first case where there the term is being debated to see if that approach helps. Each case might need different citations.

After reading the article more closely, I decided not to add anything because I think the first step would be to move all of the material on dating out of the lead and into the section on dating. One of the problems with the article is that the dating discussion is scattered in multiple places. Would there be any objection to simply consolidating all of the existing material about dating in the dating section? Buddhipriya 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Baka, I have reproduced the content of the URL you provided for your reliable source immediately above.

Nowhere does the word "recorded" appear, as you stated, though "composed" appears in the very first sentence.

Best, JFD 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

this is splitting hairs, isn't it? "composed" is the verb commonly used, but there is really nothing attached to it. It is used because "written" is incorrect, since the hymns were committed to memory, not written down, in the early days. "Recorded" also implies some sort of material "record". There was a "mental record" of the text, of course, but that doesn't really sit comfortably with English usage (OED considers this usage obsolete, and cites as its last occurrence a date of 1656). This discussion is a red herring. The earliest bits date to maybe 1500-1200 BC, which is expressed by saying they were composed back then, amazingly, if you can believe it, without any evil colonialist agenda to slight Hindus. Bakaman's citation of a fragment of a paper discussing Vedic s-aorists is ludicrous (evidently; trust this user will turn a simple matter of stylistics into a vitriolic 'conflict') . dab (𒁳) 08:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your dating of the vedas is flawed. Comparative Education notes that "Vedas..antiquity may predate 4000 BC". Merriam-Webster lists a secondary meaning as "to state for or as if for the record". The records were passed down by oral tradition, in this way a record was formed. Leave it to dab to make outlandish assumptions and petty attacks.Bakaman 23:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Baka, are you seriously proposing that a single sentence in an otherwise unrelated article in a journal devoted to an otherwise unrelated field completely overturns the prevailing view in the relevant academic community? JFD 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware dab was a spokesman for the academic community. The 4000 claim is widely known, therefore it does not fall under Redflag. The truth or current trend is irrelevant when we know the claim is widely known. It was known back in 1895 and its put forward now. It is widely known, covered by reliable media, and not out of character.Bakaman 23:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

But in no way is it the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. And, within the relevant academic comunity, it's not even a tiny minority view, let alone a significant one. JFD 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Again it is widely known, covered by reliable media and not out of character. This is a chicken and egg argument. Luckily, my argument came first on the relevant policy.Bakaman 00:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't change the fact that the 4000 claim is still "contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community". And the only way to demonstrate "the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" is to provide multiple reliable sources, not a single sentence in a completely unrelated article. (And I won't touch "Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them" for now.) JFD 00:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

4000 BC and similar dates (6000 BC...) are patently out of the picture and are paraded in political and sectarian contexts, completely outside anything resembling academic integrity. I tried to discuss this phenomenon under the title of "Hindutva and pseudoscience", but proponents managed to get this deleted (by very dubious incidencts, policy-wise) and prefer to keep their motivations in the dark. This is not an honest debate. This article can mention crackpot dates in the Neolithic, but will clearly mark them as the naive or chauvinist exploits they are. There is really no need to keep rehashing this. dab (𒁳) 09:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Buddhipriya's suggestion above to move all of the material on dating out of the lead and into the section on dating.Sbhushan 19:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It is not as if Indologists like Max Muller were unaware of the religious scholar view that the Vedas are considered a revelation AND, dating of them is irrelevant, since the belief has been that the "Vedas existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time". Since this whole controversy started some 200 years ago when some highly speculative dates were suggested, and as linguistics based dating remains equally speculative today, I suggest we get rid of all dating altogether, except that there is agreement that they are the oldest religious scripture, and that ll suggested precise dates or date ranges are speculative:

in an introductory lecture on the origin of the Vedas to Europeans in 1865, the German Indologist Max Muller said, "In no country, I believe, has the theory of revelation been so minutely elaborated as in India. The name for revelation in Sanskrit is Sruti, which means hearing; and this title distinguished the Vedic hymns and, at a later time, the Brahmanas also, from all other works, which however sacred and authoritative to the Hindu mind, are admitted to have been composed by human authors. The Laws of Manu, for instance, are not revelation; they are not Sruti, but only Smriti, which means recollection of tradition. If these laws or any other work of authority can be proved on any point to be at variance with a single passage of the Veda, their authority is at once overruled. According to the orthodox views of Indian theologians, not a single line of the Veda was the work of human authors. The whole Veda is in some way or the other the work of the Deity; and even those who saw it were not supposed to be ordinary mortals, but beings raised above the level of common humanity, and less liable therefore to error in the reception of revealed truth. The views entertained by the orthodox theologians of India are far more minute and elaborate than those of the most extreme advocates of verbal inspiration in Europe. The human element, called paurusheyatva in Sanskrit, is driven out of every corner or hiding place, and as the Veda is held to have existed in the mind of the Deity before the beginning of time..." For quotation see: "Chips from a German Workshop" by Max Muller, Oxford University Press, 1867 - Chapter 1: "Lecture on the Vedas or the Sacred Books of the Brahmans, Delivered at Leeds, 1865", pages 17-18.

