Dating Ancient Indian History-
How old was Hindu/Vedic/Indian Civilization? Apart from how you place the equivalences and correspondences between the three terms (Hindu, Vedic and Indian — in my classification Indian equals Hindu, but Vedic refers originally to the culture or Civilization of only the Bharata Pūru people centered in and around Haryana), which can itself be the subject of contentious and violent debate, this question of the age of Indian Civilization has been raging around on the internet since quite some time.
As, apparently, many of the principal self-declared experts on Indian Chronology on twitter and elsewhere (and I am not referring here to the AIT supporters who start Vedic history in India after the alleged invasion of India by "Aryans" after 1500 BCE), apparently make frequent and disparaging references to my chronology (Rigveda 3000+ BCE- 1500 BCE or so, Mahabharata 1500 BCE or so), I feel it is time to make some sort of response.
As I have to start somewhere, let me start with a recent tweet by Nilesh Oak:
And this latest one yesterday (17/3/2021):
Nilesh Oak himself, it may be pointed out at the start here, dates the Rigveda at 22000+ BCE to 6th millennium BCE, the Ramayana at 12209 BCE and the Mahabharata at 5561 BCE. Incidentally, he also dates Sushruta to before 6000 BCE. He has a huge and massive fan-following among Hindus, as naturally anyone proposing such dates would be bound to have. Another expert, Ved Veer Arya, with an equally massive and devoted fan following, is supposed to have presented the following chart on twitter recently, about the value of π in different texts as dated by him:
I have had frequent interaction with Nilesh Oak both by email as well as personally at two or three Seminars in the last few years (in one of which I also met Ved Veer Arya, but without any significant interaction). In one discussion, where he was insisting that the text of the Ramayana was (more-or-less) simultaneous with the event and contained no interpolations or additions, I pointed out that the text of the Ramayana refers not only to Greeks and Romans (yavana and romaka, although many people try to sidestep these words by insisting that these words do not refer to Greeks and Romans, but to some other ancient tribes native to India with no connection to Greeks and Romans) but also to the Chola, Chera/Kerala, Pandya dynasties of the South who were contemporaneous with the Mauryas.
Nilesh Oak does accept or agree with my relative chronology of the Rigveda and has frequently expressed his approval (see also above tweet). But, obviously, he disagrees strongly with my absolute chronology (i.e. chronology in absolute dates BCE).
In another recent tweet, he tells his readers:
I have refrained from commenting on Nilesh Oak so far because my relations with him have been friendly in spite of our differences, and because he does always express his approval at least of my relative chronology. And I have no doubt that our relations will continue to be friendly hereafter as well. But I feel it is time I made my own stand clear.
To begin with, I have always found it strange that (as I have been informed by many people) a google search of my name comes up with an article by Nilesh Oak entitled "Is Shrikant Talageri a Confused Clown?". I have read this article, uploaded I think in 2016, long ago, and was completely foxed by the title. According to Nilesh Oak, someone or the other told him that (or asked him whether) I was a "confused clown". As per the said article, Oak disagrees with this view, and the whole article is more or less in praise of my work (except for my absolute dating). In this circumstance, I totally failed to understand why such an opprobrious epithet was used in the title of the article: anyone who sees only the title in a google search, without bothering to read it, or who sees the title in passing while skimming through the internet, is not likely to be left with any positive opinion of my work or myself.
To give a rather crude analogy, if someone were to say that someone else (call this someone else "ABC") is a "b*****d", and I were to write an article entitled "Is ABC a b*****d?", and, in the course of the article, prove (by giving photocopies of ABC's birth-certificate, his parents' marriage-certificate, and DNA reports showing that ABC is indeed the biological son of his parents) that he is not one, is it likely that ABC would find my article or its title in good taste or sense, or accept that my intentions in choosing such a title were friendly ones?
I have myself written an article entitled "A Detailed Reply to a Joker’ (Arnaud Fournet)'s 'Review' of my Book" (see it on my blogspot), but this was about a totally third-grade writer like Arnaud Fournet who wrote a most disgusting and insulting, and extremely cheap, review of my book in inexcusable circumstances. Such a title could never have been given to an article intended to be friendly to or laudatory of someone.
Although both amused and irritated by the title of the above article, I never referred to it before this. I am doing so now only because I am replying to Nilesh Oak's views on my work, and because this is the article which immediately pops up when you "search [his] blogspot (WordPress) with the keyword 'Talageri'" as suggested by him in his above tweet.
Let us turn to the most "revolutionary" element in Nilesh Oak's dating in general: the one revolutionary discovery he claims to have made and which is the key to his dating (at least for the Mahabharata war) is apparently based on a reference to Arundhati in the thirty-first verse of the second adhyaya of the Bhishma Parva (i.e. in the Mahabharata V.2.31).
The verse is as follows:
yā caiṣā viśrutā rājaṁstrailokye sādhusammatā
arundhatī tathāpyeṣa vasiṣṭhaḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ kṛtaḥ
P.C. Roy as well as K.M. Ganguli translate the verse as follows: "She, O king, who is celebrated over the three worlds and is applauded by the righteous, even that (constellation) Arundhatī keepeth (her lord) Vasiṣṭha on her back".
Oak picks up this one verse, and finds in it a revolutionary clue for the absolute dating of the Mahabharata: he decides that this verse represents an astronomical observation showing that, at the point of time of this observation, the star Vasiṣṭha (Mizar) was "behind" or "to the west of" the star Arundhatī (Alcor). Then, on the basis of the astronomical positions of the two stars at various points of time, he notes that the two stars crossed the meridian side by side in the years 11091 BCE and the year 4508 BCE. Between the two dates (i.e. between 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE), the star Arundhatī moved ahead of the star Vasiṣṭha — Oak calls this period the "Epoch of Arundhatī" — and after 4508 BCE, it was the star Vasiṣṭha which was moving ahead of the star Arundhatī. Since this "astronomical observation" shows that, at the time of the commencement of the Mahabharata war, it was Arundhatī which was moving ahead, the war can only have taken place at some point of time between 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE. After combining this with some other astronomical "data" and "observations" from the text, Oak arrives at the precise date for the war: 5561 BCE.
I will not go into all the rest of the arguments. Just this one basic argument about Arundhatī will illustrate the level of Oak's logic. From this single verse, Oak not only decided that the Mahabharata war took place between 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE (precisely in 5561 BCE during this "Epoch of Arundhatī"), but he wrote a book "When Did The Mahabharata War Happen - The Mystery of Arundhatī" in 2011 to establish his revolutionary discovery, this book became a super-hit and, on the basis of his subsequent books, articles, videos and lectures, he acquired a huge and devoted fan-following of millions (or at least several lakhs) of Hindus, and became a star of international Hindu conferences and seminars.
All this is of course good for him, and I wish him and his followers a happy time spent in wishful fantasies. After all, long before him, another Oak, P.N. Oak, with his similarly extravagant claims, had acquired an equally massive fan following among Hindus. As a fellow Hindu, I had full sympathy with P.N. Oak and his intentions, but I could never take his writings seriously. In fact, when I first wrote to Sita Ram Goel in 1990 asking him if he would be willing to publish a book on the AIT, he wrote to me (his letter dated 26-6-1990: I have preserved all his important letters to this day) as follows:
"Personally I feel that the issue is very complex and should best be left to the scholars. They will do justice in due course. But if you think you know all the arguments, for and against, and can write a scholarly study, I will consider it for publication. I make no promise. I will decide only when I have the write-up before me. And I should make it clear that I will not touch anything in the P.N. Oak style. He makes me hang my head in shame at the degradation of Hindu scholarship".
[After I sent him the manuscript of the first three chapters, he wrote back on 26-2-1991: "I received your letter of the 20th and the typescript yesterday afternoon. I finished reading it in the evening. Hats off. It is excellent. You have a mind which contemplates a situation (or a problem) with calmness before using your razor-sharp logic to analyse it for whatever it is worth. This is rare. I very much liked your turning the tables on the Dravid movement, which shows your grasp over the Aryan invasion theory. So also your synopsis. You are the man I was looking for. Go ahead and finish the work. I will publish it." Yes, I could not resist adding this. I am genuinely proud of such praise from an intellectual giant like Sita Ram Goel, and it makes me quite indifferent to criticism from half-baked critics].
But to return to the "Epoch of Arundhatī". It is not just a case of making a mountain out of a molehill: the fact is that the molehill itself is non-existent here. There is no "astronomical observation" anywhere in the Mahabharata showing that the star Arundhatī was walking ahead of the star Vasiṣṭha. The reference that Oak refers to is in the second adhyaya of the Bhishma Parva of the Mahabharata, where Vyāsa is supposed to be warning Dhṛtarāṣṭra that the war will bring destruction and doom, and giving a list of all the omens that he (being a seer) can see which portend this holocaust. He starts out with the warning: "Great will the slaughter be, O monarch, in this battle. I see here also numerous omens indicative of terror", and, after listing out the omens, he ends with "A great terror is indicated" (by the omens). The omens seen by him, which clearly he alone can see, show all kinds of weird, unnatural and topsy-turvy (ulta-pulta) phenomena taking place:
1. The sun, when rising and setting, is covered with the headless trunks of corpses, and clouds shaped like maces envelop the sun.
2. The sun, moon and stars all appear to be blazing with fire even in the late evenings.
3. Even on the brightest fifteenth night of the lighted fortnight, the moon becomes invisible.
4. The sky looks as if it is full of battling boars and cats, and the cloudless skies emit roars (of thunder).
5. The images of Gods and Goddesses alternately start laughing, or trembling, or vomiting blood through their mouths, or start sweating profusely before collapsing.
6. Drums start emitting sounds without being beaten, chariots start moving without being pulled by animals, and all kinds of birds utter terrible cries.
7. Huge swarms of insects rise in the air, and the clouds rain dust and flesh.
8. Arundhatī, known for her righteousness, keeps her lord Vasiṣṭha on her back, the planet Śanī appears to be afflicting the constellation Rohiṇī, and the sign of the deer on the moon deviates from its normal position.
In short, far from showing that this is an astronomical "observation" being made during the "Epoch of Arundhatī", the reference in fact shows that the normal position is that Vasiṣṭha is "ahead" of Arundhatī: it is only as an omen (where everything is appearing to be the opposite of the normal) that Vyāsa sees Arundhatī moving ahead of Vasiṣṭha. Oak's revolutionary discovery could have been made even more revolutionary by actually locating an Epoch when the moon became invisible on full moon night, and images of Gods and Goddesses came to life in the ways described in the text.
It is testimony to the level to which Hindu scholarship has fallen that this kind of reference has become such a "revolutionary" ingredient in the rewriting of history and the dating of historical events. One need not go further into the rest of the arguments and evidence, although Nilesh Oak does indeed claim not only further "astronomical" evidence for his dates, but names a long list of sciences which apparently corroborate his conclusions: archaeo-astronomy, geology, hydrology, paleo-climatology, etc.
When scholars or writers tend to give long lists of sciences which they claim to be corroborating their conclusions regarding historical questions related to the Indo-European problem, I usually find that their claims have to be taken with a heavy pinch of salt. In my second book, "The Rigveda - A historical Analysis" (2000), I cited the example of Victor H. Mair of the University of Pennsylvania who tells us pompously that his story of the Indo-European migrations, depicted on a series of maps, is "intended isochronously to take into account the following types of evidence: linguistic, historical, archaeological, technological, cultural, ethnological, geographical, climatological, chronological and genetic-morpho-metric - roughly in the order of precision with which I am able to control the data, from greatest to least. I have also endeavoured to take into consideration types of data which subsume or bridge two or more basic categories of evidence (eg. glotto-chronology, dendrochronology, and linguistic paleontology)". And his map for the year 1500 BCE, based apparently on the evidence from this long list of sciences, shows the undifferentiated Indo-Iranians still located, at that point of time, to the north and west of the Caspian Sea on their alleged journey from the Steppes to India!
Basically, I have no objection to people believing in extravagant dates and theories (or religious beliefs) if it makes them happy. The problem arises when they start criticizing, disparaging, attacking and trying to pull down those who prefer to be more rational. A failure to accept the "evidence" of the "Epoch of Arundhatī" variety makes me "illogical+unscientific" in the eyes of Nilesh Oak, and indicates to him that my logic "becomes paralyzed and comes to a halt" when "critiquing claims from areas of science" I am "clueless about"! But to any rational person it should be immediately clear as to whose claims are "ridiculous".
It is an extremely sad thing that Hindu scholarship has become hostage to all kinds of weird obsessions. It is not only the "scholars" but their multitudes of devout and devoted fans who become experts when criticizing those who fail to pander to their obsessions, and there is a long range of foolish accusations or judgments made by these experts, e.g.:
Now what for example is "present day timeline"?
These judgmental experts belong to different categories (even apart from the AIT-supporting casteist-racist Hindus like Manasataramgini and Kalavai Venkat):
1. There are those who believe that the Vedas are apaurusheya, which they interpret as timeless and "revealed" scriptures not composed by human beings, and therefore not capable of providing historical clues. Searching for history in the Vedas amounts to some kind of blasphemy to them.
2. There are those who want every mythological story, myth, identity and relationship, mentioned in the Puranas and Epics, to be incorporated into the ancient Indian historical narrative. A failure to do so enrages them.
3. There are those who want only those whom they believe to be having "adhikāra" (authority as per some orthodox criterion or the other) to pronounce on matters pertaining to the Vedas or Hindu history and philosophy, and are ever ready to attack those whom they feel are "outsiders" to what they have decided is the tradition. and they have a long line of accusations against and epithets for them.
4. There are similarly those (certainly in my own experience) who feel that using modern academic "tools" (such as Linguistics, etc.) to analyze the Vedas and Vedic history, or to use any system or criteria or science not used in the analysis of the Vedas by ancient Indian scholars, is also a kind of blasphemy. Again, they have a long line of accusations against and epithets for people who use these "modern" and "western" academic tools in their analyses.
5. There are those who feel the Vedas and Vedic culture and civilization are the root and fountainhead of the whole of Indian culture (and for the more extreme among them, of all the cultures and civilizations of the whole world). All things in Hinduism not found in the Vedas are either corruptions or later developments or deviations to these people. And other non-Vedic cultures of India (Naga, Santali, Andamanese) are either to be ignored or to be Sanskritized, or to be treated as non-entities in the Indian cultural spectrum, or to be considered as ultimately derived (by whatever "logic") from Vedic culture and civilization.
6. There are those who reject all sciences and paradigms which they feel go against their idea of Indian culture: thus they deny Linguistics itself as a science, or reject the concept of an Indo-European language family as distinct from, say, a Dravidian language family, or reject the idea of an original Proto-Indo-European language other than and different from Vedic Sanskrit.
There are many more categories of "Hindus" with their pet obsessions, their troll armies and their choice epithets. I try as far as possible to ignore the bile and venom emitted by these half-illiterates.
In the context of the present article, this was (or at least I intend it to be) a one-time reply to the "scholars" who want to take Indian history (or the Rigveda or the Mahabharata war or the Ramayana events) back by millenniums into "ridiculous" periods. The only purpose achieved by all the above categories of objectors and their kindergarten obsessions is to sabotage rational inquiry into the Truth about ancient history, and (however massive, and however militant and devoted, their fan followings) to expose serious Hindu and pro-Hindu historians to reflected ridicule.
APPENDIX added 20/3/2021:
I expected rage, abuse or contemptuous dismissal from the "Hindu" troll armies, and will in general ignore the bile and venom as unworthy of response.
But one "NO ji" admirer's response today merits a reply, since it raises a corollary point:
So does the date of 5561 BCE stand, even without the AV
(Arundhatī-Vasiṣṭha) reference, on the basis of other "astronomical
observations" in the Mahabharata? On the contrary, this very
AV reference itself proves conclusively that the Mahabharata cannot
be dated at 5561 BCE.
To quote from the above article: "on the basis of the astronomical positions of the two stars at various points of time, he notes that the two stars crossed the meridian side by side in the years 11091 BCE and the year 4508 BCE. Between the two dates (i.e. between 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE), the star Arundhatī moved ahead of the star Vasiṣṭha — Oak calls this period the "Epoch of Arundhatī" — and after 4508 BCE, it was the star Vasiṣṭha which was moving ahead of the star Arundhatī."