Hulagu 00:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Hulagu

yes, this is completely undisputed. This should be discussed in detail at Shruti. The date of the Rigveda is completely irrelevant for its religious significance. It is extremely important for its philological relevance. Because of this, it is difficult to understand why people who have a religious interest in the text keep intruding in a philological discussion in which they have no interest, and of which they have no understanding. As it is, the text of the Rigveda is of very minor significance to modern Hinduis. Texts like the Bhagavad Gita are immensely more important. The philological and linguistic relevance of the Rigveda, on the other hand, remains immense. This article has room for discussing both aspects, and they need not interfere with one another. Such interference happens when the philological debate is gate-crashed by religionists. This is similar to dating the Bible of course, where Biblical literalists with no idea of philology or Hebrew keep insisting the Pentateuch was written in 1800 BC or what. The problem is thus certainly not restricted to Hinduism, it is a division of religious zeal vs. academia, and not one of "East vs. West" as the zealots would often have you believe. dab (𒁳) 08:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

BIASED PRESENTATION OF MATERIAL ON HINDUISM AND INDIA ON WIKIPEDIA

Discussion moved to the Hinduism notice board.Bakaman 23:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dating information

This recent set of changes has removed key information and sources (yes I know about the dating section, it depended on sources that were in the intro). Besides this loss of key sources, I feel that it is important to mention the dating information in the introduction, as the age of this work is of more global importance than its religious importance to some. It's approach 2am here so I cant tackle this right now. John Vandenberg 15:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

No other page on a religious text has the dating section in the beginning section. For you, perhaps the dating is more important, but that is hardly a majority opinion. As for the sources, we can emrely move them to another section.Bakaman 16:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually those references are in the dating section.Bakaman 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not correct; the mention of "India: What Can It Teach Us" and "Mallory" do not exist in the version you reverted to (repeatedly); also it removed mention of "Avesta". Yes, we could move the sources into a section or sub-article, but I expect that serious contributors who think the content should be repositioned ensure that the sourcing is moved rather than reverting to sub-standard version. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

nonsense. the dating is crucial, and I daresay it isn't only the infidel Westerners that keep harping on how very ancient the Vedas are. If you expand this article with so much good information that a separate Dating of the Rigveda (paralleling Dating of the Bible) becomes an option, that's a wholly different issue. dab (𒁳) 21:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is crucial. That's why there is a section on dating. But don't take the word of a heathen Hindoo, here's a link. No other religious text has a large clunky out-of-place "dating" tidbit in the beginning, there's little logic in adding one here. But Hinduism (in the words of your immortal friend) is problematic, eh?Bakaman 22:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is right to use an argument of the sort Bible:Christianity::Rigveda:Hinduism and concluding that dating information should not be mentioned in the lead. Hinduism is not centered on any particular book(s) like Christianity or Islam might be. The article on Daozang does mention dating in lead, so does Analects and Pali Canon. Dating information of Rigveda is extremely important because of its several firsts (e.g. among the oldest text in any Indo-European language). deeptrivia (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Also it is important to note that most other religious works are not true to their historical roots. For example, the Bible (Christianity) contains the Torah (Judaism) which is a melting pot of written works (see Documentary hypothesis). The article on the Oral Torah includes dating information in the first sentence, to the level of accuracy that is possible. Codex Cairensis and Dead sea scrolls, being an actual manuscripts, also do. I am open to discussion on the placement, and there are probably sub-articles that can be written on this topic; my main concern was the removal of sources pertinent to the dating of this literary work. John Vandenberg 02:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Bakaman is well known for this type of trolling. But if there are any serious suggestions for reasonably re-arranging the lead, we can by all means discuss them, of course. The Rigveda is a rather marginal text in the huge body scripture of modern Hinduism (the Baghavad Gita is orders of magnitude more relevant), its main notability is due to its being the most ancient of them all. The intro has been very carefully optimized by WP:LEAD, and drive-by trolling will not be sufficient grounds for changing it. dab (𒁳) 10:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Rgveda and Jacobi

I am here quoting from a Wiki article 'Indian Astronomy' :

"Jacobi (1909) has argued that in the Rigveda and Atharvaveda the sun was in Phalguni, and in the Sankhayana and Gobhila Grhyasutra the Full moon was in Bhadrapada during the summer solstice, which would have occurred at 4500-2500 BCE.[44] Jacobi and Tilak have both noted that the terms of the naksatras Mula (root), Vicrtau (dividers) and Jyestha (oldest) suggest that these names originated from a time when Mula marked the beginning of the year, i.e. about 4500-2500 BCE.[45] Tilak has also noted that the two week long pitrs period after the full moon in Bhadrapada occurred at the beginning of the pitryana, which would have been true at about 4500-2500 BCE.[46]."

The article 'Rgveda says :

"Some writers have traced astronomical references[2] in the Rigveda dating it to as early as 4000 BC[14], a date well within the Indian Neolithic. Claims of such evidence remain controversial. [15] but are a key factor in the development of the Proto-Vedic Continuity theory."

Jacobi should be mentioned in this passage, because Jacobi was the first to mention this date and provided some argument as well, while Balakrishnan has no argument and yet his view is cited, just because he has managed to put it on a website ! -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 15:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

yes, that's fine. Just make sure that you cite the entire book, not just "see Jacobi". The truth is that such "evidence" does not "remain controversial", but is completely debunked. Any date in the 4th millennium or earlier may be religious mysticism, raving lunacy, or political ideology, but in any case has nothing to do with history. dab (𒁳) 15:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have no faith in Jacobi's or Tilak's or Max Müller's or modern Shankarāchāryas' methods of dating because these are all based on narrow datasets which are mostly interpreted rather subjectively, but what you have expressed above is also 'modern lunacy' or 'modern political ideology' or 'modern scientific mysticism'. I wasted 12 years on learning and dating the Rgveda, esp. upon Karl Brugmann's neogrammar 'Gründriss der...", and I decided to keep away from this controversy, because I found that objective method requires a lifelong devotion which no one was ready to afford. I have enough proofs against all existing views about this dating problem, but I also know that it will be a wastage of time to go into it : everybody has a preconceived set of ideas. TIME will debunk everyone; let us wait and watch and not be a party to this futile debate. -Vinay Jha 16:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Etymology of 'Rgveda'

You have done well to trim the boring grammatical detail at the beginning of this article which must have repulsed most of general readers, as user:IAF had earlier remarked. I had a purpose in expanding this boring introduction which has been missed by you : the term 'ṛgveda' ऋग्वेद is not a compound of ṛik+veda as this article wrongly informs , but of ṛg+veda (cf. sanskrit-English Dictionary of Monier-Williams ).

Moreover ṛk- or ṛg- are not separable forms which could form a tatpurusha sāmasa, but are sandhi forms of 'ṛch-' ; hence ṛgveda is a tatpurusha samāsa of ṛch+veda.The form 'ṛch-' becomes ṛk- when followed by a non-vocalised syllable, and becomes ṛg- when followed by a vocalised syllable such as 've-' in this case.

The verb 'ṛch' is the root of 'archanā' which means prayer ; ṛcā is a special form of archanā, distinguished by special rules of prununciation laid down in Ṛk-prātishākhya. If these rules are not followed and Ṛgvedic hymns are pronounced as normal sanskrit, the ṛchās will not be called ṛchās but archanā. Many mantras are common to different Vedas, with no difference in spelling, but in ṛgveda a mantra is called ṛcā and in Yajurveda the same mantra will be called a yajus and in Sāmaveda that very mantra will become a sāman. 'Mantra' is the common term for all these. 'Mantra', moreover, may be used in non-Vedic contexts too.

Such boring details are unsuitable at the beginning, but ought to be put somewhere either in this article or in some linked article, because most people do not have a proper understanding of these definitions. There is no need to cite additional authorities because whatever I have mentioned is explicitly mentioned by Sir Monier-Williams in SED. -Vinay Jha 16:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all perfectly true, but this article isn't the place to discuss Sanskrit grammar. Consider contributing to sandhi or Sanskrit grammar. --dab (𒁳) 09:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You say "this article isn't the place to discuss Sanskrit grammar" but why you insist on giving a wrong etymology of Rgveda ? Either remove it totally or give a correct etymology : Rg+veda (or Rch+veda, because Rg- is merely a sandhi form of the verb Rch ; Rk+veda is nonsense. I refrain from editing your errors . -Vinay Jha 03:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating of RigVeda in Introduction

Instead of Western dating of an Indian text which don't consider Indian Hindu view , I modified so as to accomodate both sided dating, but Dab is deleting it for which he is being criticized even by other admins. Dab stop being Supremist in this controversial subject. I am being neutral to accomodate western & Indian dating. And, as an admin I expect the same from you. Please note that we are dealing with Indian subject , so Indian view also require addition in the same way you are trying to impose western dating. WIN 12:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC. There is no "western" vs. "Hindu" view. There are academic estimates vs. pop culture myths. Actual Hindu tradition does not date the Vedas at all, since they are eternal (shruti, apaurusheyatva). Some Hindu texts (Vishnu Purana) "date" the three Vedas by saying they were derived from a single Original Veda in the Treta Yuga, which according to some other{{fact}} sources would translate to some 2 million years ago. This may be discussed at Vedas, but it has nothing to do with the Rigveda in particular. You are not excused from citing reliable academic sources for a claimed "view" just because it is "Indian". dab (𒁳) 12:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Academic estimates are solely based on AIT which itself is a linguistic theory and not a fact. AIT is either totally opposed or considered as highly dubious by archeeologists and totally not favoured by anthropologists. When solid science is debunking or not relying on it then a theory based on linguistic sky palace is on a shaky ground. So, your assertion is improper.

Troy was also a popular cultural myth. But, it's found on Turkey now. So, popular cultural beliefs are on more solid ground than some theory mainly fabricated by linguist on shaky parameters & with one way thinking. And, hence I oppose addition of only western dating in Intro ( based on a theory ) but sounding like a fact. WIN 08:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting -- you could write a dissertation about it. Once you publish it, we can mention your opinion as a minority view. dab (𒁳) 11:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For your kind of thinking I sincerely recommend to read book on Indian Mathematics http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Projects/Pearce/index.html . If you can understand Mathematics then you may appreciate inventions of Indians and it's total discredit in Western Acedamics. So, what your western acedamics are upto should be clear as same thing is done for language by linguists and the fabricated Aryan Invasion theory. So, stop being hypocrate & eurocentric. WIN 11:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