There is nothing particularly wrong about describing a period between two dates, based on the relative positions between any two stars during that period, by a particular name. So, if it is indeed a fact that between 11091 BCE and 4508 BCE the star Arundhatī moved ahead of the star Vasiṣṭha, and after that point it was the other way around, then Nilesh Oak has a perfect right to name that period as the "Arundhatī Epoch" if he wants to. There can thus be numerous "Epochs" based on which positions of the stars you take as the criteria for naming such Epochs.
The question is not about whether he is right or wrong in giving that period the name "Arundhatī Epoch": the question is about whether the Mahabharata presents us with an "observation" showing the position of the two stars at the time fell within this Epoch.
Nilesh Oak claims there is such a reference. But on examination, as we saw earlier, this reference in fact shows that the normal (non-hallucinatory) position at the time of the reference was the opposite of what it would be during this "Arundhatī Epoch", and that the Mahabharata very definitely did not take place within this Epoch. In this sense, Oak's "Arundhatī Epoch" theory is certainly "revolutionary" in a way, in definitely negating other alleged "astronomical" interpretations supposedly showing this date.
I do not of course expect "push-back-the dates-by-millenniums" enthusiasts to accept all this. But as I wrote earlier, basically, I have no objection to people believing in extravagant dates and theories (or religious beliefs) if it makes them happy. The problem arises when they start criticizing, disparaging, attacking and trying to pull down those who prefer to be more rational.
PLUS: One more semi-illiterate comment (the person, who considers himself some kind of scholar, cannot even read, apparently) that I could not resist adding into this article (it will be the last one, I promise. The trolls can continue to have a field day abusing after that):
If this "scholar" had spent his time reading the above article
or the original reference in the Mahabharata, instead of reading the
"Baibal" or peering inside peoples' chaddis or trying to get
inside ancient writers' minds, he would have seen that the omens described in
the Mahabharata passage are all "exact opposite of normal". One does
not need a definition of the word "omen" to know that none of the
signs (of which the "revolutionary Arundhatī astronomical observation"
is one) represent the "normal", and indeed the passage itself clearly
says that "the sign of the deer on the moon deviates from its normal
position".
Sita Ram Goel was right: such a gaggle of scholars sporting the title "Hindu" should indeed make any Hindu hang his head in shame at the degradation of Hindu scholarship.
POSTSCRIPT 26-3-2021: THE "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" BY THE NEO-OAK SCHOOL OF HISTORY-WRITING BASED ON "DIFFERENT FIELDS OF SCIENCE":
After promising not to make any more additions on the basis of troll-tweets from followers of the Neo-Oak school of history writing, here I am breaking that promise within one week!
The trolls can of course, continue to have a field day abusing me, since that is all they can do. But it is funny that many of them are apparently accusing me of indulging in "ad-hominem" and giving my "opinions", rather than presenting rational "counter-evidence" (to Oak's claims) from different "other fields of science".
In short, writing a whole revolutionary book, and building up an entire edifice of chronological dating, on the basis of a deliberate misinterpretation of a verse from an ancient text is perfectly valid. Writing that someone is "a confused clown" and that his logical faculties are "paralyzed" and "have come to a halt" because he does not accept your dates is not ad hominem. But exposing that deliberate misinterpretation is "ad hominem" unless accompanied by "counter-evidence" from other fields of science!
I am sorry, the patent for this type of deriving of dates from such "clues" and "evidence" from irrelevant and unconnected "different fields of science" lies with the scholars from the neo-Oak school of history-writing (whom Oak, in his reply to his fans, describes as "original researchers" equipped with "scientific acumen" and "logical reasoning", which apparently I lack), and I cannot do it.
Here are two more such types of evidence (from the fields, I assume, of zoology and anthropology), similar to the Arundhatī "evidence" from the field of astronomy, showing that the Rigveda goes back beyond 22000 BCE and has memories reaching as far back as 60000 BCE:
ABSOLUTELY FINAL NOTE ADDED 27-3-2021: SCIENTIFIC DATING VS. WISHFUL DATING:
I am adding this final note to my article. I see that the word
"idiot" is being freely bandied around on twitter now, and it was the
use of this word by Manasataramgini for a long list of people ("S.
Talageri, S. Kak, N.S. Rajaram, V. Agrawal, B.B. Lal, S. Kalyanaraman, D.
Frawley, R. Malhotra, M. Danino, K. Elst, N. Kazanas and so on") which
provoked my first blog on historical subjects (the four blogs before that were
on the subject of Jhap taal and Roopak taal in Hindi and Marathi songs). But I
will not drag it on since I have said everything I had to say, and will ignore
further abuse unless some material point is raised. A material point about
dating in general has been raised (see comments to my blog and my reply to it).
I am adding this note to clarify the difference between scientific
dating and wishful dating. I am a Hindu and would love the dates of our Hindu
historical concerns being pushed back to the distant past as far as possible as
much as any other Hindu. In fact, my interest in the subject, and desire to
become a historian, first arose in my school days in the early seventies when I
read an article in a small journal called "Mirror" (unfortunately I
have not preserved the details) which raised this "Sandracottus/Xandramese"
issue, and I was as excited with the dates of the Buddha and the Mauryas being
pushed back by a millennium as anyone else. However, I later saw the flaws in
this, and concentrated on a more rational stance.
There is such a thing as scientific procedures for dating material
objects: carbon dating, Thermo luminescence dating, etc. However much one may
or may not like the dates provided by such processes, they must be respected
until more scientific procedures are discovered. And there must be a logical
way of applying these datings to the events etc. recorded in historical
traditions and records.
The problem arises when writers and historians fail to distinguish between scientific dating and wishful dating. Certain dates (unless newer data emerges) are extremely difficult to challenge such as the dates for the invention and widespread use of wheeled vehicles, and later of spoked-wheel vehicles, or of the separation from each other of the different branches of IE languages. These show us, at the present state of the data, that the IE branches separated from each other around or after 3500 BCE or so.
The problem is that both the AIT writers (including the
"scholars" and "scientists" among them) as well as the
various extreme Hindu groups who oppose them choose to ignore the scientific
datings and to concoct their own theories and dates in blatant
violation of the scientific dates.
The AIT writers treat their theories (of the location of the PIE
Homeland, the date of the Rigveda, etc.) as sacrosanct and try to force fit
Indian history into their purely theoretical timeline of an
"Aryan" movement from South Russia into India. In this they ignore
the scientific dating which shows that the Mitanni/Kassite culture (scientifically
dated after 1750 BCE in West Asia) represents an offshoot of the culture
of the New Rigveda, and that the Old Rigveda is
geographically located in Haryana and further east within India. This disproves
the theory that the IEs ("Aryans") could have entered India from
outside after 1500 BCE or even after 2000 BCE, and ultimately
proves that the IE languages originated in and spread out from India. This is
in keeping with all the scientifically established dates which the AIT writers
are deliberately ignoring.
At the same time, the Hindu writers reject all the scientific datings and establish their own wishful timelines. As I have written in reply to a comment to my article:
"Anyone can have disagreements with anyone else. But you are right, I generally accept what you call the 'present day timeline' for those dates. But you are wrong in calling this wrong.
They are not dates 'linked to Egyptian and Babylonian', they are dates linked to scientific procedures for dating like carbon dating and thermonuclear luminescence dating, etc. Until more accurate scientific processes for dating material cultures come up, they have to be respected.
The mistakes arise when oral texts (or oral tape-recordings as Witzel correctly describes them) like the Rigveda and Avesta are given dates based on assumed theories (like the AIT) rather than on the correspondences with scientifically dated cultures related to them (like the Mitanni), or when archaeological cultures and genetic features are assigned linguistic identities based on extraneous historical theories which have no connections with the correctness or otherwise of scientific dating procedures.
To disagree with force-fitted theories, it is not necessary to disagree with scientifically established dates. The dates of Mitanni and Kassites are scientifically established (like the dates of Egyptian and Mesopotamian history) and cannot be summarily rejected based on wishful thinking and ideological preferences."