stop trolling, present academic sources and seek consensus for your revision. I would never deny the great contribution of Indian mathematics. But what sort of argument is "India has great mathematicians, therefore my changes to the Rigveda article must be correct"? That's not even a fallacy, it's just idle rambling. dab (𒁳) 11:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's given not for your rediculous & wrong deduction but to point out your Eurocentric nature in the subject in tune with Western historians on mathematics. Eurocentric notion has produced your ramblings. WIN 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

still no sources, then? dab (𒁳) 12:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Do anyone have sources for some aryan nomads of central asia invading / migrating India & converting language of almost all of vast Indian subcontinent. Stop being HYPOCRATE as usual. My only point is that when western dating of RigVeda is based on PURE theory ( which you are trying to assert like a fact ) is mentioned in Intro , then RigVeda 's traditional dating where it was composed i.e. India , should be placed in Intro. I oppose your rediculous assertion of keeping only western dating. WIN 12:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The present dating of Rgveda is based upon linguistic ideas of 19th century, but many discoveries of 20th century have made that approach totally untenable. It is wrong to hide the shortcomings in this conventional dating. I oppose DAB's approach of dubbing all opponents of this dating (cir. 1500 BCE) as obscurantists &c. If DAB &c do not create a mess, I would like to point out the defects in this dating with the help of reliable sources. Wiki editors should present both sides of a controversy and it is wrong to brush aside any one side without discussing it in a dictatorial manner. - Vinay Jha 03:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

"totally untenable"? Based on the sources discussed and laughed out of court at Talk:Out of India theory, or did Rajaram organize another conference since the 2006 one? --dab (𒁳) 16:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

As I had warned above, DAB started making fun of me instead of trying to discuss the issue. This attitude of poking fun at others is not healthy for an encyclopaedia. Vinay Jha 20:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Give a balanced account of Rgvedic dating

In linguistics, glottochronology in the only reliable method for absolute dating of ancient texts, which is not applicable in this case because we have no definite records for different periods of IE prehistory. Hence, on account of linguistic affinities of the Rgveda with other IE languages, the average date of the bulk of RV was decided to be around 1200 BCE because the pastoral culture of Rgveda could be at par with a similar Greek culture only around this date which was hinted by Homeric poems. Max Müller stressed that this dating was proven on the basis of linguistics and phililogy, while the greatest Indo-Europeanist Karl Brugmann cited a historian A. Kaegi for this dating instead of providing any linguistic argument (vol-1,ch-1, Grundriss der ..., translated by Wright : 'A Comparative Grammar of Indo-European Languages", reprinted by Chowkhamba in 5 volumes, Varanasi). In the absence of better alternatives, this date of Rgveda was accepted by the majority. But in 1952, Michel Ventris deciphered Linear-B which proved that Mycenaean Greeks enjoyed urban civilisation upto "1450 BC" (Cf. Winfred P. Lehmann, p. 28-29 in Historical Linguistics: An Introduction, Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 66 Janpath, New Delhi, Reprint 1976, original print in 1962). Hence, the pastoral predecessors of these Greeks must have existed around 2000 BCE (± few centuries). But around this date there were Harappans in the Indus Valley. Therefore, scientific reason asked that Rgveda ought to be placed well before the advent of an urban civilisation in the Indus Valley. This is unpalatable to those who do not want to accept that Rgveda could have preceded Greeks by such a huge gap. Hence, a large number of academics are neglecting the discoveries of M.Ventris and still stick to Max Müller's dating. Internal evidences from Vedic texts are also neglected. For instance, there is no linguistic evidence which can put Rgveda before Yajurveda or Sāmveda. Sāmveda has most of its mantras common with Rgveda. Moreover, all the Vedas mention each other. If we take Rgveda only, it does not mention any town, village or state of the Indus region, but there are hymns in the praise of states in eastern and middle Gangetic valley : Svarājya in first Mandala by Gotama Rahugana, who is mentioned by Shatpath Brāhmana to be the chief priest of first king of Videha (in North Bihar). Hence, the Rgvedic hymns by Gotama Rahugana in praise of Svarājya are certainly in praise of Videha State, but many experts say that Videha was Aryanised during the age of Shatpath Brāhamana and forget the evidence of Rgveda. Similarly, hymns in 10th Mandala are composed by the King of Kāshi 'Pratardana'. It shows that Videha (Mithilā) and Kāshi were territorial states during Rgvedic times. But the irrefutable internal evidences of Rgveda are neglected because these facts do not fit into the Aryan Invasion/Migration Theory. No ancient text can prove seven major rivers in West India even if Sarasvati is included, but Mahabharata explicitly mention that the Sapta-Sindhu flowed to the East and the number of major Himalayan rivers in the Gangetic Valley is indeed seven includinf Sarasvati. Astronomical evidences are dubbed as 'debunked' not fit for discussion ! Archaeologists have failed to find any proof of a massive foreign invasion, hence now the theory of slow migration is being proposed. But one question remains unanswered : the Rgvedic peoples were capable of memorising all the Vedas with their archaic pronunciation for millenia without committing these texts to writing, but they forgot their foreign origin just after entering into India ! These problems become clear when one examines the inner linguistic mechanisms of Indo-Europeanists through which dating of Veda was deduced, for which I want the cooperation of neutral editors . Some persons have no interest in getting to the truth. Like the majority of humans, they cite the 'mainstream' as if this 'mainstream' has appointed them as a spokesman on Wiki , forgetting that in feilds pertaining to intellect, vote and crowd mentality is the last thing one ought to invoke. I have devoted 12 years on Rgvediv linguistics and I can take on the likes of Witzels and DABs on their own grounds, but they will not debate and take a recourse to either dubbing me as an obscurantist or a lunatic not fit for debate (such a language has been by DAB for others in this page), because they lack substance to support their arguments and talk of votes. Whatever evidences I have cited above are not my OR or POV but are solid facts from the books of mainstream linguists. Instead of presenting all facts and views in a balanced and neutral manner, some editors are misusing their administrative powers in a wrong way. Dating the Rgveda is a heated issue and a handful of editors cannot impose their POV upon the rest. Linguistics has no proof of the dating which this article is presently giving, it is a false propaganda of certain people in the name of linguistics going on for two centuries.