The scientifically established dates remain scientifically established dates. No one (from either camp) can wish them away, and no amount of political rallying, trolling and abusing can change the facts. I know the hatred and abuse against me (from both camps) will only increase. So be it. A united Hindu paradigm could have been constructed keeping in mind all the scientific facts, but that is not to be.
The difference between scientists and traditionalists is that scientists are open to challenges and may revise their hypotheses/theories based on emerging evidence. Traditionalists unfortunately see this as a flaw rather than a strength. This puts them in a precarious space of engaging in evidence-bias and mental gymnastics to defend their apparently unshakable truth. Also it's very interesting how biblical scholars held the world was recently created (?4004 BC) , but local archeological evidence predates this. Hindu scholars, on the other hand, tend to have very ancient dates, but archeology point to much more recent dates!
ReplyDeletePeople date the vedas to an absurd amount of time because the lack of astronomical references allows them to interpret basic hymns as astronomy when it isnt their. The earliest mention of the nakshatras is in atharva veda, with starts the list with Krttikas. That suggests that the Atharva Veda was composed by about only 2300 BCE. That is in line with the Brahmanas and Aranyakas, aswell as Vedanga jyotosha which place them selves in the second millennium bce.l, which is still older than what western scholars say.
ReplyDeleteVedveer Arya's could have almost have the same rationality as you Talageri, if his date for the vedas weren't like Oak's. If his chronology for general history, (as in kings not in epics or Puranas, nor in scriptures) is proven, then Mittani' would live 660 years earlier, which would push your date of the Rig Veda a few centuries back.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I did research and found that the dardic languages are directly decendant of a dialect of the Rig Vedic Sanskrit, which is surprising given the location of the Dards being in Kashmir and Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteSir, this is a broad chronology I'm working on, and would love to know your views on it. I confess, it's a Pargiter-like reconciliation of Paurāṇika data, but I think of this only as a 'best-fit model' because it lines up at several places with linguistic, archaeological, geological and Ṛgvedic data.
ReplyDeleteI arrive at this best-fit model by building atop works by you, Subhash Kak, Pargiter, Jijith Ravi, Giacommo Benedetti and Tonoyan-Belyayev. I also arrive at this model by working backwards from a Mahābhārata date of 1900-1500BC.
I respect your distaste for finding historical evidence in the Purāṇas, but please bear with me. I do not fit all data into Paurāṇika evidence, rather- I find that Paurāṇika data can be reconciled with hard historical evidence.
1. 10000BC - the Holocene Onset
Era of Svāyambhuva Manu, and formative period of Indra-Vṛtra myth. I say this because the geological events that happened at Holocene onset are echoed in early legends. Hiraṇyākṣa beats the earth down and submerges it under water- the rising of sea levels. Indra defeats Vṛtra and unleashes the world's waters, maho arṇah- the release of rivers from glacial sheets Pamir (Meru) to Kailāsa. Purāṇas say that Svāyambhuva Manu and his early descendants fashioned idols of mother goddess and worshipped her. Kenoyer has found evidence of goddess idol-worship in Bagor II at 9000BC.
2. 8000BC to 7000BC - Early Neolithic micro-revolutions
The earliest Deva-Asura wars, from the 12 mentioned in Purāṇas. Savage, bloody and amoral conflict between various nomadic and semi-nomadic tribes on varying stages of progress towards settled living. Example is the Tārakāsura war. This early culminates in the earliest Neolithic micro-revolution remembered by Paurāṇika tradition, the Samudra Manthana.
If the Nostratic proto-language hypothesis has any weight, then a possible dispersal event is the exile of Mahābali.
3. 6200BC to 5500BC - Neolithic Revolution
6200BC is known as the geological event called 8.2Kiloton event. This was a few centuries of widespread aridity that set back nascent agriculture and civilisation. In Paurāṇika tradition we arrive by now at 6th Manvantara, and the aridity is blamed on a ruler named Veṇa. His son, Pṛthu, is unanimously called the first king and first cakravartin. Before him there were no cities, no organised agriculture and no complex metallurgy. After him there were large markets, agriculture and prosperity.
This is the period when Mehrgarh and Bhirrana begin to come into the archaeological record.
If Anatolian is sister to PIE and not a daughter, as some speculate, then Pṛthu's dynasty offers dispersal events. The Purāṇas are explicit that his line migrates out of India, and leads to a general decline.
Continued in Part 2...
Part 2:
ReplyDelete4. Around 4500BC - 7th Manvantara begins, break in Indian skeletal record in this period could be linked to Vaivasvat Manu's flood myth. But I make this linkage only because so many other 'points' in this best-fit model map well to timelines. A lot in the model from here on is informed through your works.
Dispersal of proto-Anatolian and proto-Tocharian happen through the last of the Deva-Asura wars, which also coincide with expansion of Nahuṣa, Yayāti and their early descendants to the Sarasvatī river system. Yayāti's expansion emerges in archaeological record through rise of Sothi-Siswal culture. Daityas and Ādityas become past tribes from here on, and thus they begin to be mythologised as Devas and Asuras in the hymns being composed by the emergent Druhyu, Ānava and Pūru tribes.
5. 3500BC to 2600BC - Dispersal of Western IE languages
These are dispersed primarily through the Druhyu tribes, and some Ānava tribes. Purāṇas remember Śaśabindu and Māndhātṛ as cakravartins, and they are responsible for some dispersal events. Also responsible are Sagara and Arjuna Kārtavīrya. With the latter around 3000BC, arise Jamadagni and Viśvāmitra. The period of primary Ṛgvedic composition has commenced.
I place the Rāmāyaṇa around 2600BC because of genealogical count from Vaivasvat to Rāma. But I think there is a beautiful synchronism to be found.
Ṛgvedic Divodāsa battles an Asura named Śambara, and Daśaratha also battles an Asura named Śambara. The latter is saved in battle by Kaikeyi, who hails from Kekaya which at the time is allied to the Bhāratas as well (Abhyavartin Cāyamāna era). This also explains why Kaikeyi names her son Bharata- a favourable name to her people at the time. Rāma meets the aged Ahalyā, who is sister to Divodāsa. To me, this is clear evidence to place Rāma just a few decades prior to Sudās. Rāma’s era might also be the opening of north and south India, and the arrival of Agastya ṛṣis to the north- very soon they will encounter Sudās’ people and be found in the Ṛgveda. Rāma's expansion of empire is chronicle in the archaeological rise of OCP in the latter half of 3rd millennium.
6. 2600BC to 2200BC - Dispersal of Eastern IE languages
Here, of course, the battle has been decisively won by you, through the "recorded evidence of the last five IE-speaking branches on the Paruṣṇī river." You have also read my paper on how I link Sudās' expansions to the consolidation of Mature Harappan archaeology during this same period.
In Paurāṇika tradition, we are told that by the time of Hiraṇyanābha in Aikṣvāku dynasty there exist sāmans, apart from raw ṛcas. We are also told that a couple of ministers in Kuru courts institude kramapātha and śikṣā. This is near 2200 BC, and the closing period of Ṛgvedic composition then happens sometime by 2100BC. Even through genealogical reconstruction we find that Dilipa and Pratipa are placed here- who are the final rulers to be mentioned in Ṛgveda. By 2100BC the Pūru-Bhārata period is over and the Kuru-Bhārata period begins.
7. 1900BC to 1500BC - the era of the Mahābhārata
Here, I believe that the combined evidence of the Sarasvatī river (paper by Sastry and Kalyanasundaram), work of Subhash Kak, and work of Giacommo Benedetti find enough evidence to place the great war sometime during this period.
In conclusion, I feel there is a best-fit model for Indian chronology that maps the hard evidence found in archaeology, linguistics and Ṛgveda along several chronological markers working backwards from a date of Mahābhārata between 1900-1500BC.
"I arrive at this best-fit model by building atop works by you, Subhash Kak, Pargiter, Jijith Ravi, Giacommo Benedetti and Tonoyan-Belyayev."
DeleteAdd vedveer arya to your list. Atleast in the context of post Vedic kings, such as bhradratas, Mauryas, or guptas. There were Epigraphiphic inscriptions rejected as forgery because of their so called unreasonable dates. For example there was a hoysala inscription dated to Saka year 2027, (saka epoch is thought commence around 78 ce) thus it would be 2105 ce, which is impossible. However historians failed to recognize that we have 2 saka era. One is Saka era of 583 BCe and other is actually called Salivahana which is the 78 ce we know of. Salivahana was also called samantha. Western historians confused the two. That inscription that is dated to Saka 2027 is actually 1444 ce, which plausible.