See the last lines under Wrong Etymology of Rgveda in Talk:Rgveda; here again DAB has refused to either respond or rectify his error. Still, he is giving a wrong etymology and yet poses as a great grammarian and gives lessons to other users. DAB can become a great editor and more than that if he learns some patience and neutrality, which I believe are the last things he will ever learn. -Vinay Jha 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

whatever are you talking about? rc vs. rk is merely a question of convention. I am just as happy to give "rc+veda" as "rk+veda", where is the problem?

I can believe you have studied Sanskrit for 12 years, and I am sure you are much more proficient than I am, but I am sorry to say, you come across as a confused nutter as soon as you are trying to explain your views, and if you can "take on the likes of Wiztels and DABs on their own ground" (...) you have so far shown little sign of it. If you want to participate in the Indigenous Aryan or Indo-Aryan migration articles, feel free, but you'll have to cite your sources like anybody else, and frankly I don't see much room for debate by now. We have really heard all the Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments about a hundred times now, and they simply don't hold any water. But be that as it may, this has no bearing on this article. Your arguments above are pure OR (where they can be made out to make any sense at all). We cite ample sources for the 1700-1200 range as wide consensus. There is really no reason at all (except blatant WP:ILIKEIT) to rape Occam's razor from behind and postulate a 3rd millennium date, as scholars are well aware. It is no coincidence that the "Harappan RV" proponents present a motley crew of autodidacts, cranks, mysticists and nationalists, while the academic mainstream view has been solid for a hundred years.

you once again ignore WP:ATT. I didn't invent WP policy. If you can present a dissenting academic, we will cite him. As long as we are just looking at fanatics, sectarians and confused self-publishers, you really have no case at all. Present your sources first, discuss after. dab (𒁳) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

REPLY by Vinay Jha: I am happy that DAB has rectified the wrong etymology of 'Rgveda', but I was driven to frustration earlier on account of his unwillingness to do so in spite of my repeated requests, and that is why I used some harsh words above, which otherwise I never would have used. DAB is an obstinate but inwardly a good person. Thanks to him for this correction. Generally he makes very few errors, but if he makes one he sticks to it. Forgive me if I sound harsh, my intent is improvement.

As for my statement "I can take on the likes of Witzels and DABs on their own ground", it was made on account of DAB's unwillingness to rectify the etymology of 'Rgveda'; I was frustrated with him. Actually, I can never take on DAB on his own ground, because I do not know what his ground is (nor he does mine, because he wrongly believes that I worked on Sanskrit for 12 years, I devoted 12 years to modern linguistics including the great grammatical compendiums of 19th century stalwarts, with special reference to Rgveda; before that,in university I studied science, history and then topped in English literature). I cannot take on Witzel as well, because Witzel will never give me such a chance (nor do I really wish it). DAB was infuriated with my language and answered with two abuses (silly, erratic) for me on Talk:Utpala just a few minutes after reading my message of 'taking on'. I never abused him or any other editor. But this is DAB's normal language, and he never feels sorry for his lashing tongue or pen. DAB is right in saying that I have shown little sign of taking on anyone, because whenever anyone reverted or changed my edits, I normally refrained from warring. It is not timidity. Most of these editors are half my age and call me garbage, silly, nonsense &c, and therefore I leave the field silently. I never entered into any edit war.

As for the real points about this article raised by me, DAB has deliberately refused to discuss any point in a straightforward manner. Hence I will again raise these points one by one later. I hope DAB will calm down and think over the points I am raising like a scholar and not like a wrestler. I am not interested in Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments and Harappan-RV is surely a bogus idea, but I am sorry that DAB is attributing these wrong ideas to me which I never raised, and on such fictious grounds calls my arguments to be pure OR, WP:ATT and WP:ILIKEIT ! He did the same type of behaviour in Surya Siddhanta, in which a blatantly OR is still being displayed in the name of Surya Siddhanta which I tried to rectify but was prevented before I could finish. DAB says that if I cite academics he will cite them. Read the message above in which I have cited some leading academics, but DAB deliberately refuses to answer a single point raised by me and invents fictious charges against me on the basis of statements I never made (such as Sarasvati-Harappa-horse arguments and Harappan-RV ). On my talk page, DAB has sent a message that I am interested in a Indigenous Aryans debate due to ideological points (Hindutva), which is utterly wrong. I had anticipated (see above) that DAB will call me an obscurantist because he will not like to answer my points. I had stated above that "Whatever evidences I have cited above are not my OR or POV but are solid facts from the books of mainstream linguists".