Vedveer Arya has much that is compelling, and his level of research is respectable + admirable.
DeleteBut his timeline unleashes, imo, a series of unresolved cascading effects on not just Indian but world history.
I'm not saying it's wrong, and I haven't researched the matter well enough to begin with. But I find enough reasons to indeed place Mahabharata 1900-1500BC, with a high band only till around 2200BC.
Subhash Kak anyway explained 2 decades ago that the dating of Mahabharata based on Kalyuga reading comes from late dating of Kalyug by Aryabhata.
In any case, I'm calling this a best-fit model because it fits within existing hard data, whereas Vedveer Arya upends all existing chronologies.
Maybe he's right, but I'm not convinced. To incorporate his work means dismissing the combined work of Talageri, Kak, Elst, Kazanas, Benedetti, Tonoyan-Belyayev, Semenenko and others. In that case it wouldn't anyway be a best-fit model, but simply the Vedveer model.
I'm also trying to build a chronology from the 1st manvantara onwards, and I don't think Vedveer Arya has done that yet. If/when he does, perhaps there are reconciliations he finds that are a better-fit.
DeleteBut for me, a complete framework must also account for past manvantaras, Bali, early Daitya/Aditya tribes, Prthu Vainya, etc.
I feel currently "outlier" cases like Nilesh Oak and Vedveer Arya take a single data point as fixed and try to fit everything else around it. If more and more data points in their models align and map across disciplines, the better those models will get. Will have to wait and watch.
Mahabharata near 3102 BC will have to upend all current Sarasvati river data compiled by likes of Ravi, Danino, Sastry and Kalyanasundaram.
Again, that's why I pompously refer to my model as best-fit.
There's no fit between Oak and rest, there's only one of either.
There's no fit between Arya and rest, there's only either.
What about recent excavations in Nepal caroborating Buddha Nirvana around 19th century BCE. Any model should explain post Mahabharat history also.
ReplyDeleteYou are not wrong. A complete model should technically bridge the period between Mahābhārata and the arrival of Islamic conquerors to India. In between, supposedly, lie Buddha, Mauryas, Guptas, Harśavardhana and others.
DeleteI'm personally not sold on the Buddha Nirvana date of 1900 BC, for it's one of those datings that release a series of unresolved cascading effects. This too comes from Vedveer Arya's model, so if you're insistent on stick to that, fair enough.
I would like to point out how Shrikanth says sarcastically Nilesh Oak to prove/consider the other omens that Vyasa describes . What conveniently both Shrikanth and Nilesh forget is even Vedas (rig veda samhita and others) have 90% just mythology , details of yajnas and other "miraculous rituals" , incomprehensible fiction and pieces of parables expressed in quite a poetic language which not many(including translators) can make any sense of. So all these historians are trying to pick few evidences from the whole chaff of fictional literature . So what Nilesh is doing by picking " evidences" from an itahasa Mahabharata etc is no way different from picking evidences from Rig Veda (sama , atharva or even yajur Veda even) . All of them are spectacular pieces of literature . Just leave it at that instead of trying to date using such elusive texts . The date doesn't matter. Enjoy the poems and stories if you want . What purpose is served either by proving assigning any date to the Vedas or Mahabharata etc ? In that context I also don't condone the politics that happen around this . It is just stupid . It is all an excuse for politicians . Don't buy into either of theories . don't get lost in this jungle of chronology . It is pointless . whether we are from India or elsewhere or aboriginals or whatever . it doesn't matter . be in the present era . just live your life peacefully .seeking our origins is pointless intellectual (and many times emotional) exercise.
ReplyDeleteWriting as an "unknown" does not mask your intentions. Clearly you have read the story of the two cats and the monkey, and think you are applying it here in the role of the monkey.
DeleteWhy not write straight out: "don't bother to study Vedic history, just live life peacefully and enjoy the poetry of the texts, and let us (missionaries and missionary supporters) decide the historical implications and carry on our work of dividing and converting Hindus".
Thank you sir for teaching us to be "true Hindus" in the sense of being indifferent to history (see my article "Hindutvs vs. Hinduism - Oxatva vs. Oxism").
Talageri, what do you think about of the name Pandu (as in pandava) being a dravidian name. The name Pandu (fron root pand) is meaning plae or yellow. It likely from Proto Dravidian Palnd(u). The L in Palnd(u) tends to assimilate into the n. For example sanskrit pinda (meaning clump) is likely from Proto Dravidian Pilnd, meaning to squeeze. The word in modern dravdian languages refer to dough or oil cake.
ReplyDeleteThank you for demystifying the whole Arundhati and Vashishta observation. It has indeed caused a spark among Nilesh Ji and his cabal after I and my friend shared screenshots of this blog on his handle.
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you very much. But you have probably not read the appendix and the further addition to the appendix in this article. I have replied to the comments of Anubhav Srivastava and Shiv Bennedose (there will be no more additions of course. They are not worth it, and they can enjoy themselves abusing me).
DeleteYou can bring these additions to the notice of that group.
Namaste Talageri Ji,
DeleteFirst of all, thank you for responding. I have reread your article to cover all the later additions which you've made.
There seems to be no activity from Nilesh Oak and Co.'s side as of now to disregard your work in demystifying their long forged philosophy on Arundhati moving ahead of Vashishta. You appear to be quite popular among them since they always attempt quite vigorously to rebut your claims as seen recently on the topic of "Parasurama" as well. Anyway, mere rhetorics are dime a dozen as one can perceive from the level of their scholarly work they often produce on their Twitter handles in a hope to receive (somewhat venal) appraisal within their clique and blind followers (excluding critics).
I would like to inform you that I have recently started to read your work on AIT and AMT which unequivocally debunks tall claims pervaded by western scholars in our society that "Aryans were outsiders who reared our civilization" etc..
One thing which I find intriguing among all is when these occidental scholars propose the date of Rigveda to be no older than 1500 BCE (out of their imaginations or shall we say out of their intuitions) without providing any sufficient evidence to support their report. Thankfully, scholars/researchers like you, Vasant Shinde Ji, Niraj Rai Ji and many others who are active and have been toiling day and night in defying their false statements.
I feel pity that these AIT advocating scholars still have strong foot within our generation in our country who happen to accept AIT to be true and unabashedly call themselves descendants of so called "Aryan" race.
I wish to see these people decolonizing their minds by accepting your discoveries on AIT etc. and further acquainting these amidst their circle in near future.
With your permission I'd take a leave and hope to see you in person one day (hopefully when I visit Bharat). Until then, take care.
I'll long for your future posts and updates upon the concurrent research.
Thank you,
Pranav Dhir
I am always happy to meet people when they are in Mumbai. I am a bit travel-phobic and rarely travel out of Mumbai (except for some Seminars, etc. in the past).
DeleteNamaste Talageri Ji 🙏🏻
DeleteIt came as shocker to me to learn about your traveling phobia as I’m not aware of such fear among my circle.
Anyway, I wanted to inform you that I have shared your latest appendix with the concerned “Scholar” “Rupa Bhati” to which she replied in rather perplexed manner and I quote “When did I criticize him (You)”. Unsurprisingly the whole group jumped in and started targeting I and my friend Rahul Chawla.
Also, I didn’t think of coming across another addition to your appendix which seem to be growing and I wish this is the last last one.
Kindly share your email address or do us a favor by joining Twitter to stay updated with the current phenomenon and keep us updated with your discoveries .
I long to receive your response.
Pranam 🙏🏻
Pranav Dhir
It is not a big problem, it is just that I don't like traveling to distant places and try to avoid it as far as possible. Nothing shocking I assure you.
DeleteYes I saw all the responses. I will always be grateful to you and to Rahul Chawla, and as I said I am always happy to meet people when they are in Mumbai.
Rupa Bhati did not criticize me in the present debate so far as I know, although I have read some disparaging statements in the past, but my references to her tweets were not a response to her in any way, but to those who want me to give "counter-evidence" from unrelated and unconnected fields of science.