I still think DAB is a good and rational person, but he has not worked over this tricky issue in a proper way. Rgvedic Dating is one of the most problematic questions in world history and it is wrong to adopt a dogmatic stance and refuse to listern to others calling them OR, NOR, FRINGE, Minority, lunatics, fanatics, etc. I wish DAB should take a personal interest in this matter and find out the truth himself. If one's attitude is genuine and neutral, sources and references will automatically come to him. Aryans and non-Aryans did not originate either in India or in Europe : all humans originated in central Africa nearly 4 million years ago and it is not my POV but a scientifically established fact. Hence nationalism, racialism, etc have no role in this debate.

Linear-B evidence is itself enough for putting the pastoral ancestry of those Greeks around or before 2000 BCE. It has shaken the very premise of Rgvedic dating. Even before 4th millenium BCE, Vedic peoples and Greeks were living in India and Europe respectivrly, and any migration must be traced before that. It is wrong to denounce facts such as Linear-B and adopt dogmas. But dogmas of over a century will need another century to remove it. Till then, let DAB live with his dogma and his "mainstream". But I still request him to examine the very (linguistic) bases of these dogmas. --Vinay Jha 21:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

whatever. cite a peer-reviewed source and we'll talk about that. no peer-reviewed sources, no debate. I've never heard "Linear-B evidence has shaken the very premise of Rgvedic dating." I wouldn't know why. Greeks appear in Crete in the 15th c. BC, in perfect agreement with the Kurgan scenario. But if you have a peer-reviewed source saying this, we can quote it. If you have not, we cannot. dab (𒁳) 08:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have already cited classic textbooks above whom even Witzel recognises to be his peers but you do not recognise them because I have quoted them. If you wish you may read the following which are questions by another editor and my summarised answers.Vinay Jha 09:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

you have named lots of valid sources, which all agree with the mainstream consensus, but for some reason you choose to disagree. Would you care to cite a single source supporting your opinion? Please spare us another lengthy essay, just quote the source you would like to see incorporated in the article for more "balance", alright? dab (𒁳) 12:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vinay Jha completely. Dab is suitably forgetting that he is trying assert RigVeda dating based on AIT which is a THEORY and not FACT. He is just trying to prove theory as fact and hence started deleting neutral dating addition without any talk. So, he should be understanding that he is asserting dating based on a linguistic theory. When Max Muller who propogated AIT said afterwards that nobody on the earth can determine dating of RigVeda, but Dab forgets this suitably. This is controversial and there is nothing wrong writing it as controversial. Opposition is for assertive portrayal of linguistic dating. WIN 12:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you agree. The question is, can you cite a source? If you still cannot, what are you doing here? Wikipedia works like this. No source, no discussion. dab (𒁳) 13:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Questions asked to Vinay Jha about Veda Dating

moved to User_talk:Vinay Jha. Please don't abuse article talkpages for private exchanges. Wikipedia is not an internet chat forum. --dab (𒁳) 10:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion here was about the dating of Rgveda and not about any personal topic, which DAB wrongly removed from this talk page, because he did not want Wikipedians should know the problems and controversies in this field, so that a particular view could be presented as the only view . DAB has no right to delete active discussions related to improvement of the main article ; he is acting like a self-appointed monarch of Wikipedia. -Vinay Jha 08:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ANUKRAMANIKĀ

The Vedas were written down for the first time at the end of first millenium AD, when scholars anticipated a decrease in the willingness to preserve the Vedas as Shruti alone. But the content of all the Vedas had been exactly fixed during the Vedic period itself by means of ANUKRAMANIKĀ which listed all verses in proper order. ANUKRAMANIKĀ cannot be challenged as far as their authenticity is concerned; they are referenced in ancient texts. Hence if you have read somewhere that the "The Vedas are possibly changed", the author is certainly distorting facts so as to push some personal agenda or hypothesis.

I agree and respect the authenticity of the Vedas, as I too have read about the various levels of pandits and how everyone enhances with reciting the verses to the utmost quality.

But then why there are difference about many topics, Origin etc?BalanceRestored 10:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

there is no appreciable "difference". Expert opinion is practically unanimous. There are always crackpots who like to know better than the experts, but they usually stand no chance in academic debate, and should be ignored for the purposes of Wikipedia by our WP:UNDUE policy. There are people who like to create the impression that there is a "controversy", but if you look around, they are unable to produce evidence that there is a controversy. Just saying "we disagree" isn't a controversy. dab (𒁳) 12:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

as you can learn on our Anukramani article, opinion on inasmuch they are rooted in 'genuine tradition' is divided. They are clearly post-Vedic, but still date to before the Common Era (Mauryan period), and have to be taken seriously as ancient testimonies. Regardless of this, the consensus as to the authenticity of the samhitas is that they were indeed preserved perfectly since they were compiled in about the 9th to 8th century BC (that is, more than 500 years before the Anukramani). dab (𒁳) 10:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the updates, I think I am too early in all this to really comment on things. There are various critics who speak different things, thus causing the doubt. Do you have any source that has explained in depth with regards to these discussions?BalanceRestored 09:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sources for dating estimates

The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies:

• Oberlies (p. 158) based on 'cumulative evidence' sets wide range of 1700–1100.

  this isn't Oberlies' own opinion, but his report on academic consensus. The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go, and is intended to include all reasonable opinions.

what are our sources for estimates incompatible with the mainstream?

• N. Kazanas, A new date for the Rgveda Philosophy and Chronology, (2000) ed. G C Pande & D Krishna, special issue of Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research (June, 2001) claims 3100 BC
  • Kazanas has been peer-reviewed has been allowed into JIES without peer-review (see Talk:Nicholas_Kazanas#Kazanas_in_JIES), which is why he cite him. The reviews were devastating, reviewers are unanimous that he has no case, and hence he is duly treated as fringe on Wikipedia.
• there are various Voice of India publications which have been discussed in scholarly literature, but not as academic contributions, but as part of the Hindutva phenomenon (e.g. Alan Sokal,"Pseudoscience and Postmodernism: Antagonists or Fellow-Travelers?" in: Archaeological Fantasies: How Pseudoarchaeology Misrepresents the Past and Misleads the Public, Routledge 2006).
  • Shrikant Talageri doesn't state an estimate, but he makes it clear he considers 1500 BC too late. He hasn't been reviewed afaik, except (devastatingly) by Witzel (who had been attacked in the book)
  • N. S. Rajaram claims 4000 BC. favourably mentioned by Klaus Klostermaier in a seminar presentation at the School of African and Oriental Studies (SOAS) University of London on 21, January 1998[4]. Since 1998, Rajaram has been utterly discredited as a dishonest fraud.

That's it. The Voice of India crowd plus Kazanas. Not a single Sanskritist. Not a single Historian. Not a single Indo-Europeanist. JIES with Kazanas has gone out of its way to make clear in detail why this is rejected to anyone who cares to read it. Your best bet will be Klaus Klostermaier, who actually has a PhD (in philosophy). These are the only sources outside the Oberlies "mainstream range" I am aware of that are at all quotable, and for this reason we do quote them, as fringe views per WP:UNDUE. If you have other sources that have not been mentioned so far, please do add them. If you have no other sources, I would ask you to drop the topic until you do. It turns out that this whole "new date" discussion is an artefact of Hindu nationalist propaganda, initiated in 1997 by Frawley's and Rajaram's Vedic Aryans and the Origins of Civilization. The discussion doesn't seem to stretch further back, and while it has made a stir in Hindutva circles, it remained restricted to nationalist literature. Academia didn't even react to this stuff, except for Witzel and Parpola, who debunked Talageri and Rajaram in 2000-2001. Kazanas was granted a platform in JIES 2002-2003, he failed to convinced anyone, and since 2003, the case has been closed. We can say that nationalist mysticist ideas were reviewed and rejected by academia 2000-2003, but that's as far as we can go. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Dating the Rgveda : Suggestions

In this article (Rgveda), it is mentioned in the beginning "the Rigveda was composed roughly between 1700–1100 BCE" and the citation refers to Max Müller, which is wrong. Max Müller talked of 1200 BC for the date of bulk of Rgveda, and 1500 BC for a handful of most archaic elements in it. One editor says "The mainstream estimate of 1700-1100 is due to Oberlies" (cf. DAB's talk above), but in the main article Max Müller is mentioned instead of Oberlies for this date. DAB admits "The 1700 date is much earlier than most people would go" , yet he says it is "the mainstream estimate" based on "academic consensus" (cf. talk above). How an estimate can be "mainstream estimate" and "academic consensus" if it goes against the opinion of "most people" ? DAB is citing a WP:FRINGE theory in the name of mainstream. Since DAB deleted my well sourced contribution made to this article (about etymology), I do not want to engage in an edit war with him who makes it a prestige issue and abuses me. I simply ask him to rectify the error. Refer 1700 BC to Oberlies in the introduction, and 1500 BC or 1200 BC to earlier indologists. 1700 BC is referred to Oberlies later in the article, but there is serious error in the introduction. My real issue, however, is something more significant.

Mohenjodaro met a violent end around 1750 BC, but other cities were abandoned without any war. Earlier, Aryan Invasion was thought to be the cause, but now a majority of mainstream academics are favouring the idea of a gradual migration instead of a violent attack. Even Witzel supports this view. Some people have asumed that Harappan civilisation ended in 1900 BC, so that 1700 BC could be proposed for upper date of Rgveda (1900 BC is actually the lower limit of C-14 dating at certain sites, upper limit being around 2200 BC at most places, but very few layers have been carbon-dated and there are many layers below and above carbon-dated layers; hence 2450-1750 BC has been accepted as the period of hitherto excavated Indus culture on the basis of stratigraphic analyses by experts, and many layers lies submerged in groundwater which may push the upper date before 2450 BC). But mainstream archaeologists agree that the twin cities finally ended around 1750 BC. An upper date of 1700 BC for Rgveda implies that the Rgvedic Aryans entered India when Harappan towns were being destroyed or abandoned, which hints at Aryan Invasion Theory (my source for dating in this para is excavation report of Archaological Survey of India published by Srikrishna Ojha).