My telephone number is Mumbai 022-23876660. Please feel free to contact me. Of course, it may come as another shocker to you that I do not have a mobile phone. And if I don't answer my landline it will mean I have gone out somewhere.
Thank you for providing me with your Telephone number, and yes, it’s another shocker to see a noted scholar without a smartphone these days. This disconnection of you from smartphones reminds me of a quote which I read somewhere not a long ago, it reads and I quote “ When the phones were tied with wire - Humans were free” I honestly find it accurate definition of the humans with smartphones today (including me).
DeleteI hope I am not taking much of your valuable time in chatting to you although here’s something where I would like to draw your attention to.
Upon your request I shared your thoughts on “Shiv” on his handle/under a latest twitter fight over your current appendix, to which he responded the following and I’d write them as is to maintain the veracity of his words:
After sharing your response to latter, he said “ He is an angry man. This type of anger will not help seal his cause. He has done some good work but he seems to have acquired his vocabulary from the linguists that he fought so valiantly against.“
In the same thread he shared his praiseworthy words towards you over your earlier works and he writes “ I actually liked Talageris work and I made a video quoting his work. I even recommended him for a Padma award. And now Talageri thinks I am stupid. Maybe he's right. He's the scholar no? 😄
Here is the video I made” (Kindly copy the link below and open on your browser to see his extolling (as he avers) for your work)
https://youtu.be/oPTvAMEEc_A
Pranam 🙏🏻
Pranav Dhir
Your latest addition is a slap on the faces of those who always sideline scientific discoveries with their blind and wishful beliefs. One must not forget that an author/scientist always draw its arguments based on the evidence is present. Abusing an author is a temporal consolation but that being said it cannot change the facts and those have to be respected until new scientific processes come in as rightly highlighted by Talageri Ji himself.
DeleteIt’s always welcoming when a person draws its arguments based on the then’s available evidence to counter earlier claims and those claims always find welcome among the scholars of all fields. One wouldn’t have known about AIT/AMT unless historians as though Talageri Ji had toiled day and night to personally scrutinize the evidences accessible up till now.
Constructive criticism is something one must practice when countering scholarly articles/studies but being offensive is neither going to deteriorate the quality of author’s work nor its acceptance among latter’s readers.
I genuinely believe that one day (with more scientifically advanced technology) many claims shall be rebutted and once again truth shall triumph.
I wish Talageri Ji good health.
Pranam 🙏🏻
Pranav Dhir
Namaste Talageri ji, 🙏🏻
ReplyDeleteIts good to finally see your befitting and logical argument based response to Nilesh Oak's stupid behaviour/comments. I agree that "Oak style" Hindu scholarship has become a laughing stock in the scholarly world.
Thanks for demistifying the Arundhati Vashishta circus that had been happening for quite a long time now and there seems to be no logical response so far from Nilesh Oak to your blog except from him saying that all astronomical observations in Mahabharata are Nimetta/Omens.
I read your blogs related to the anchor point that you have establiahed for Avesta-Mitanni-Kassites with the Late Rigveda books/period. You presented pages and pages of irrefutable data.
I highly value your work and have immense respect for yourself and your contribution to the Hindu scholarship in support of Out of India theory. Now I am also seeing Indian geneticists in public have been making statements that massive steppe migration into bronze age India was indeed a myth as they have more data now related to post-Harappan ancient DNA. This shall break the wheel soon.
Even the data that was published with Narasimhan et al 2019, itself show that this central asian ancestry ~15% average among IE speakers in India itself comes from multiple different population sources mostly belonging to the Iron age.
Anyhow, not that there is any gene which can be associated with a language but this shall break the wheel. Although I do agree, as Niraj Rai also said on his twitter, that AIT is not going to go away so easily despite of all the upcoming genetics evidence, as 200 years of scholarship cannot just be removed silently and easily.
Anyway, I am looking forward to reading your future blogs and perhaps meet you in future sometime when I visit India.
🙏🏻
Rahul Chawla
Thank you very much. Please do meet if you are in Mumbai.
DeleteThat research went into vein since the DNA sample Niraj Rai was relying upon didn't pass the standards
DeleteTalageri Ji, big fan of your work. A question or rather a request, would you consider tackling all the data (astronomic or from other fields) N.O. has used to make these fantastical claims? Because the defense whenever the claims are challenged always becomes that a) as far as astronomy is concerned, you've only refuted validity of of many data and b) the claims made are based on multidisciplinary analysis so even if you successfully refute validity of claims made on basis of single discipline, there are various other independent discipline supporting the thesis. This is an obvious fallacy, because weight of all evidence of all the other discipline isn't actually equal and one discipline (astronomy) becomes the backbone of his thesis. Still, would love comprehensive refutation of such thesis.
ReplyDeleteI believe such thesis need to be rejected because of their popular appeal. There are people who could be investing their time in stuff that is logically coherent but these "revolutionary" thesis give Hindus false sense of security and baseless pride and arrogance, which is dangerous.
The whole thesis is based on his "Arundhati Epoch" date, to which he then claims all kinds of other "evidence" from all kinds of "other sciences" (including other "astronomical" evidence), but all of which is equally dubious and wishful.
DeletePeople who want to believe him will believe him through thick and thin. Try to convince a religious fanatic that his fantastic beliefs are irrational! As you can see the different types of "Hindu" obsessions that I have listed in the above article (and there are many more), the only result will be that I will be having many more categories of "Hindus" gunning for me, there will be no other result. You cannot awaken people who are determined to pretend to be asleep. That is sad, but it is the truth.
Thank you for the reply sir. What, in your view, is the correct way to engage this kind of literature (if one can call it that)? Looking purely as an observer, it looks as if the "multidisciplinary evidence" present in such thesis may take some amount of effort to collect and present in a neat package but it takes much much more effort to deconstruct and show failures in arguments based on it. Basically coming up with thesis based on shoddy evidence seems way easier than refuting said evidence. Should we pour our efforts in such activities? Is it worth the effort?
DeleteI assume a lot of people who follow his work are just looking to make sense of our history,so they may not necessarily be fanatics and if exposed to variety of thought, they may see the value of rational interpretation instead of falling for these fantasies. This is in my view the only value in engaging such work.
If I may, the multidisciplinary evidence NO uses is circumstantial, and has been forcefit into his model which still is based primarily on the AV datapoint.
DeleteFor example, the entire Sugreeva's atlas thread he runs is a forcefit of pre-Holocene data onto his model. We know that prior to 10000BC there were "Indians" who went to different parts of the world. Japanese genetic data shows that the first wave of peopling there happened from India, and this is also suggested for the Oceanic islands.
Anything can be fit onto this hard data. NO says it's Ramayana, but I say it's the Pauranika memory of Priyavrata and his descendants (he was first son of Svayambhuva Manu, first Manu.)
NO also plays quite loose with linguistic timelines, and is either not aware of or ignores general consensus on PIE timelines.
I admire Talageri sir precisely because he is able to cut through the bullshit like no other. Rather than getting mired in multidisciplinary evidence, he has cut to the core and discredited the base AV evidence. Anything fit around the AV evidence can anyway be fit into a whole variety of timelines.
If we say Sugreeva did not actually send out his vanaras in 12000 BC, someone can anyway return and say yes- that date applies more to Priyavrata/ Mahabali/ take-your-pick. In other words, the so-called multidisciplinary evidence NO proclaims is anything but.
On Twitter too I've noticed he falls silent when directly confronted with material technology evidence of ISC 3500-1500 BC, or with the decline of Sarasvati near ~1900 BC.
Please also notice that he subscribes to Oakish etymologies, for example calling Bogota = Bhogavati without reservation and with no acknowledgement to the known and much recent etymology of Bogota. He goes on to speculate on a Bali/Virocana led civilisation in South America. This is the credibility of his multidisciplinary work.
Shri Talageri avare,
ReplyDeleteVery interested to see that you have penned this piece. I can notice a certain amount of mass moment coalescing around NO's theories. It is very much illuminating to see you adopt the correct falsification approach - the cultural context. In the so called Arundhati Epoch, there would have be no specific significance attached to A&V, if V was a meek husband following A's lead. Arundhati's astronomical quality of endearance in Hindu rituals is that she follows her husband resolutely. In that case, NO's research can at best prove that 5561 BCE is only a powerful terminus post quem for the AV ritual and story. Quite the opposite interpretation!!