Oberlies and some others tried to give the RV an extension of two centuries due to the problems posed by Linear-B &c (e.g, Hittite) which I tried to explain. Oberlies &c are not mad, they have reason for extending the upper limit of Rgveda, but this extension conflicts with the accepted date for the end of Harappan cities. This is the biggest problem of Rgvedic dating. Difference between earlier dating (1500 BC) and recent dating (1700 BC) is itself a proof of the controversy I am pointing to, but some peole wrongly believe there is no controversy at all. Oberlies &c are hoping for a consensus by extending Rgvedic dating by 200 years, and we should be interested in learning the reasons which compel these Indologists to extend the date of Rgveda, after 150 years of consensus on 1500 BC ? Had there been no urban culture in the Indus Valley, modern linguists would have extended the upper limit of Rgveda to nearly 2200-2400 BC , so compelling are the reasons calling for an extension of Rgvedic dating. I do not want anyone to cite unreliable or wrong theories. I just want to put the facts straight and try to understand the problem more deeply : this deeper understanding need not be reflected in the articles in detail, but one may put it in summarised form so that readers get a more realistic account. I have a few suggestions.

(1)Cite Max Müller, (2) then cite Oberlies, and then discuss in brief the reasons behind this 200-year extension, and ask whether this extension has solved all anomalies or not ? If not, then give a brief list of principal anomalies and controversies which remain to be solved. This is all I want. I never called for giving alternatte dates. Besides citing two approaches to dating (Max Müller and Oberlies),there are two more approaches, which are currently not favoured by mainstream academics : (3) equating Harappans with Vedic culture on account of fire altars found in Kalibangan and other reasons, and (4) Vedic culture preceded Harappan culture (there are many types of views which fall in this category, none of which has succeded in gaining academic consensus). These minority views need not be mentioned in Wiki, but the anomalies which are left unexplained in mainstream theories ought to be outlined somewhere. There is a difference between fact and opinion. Omit fringe opinions, but do not suppress facts even if they do not fit into your theory. Give the main theory, give arguments and facts in its favour, and mention remaining problems to be solved. As for citations, there are many citations in sources already mentioned in this article on Rgveda. E.g., read Kazanas : he asks how the Rgvedic Aryans settled on the the banks of Sarasvati centuries after it had dried up? Some of ideas expressed by Kazanas may seem to be too removed from prevailing mood, but he has mentioned many well sourced facts which need to be explained, or at least acknowledged and mentioned. There is no hurry. Attemts to explain away fire-altars of Kalibangan as ovens are as ludicrous as Rajaram's horseplay. I can give a list of principal anomalies in present theory which are facts, not opinions. It is wrong to infer that I some some hidden agenda. Those who suppress facts have agenda. --Vinay Jha 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a site to look at. Citation machine. cite your sources. Also link to diffs is you believe there are discrepancies in the statemnts made by users.Bakaman 03:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Bakasuprman! This Citation Machine is already mentioned in Wikipedia:Citing sources. I never needed such machines, I had better sources, but I wanted to avoid any type of conflict with anyone, as far as possible. But if needed, I will take a resort to approprate means, but my first aim is to not to create a dispute but to improve the article without a dispute with any editor. -Vinay Jha 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

as long as you cite academic sources, not your own opinion, you will have no problem. dab (𒁳) 15:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

sigh, Vinay, I asked you for sources besides Kazanas (who is already mentioned). You embark on another rambling post, and conclude with "E.g., read Kazanas". Wth? Why not simply state that you have no academic sources. Look, I am familiar with this debate. I know your position is not defensible in peer-reviewed literature. Kazanas is your best bet by far, because he was exceptionally waived peer-review, to forestall accusations of "dogma" or "censorship" that cranks always resort to once they are debunked and fail to rouse interest. That means, Kazanas was allowed to publish his stuff exceptionally, in spite of the fact that he wouldn't have passed peer-review. The reviews were instead held publicly, to make plain why the position is indefensible. Read JIES 2002. I know you have no sources. You know you have no sources. Why continue this discussion? If you can cite a mainstream "list of problems to be solved", everyone will be happy. Nobody claims we know everything. But as long as you keep referring to clowns like Kazanas & friends, it is clear that you are not interested in fair academic debate, and are simply trying to create the false appearance that such fringe views have a credibility that they simply do not have. I am sorry, but that's how things stand. We couldn't change this even if it was you who was satisfied with it, and me that was unhappy about it. dab (𒁳) 09:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Study more and Cite accurately

All my requests to rectify the errors and remove a biased account of Rgvedic dating in the introduction fell on deaf ears. Instead, I received only abuses and threats on my and others' talk pages. Talk pages are meant for discussing the main article with a view to improve it, but DAB uses talk pages for abusing those people whose civility is taken to be a sigh of weakness. Scholars do not behave in this way. This behaviour convinced me that DAB has certainly not studied secondary (or primary) sources and is relying upon hearsay. It was, therefore, useless to ask an ill-educated and ill-mannered person to rectify the errors. Hence I have today replaced the wrong and false citation to Max Müller in the introduction with the correct citation. If this correct version is distorted, DAB will see the the consequences of all his abuses to me ("insane, crackpot, silly, etc) in the shape of a libel suit in an appropriate court of law. I still request him to behave like a sane being, although I know for some persons fear in the mother of morality (as Nietschze said). -Vinay Jha Vinay Jha 13:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)