The Indra-Vishnu conundrum more than amply explains the interval/limits of the chronology of the Rgveda and the MBh with reference to sheet anchors. In the Rgveda, Indra is the unrivalled primus of the Vedic pantheon. But by the MBh, it is Vishnu who is presiding and Indra is just an erratic god susceptible to wine and women. Apparently some temporal events have taken place that have pushed Indra out of his throne.
The 4200 yBP aridification event (2200 BCE) wiped out BA civilizations in China, Egypt, Levant and India. It is now named as the Meghalayan Age by the ICS, the current stage of the Holocene. This also coincides neatly with KS Valdiya's dating of the Saraswati's phase.
Such an aridification event would have surely impacted the fortunes of Indra - He being the Lord of rains, rivers and lightning. The climate not only aridified but also became erratic. Flash floods and storms overthrew the settled cycles of the people. And there are episodes in the MBh where Vishnu and Indra go head on over this aspect (Mount Govardhan). I am personally convinced that MBh could only have happened after the 4200 yBP event (onset of the Meghalayan Age). The climate evidence and its synchronicity with the pantheon replacement is too strong.
With regards to NO, there is a saying in the halls of political economists - a moderate becomes likeable only when an extremist walks into the room. There is some destiny that NO has to fulfill in this samsara - if it has to be this path, then so be it. We might yet see a maturation of the Indic history ecosystem.
Thank you for this article, Shrikantmaam. This fanboy/fangirl movement surrounding people like Nilesh Oak is indeed problematic, as it lends popularity to such 'scholarship'. The Left knows full well that NO's conclusions are rubbish, and takes advantage of this to proclaim the 'accuracy' of their own 'theories'. After reading such theories of the Nilesh Oak variety, one cannot entirely blame the 'normies' for believing the Leftist-secularist narrative of Indian history, and concluding that even Hindutvavadis like yourself are 'Hindu supremacist propagandists'.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, do you remember my father Jaideep (aka Ashwin) Shirali? My father and paternal grandparents used to live in Gamdevi before my parents got married, and he also did his schooling in St. Xavier's (IIRC, he belongs to the 1978 batch). When I mentioned about your work to him, he was quite interested, and he remarked that he had met you a few times when he lived there (IIRC, they lived in Mantri Building).
I think your father was in the 1976 batch (though I may be guessing because his friend Saumen Shah was also my brother's friend). I was in the 1975 old course (11th SSC) batch and I knew your father only by name.
DeleteShrikantmaam, you're right - I just checked with my father, he's indeed from the 1976 batch and not the 1978 batch (sorry for the typo).
DeleteOne last question, though. You have repeatedly stressed that OIT is critical in order to counter the anti-Hindu propaganda, and to stem the tide of conversions to Christianity among the depressed classes (Dalits, tribals, etc.). While I do support OIT, my reason for doing so is simply because your OIT model provides a far more coherent and factually accurate narrative of the history of the Indo-European language family than the AIT, in both its mainstream as well as watered-down version, does. However, I don't really see how it would actually help us win the battle against our enemies. After all, Ambedkar rejected the AIT, but anybody who has read what Prof. Jakob de Roover wrote about him will see the hatred that he had for Hinduism and Hindus in general and Brahmins in particular. I personally think that even if OIT becomes the accepted academic opinion, our enemies will come up with something else. Their hatred for us will not go away, and they will find some or the other reason to attack us. Given this, do you think that the OIT is sufficient, or do you think that it needs to be a part of a wider offensive strategy (based on facts, of course), including the readiness to resort to physical violence as well, by Hindu society?
Sorry if this is an ignorant question- but does "maam" mean something in Marathi like uncle? Why do you call Talageri sir as Shrikantmaam?
Delete@Amrit
DeleteI belong to the same ethnic community as Talageri Ji, i.e. the Chitrapur Saraswat Brahmin community. In our community, it is common for us youngsters to address male elders of our parents' or grandparents' generation as 'maam' or 'uncle' (yes, in a sense, it is like the Marathi 'kaka'). This applies even to those elders whom we are not actually related to (either by blood or marriage). I suspect the use of such terms to address elders stems from the fact that ours is a numerically small community (smaller than even the Parsis, IIRC), and generally, in small communities, the sense of community bonding tends to be stronger, thus creating a somewhat informal and relaxed atmosphere during interaction. That said, so far Talageri Ji has not objected to my using this term to address him, so I guess he's okay with it.
"maam" means uncle in Konkani.
DeleteI never claimed "OIT is sufficient" for Hindutva or in the fight against the missionary onslaught. It is just one factor. Read my blogs "Are Indian Tribals Hindus", and "Hindutva or Hindu Nationalism". The OIT only finds brief mention there. the IE identity is just one part of Indian civilization and culture and the multifaceted Indian identity.
Likewise "Hindu Nationalism" is not the only reason the OIT is important. It is important in itself because it represents the true history of the origin of a language family which completely dominates four continents (Europe, Australia, North America and South America", is extremely important in large parts of a fifth (Asia, which includes India) and is very important in the sixth inhabited continent Africa. If history is at all important, then this is more important than the history of kings and wars.
Shrikantmaam, I apologise for misunderstanding (and therefore misquoting) your points. But what I meant to ask is this: the AIT is used by missionary forces to create a divide between us 'mainstream' Hindus and the tribals, for instance (who are equally as 'Hindu' as we are, as you've pointed out), and therefore the OIT can at least debunk one claim of theirs, i.e. that the 'Hindus' or 'Brahmins' are foreign invaders, and therefore it is better for the depressed classes to shake off their religion and adopt Christianity, so as to fight off the 'evil' Brahmins. That much is true. But is it enough? As I mentioned in my above comment, our enemies will find some or the other way to attack us, with/without the AIT. In this respect, I think OIT is definitely important in the arsenal of Hindutva (in the sense that you have defined it to be), but do our enemies actually want a debate? I mean, I find it impossible to believe that Witzel, who has been demolished multiple times by yourself as well as by Dr. Elst, is so foolish that he prefers to stick to a theory which has been refuted so comprehensively and that too on multiple occasions. A qualitatively similar case could be said to hold in the case of Romila Thapar and her fellow 'eminent historians'. I have come to think that these people know full well that they're lying, and revel in it, knowing full well that there will be no repercussions from Hindus. Unfortunately, I think (and I could be wrong about this) that Hindutvavadis tend to hold the opinion that countering and defeating our enemies in debates will end the matter once and for all, but I'm afraid that they're mistaken. Their hatred for us will not be defeated by debates (which is why I mentioned Ambedkar, a man who rejected the AIT but was a rabid Hindu hater), and therefore Hindu society will have to resort to a more muscular strategy to destroy our enemies in a manner akin to that used by the Chinese Communist Party, which doesn't give a damn about sentimental nonsense like 'secularism', 'human rights', 'freedom of speech', etc. and eliminates anybody who poses a threat to the Chinese nation.
DeleteAs far as the relevance of the OIT in addressing questions of history is concerned, I completely agree with you, which is why I mentioned the reason for my supporting the OIT. Even if one is not connected at all to either Hindutva or Indian politics, he/she should still support the OIT, because it is the best model yet that describes the history of the IE language family, which dominates much of the world, as you pointed out.
Thank you for educating me, and I feel quite a bit silly and ignorant now, for I commented on this in the past too. I'm just here to read, your conversation is a joy to follow.
DeleteThere is not much we can do yet. First we must have all popular OIT scholars, Talageri included to discuss and develop a proper well structured OIT case that we all can agree on. Then we have to challenge AIT scholars like Witzel on a united front. The problem is that the only way to get the AIT scholars to not hide behind their misinterpretations and biases is if we challenge them to a live debate, one on one, instead of publishing papers and then publishing refuting papers.
DeleteAlso the horse in the Vedas may be the Arabian horse which was domesticated in the 3rd millennium BCE. It too has 34 ribs. The Arabian horse was domesticated in Middle East not Steppe
ReplyDeleteYou can try saying I inclined towards TRUTH but your passion & heart seems to be stuck somewhere else. In your article, by calling Hindus as a group of people you are clearly stating you don't incline towards history of Hindu or India. Without having any emotion towards your own country how can we trust you with your findings of its history?? As a human being you must be greedy about something (since you clearly show unenlightened behavior). You must be having some communistic ideas for a better world.
ReplyDeleteYou want a invisible moon on a full moon day? Even God(?) can't do magic tricks. Krishna is not God, he is simple enlightened soul.
You mention AV epoch as 8th point after 7 other mostly poetic things. Whats your intention ? Are readers stupid ?
You want devas visible in form? aren't good souls in flesh are the Devas in times of great integrity ? Aren't evil souls are great in number in times of worst integrity ?
Rigveda is not one book written by one guy. Soul less Communists cant understand.
Hope you loosen up & give yourself a view of practicalities of world.
Thank you for your comment. The incredible stupidity of your comment is self-explanatory.
DeleteBut you know, by this personal abuse (apart from showing your stupidity) you are not exactly following the instructions of your guru that you should concentrate on issues rather than personalities!
Well it takes all types! I am glad you enjoyed yourself venting your spleen.
Where is abuse?.. who’s my guru?.. if you talk sense you get support..
DeleteAs one of Talageri sir's "stupid readers" I feel compelled to respond.
DeleteTalageri was offered an opportunity to go study at Harvard by Witzel, which he rejected. Some communist he must be.
Talageri repeatedly asserts the fundamental unity of Hindu civilisation, from the smallest Andamanese tribe to the fire-worshipping tribe on the plains. Shows clearly his "inclination" and "emotion" for India/Hindu.
Talageri NEVER said Rigveda is a book written by one guy. Your insertion of this part here shows you speak from clouds with no sense of where the light is.
So devastating is Talageri's model that it's not only your communist-hating ilk (shown by you bringing that word up twice, for no apparent reason) that lashes out against him, but the very "western communists" you might find actual suspicion of.
There is a lot of space for respectable disagreement, but anyone who asserts that Talageri has no inclination for history of Hindu or India only reveals their seriously amusing combination of deep ignorance combined with high dogma.
I only read this article, no idea who Talageri is. If you say he is pro hindu, then why would he write hindus falling for the other guy? He can simply prove the other guy is false and not take help of poetic descriptions to prove clearly given with names A & V. If he is scientific he would talk scientific, not feeling any abuse to straight questions..
DeleteThalageri ji,
ReplyDeleteI did not understand one thing. How did something by virtue of being an omen become an invalid astronomical observation?
It may or may not be an astro observation. And only supporting evidences can clarify its nature. But how something being an omen be considered as evidence of falsification?
I know people like you have an allergy for reading. But I find it surprising the number of Oak fans who keep raising this foolish question, already answered in the article itself. People who have nothing better to say quibble about "definitions" and ignore the matter on hand.
DeleteFor the last time: If you read my article or the original Mahabharata version, you will see the number of different things which are listed by Vyasa which he sees, of which the Arundhati position is just one. Whether you call them "omens" or "dreams" or "hallucinations" is your headache.
But if you are calling all those things "astronomical observations" or "physical observations" (where they don't have to do with the skies), then you will have a tough time indeed finding a moment when all those things were simultaneously taking place. And if you are insisting that all the other things (except the "Arundhati" position) represent unnatural things seen only as omens, and only this one reference from that list is an actual "astronomical observation" I really pity your reasoning powers and those of all your ilk. I repeat, such brainless discourse is a disgrace to Hindus.
1st para: "but Vedic refers originally to the culture or Civilization of only the Bharata Pūru people centered in and around Haryana"
ReplyDeletelooks like a new conclusion. what are the pramanams for this conclusion?
i haven't come across such a conclusion in any of the Indic narratives so far, looks like part of 'breaking India' forces recommended narratives.
Rumesh Babu
"Oak picks up this one verse, and finds in it a revolutionary clue for the absolute dating of the Mahabharata:"
ReplyDeletethe correct conclusion from the above statement is as follows
Oak has mentioned in many of his videos that this AV observation was a trigger to investigate MB dating and by itself alone doesn't lead to the 5561 BCE date. this AV observation coupled with Bishma Nirvana & other astronomy observations lead to 5561 BCE.
You seems to be focusing only on the AV observation, which is not the case, i mean.
"All this is of course good for him, and I wish him and his followers a happy time spent in wishful fantasies."
ReplyDeletePossibly looks like only your followers are in wishful fantasy land and Dr. NO works doesn't at all give rise to wishful fantasy and on the contrary it is leading to the correct way of looking at Indic history.
Rumesh Babu
"There is no "astronomical observation" anywhere in the Mahabharata showing that the star Arundhatī was walking ahead of the star Vasiṣṭha. "
ReplyDeleteIf you choose to not to accept this as an astronomical observation, it's your choice. Your personal choice doesn't make it not an astronomical observation, in any way.
Rumesh Babu
"Oak's revolutionary discovery could have been made even more revolutionary by actually locating an Epoch when the moon became invisible on full moon night, and images of Gods and Goddesses came to life in the ways described in the text."
ReplyDelete1. 'moon become invisible on full moon night' - i don't have Dr. NO book, right now as i type, and therefore don't know his analysis behind this. my guess is could be cloudy that day ?, anyway somebody can answer on this.
2. Dr. NO's theory is based on astronomy observations of MB and not on images of Gods/Goddess. If you want this to be taken up for MB dating, then the onus is on you to carry it forward and not question others (Oak) to do it for you. is it that simple a logic?
"It is an extremely sad thing that Hindu scholarship has become hostage to all kinds of weird obsessions."
ReplyDeleteYour works are coming in this category and encouraging people to stay in the dark tunnel and on the contrary Dr. NO's works is leading Indians towards the light at the end of the tunnel
Rumesh Babu
"There are those who believe that the Vedas are apaurusheya, which they interpret as timeless and "revealed" scriptures not composed by human beings, and therefore not capable of providing historical clues. Searching for history in the Vedas amounts to some kind of blasphemy to them."
ReplyDeleteOne has to go by what is stated in the Vedas, if it says apaurusheya, so be it. if you don't like it, then its your personal choice.
'not capable of providing historical clues' - confusing statement and line of thought here. when Vedas state that Vedas are apaurasheya, then you expect Vedas should provide historical clues w. r. t. its own human origins ? looks like a deliberate out of context statement here.
anyway others are very clear about your non sensical observation.
rumesh babu
"There are those who want every mythological story"
ReplyDeleteIt is not mythological, instead the right word is sattalogical. If you don't like super human descriptions in ancient Indian narratives, it doesn't mean that they don't have significance to not be included in Indian narratives.
Rumesh Babu
"Again, they have a long line of accusations against and epithets for people who use these "modern" and "western" academic tools in their analyses."
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone want to use 'modern/western' academic tools to analyze Vedas, when Vedas/Sastras itself has all the necessary tools to analyze itself (Vedas)?
If you choose so, then its your choice and real Indologists need not bother your work. Only western fake Indologists need to support your works.
Rumesh Babu
There is nothing wrong in using 'Western tools' per se, even when it comes to analyzing the Vedas. Whether we like it or not, Hindu civilization DID NOT develop any competence in historiography (the sole exception being Kashmir, which has had a tradition of history-writing, as exemplified by texts like the Rajatarangini. Whether this was purely an indigenous effort or was due to Greco-Roman influence is something that I don't know), and thus we did not develop the necessary analytical tools needed to do the same. As for those tools present in Vedas/Shastras, they are meant to be used for esoteric purposes, and not for answering questions pertaining to historiography.
DeleteNote that a lot of other things we consider to be 'pure Hindu' are not of 'Hindu' origin. Examples of the same abound in Indian cuisine and arts. Does that mean that we should reject them? If you're okay with that, you might want to first attack your hero Nilesh Oak, who uses 'Western' tools drawn from 'Western' sciences like paleoclimatology, genetics, etc. to support his shoddy theories.
Rumesh Babu, congratulations, You have proved yourself to be the biggest and most loyal fan of Nilesh Oak with this barrage of abusive troll comments.
DeleteExtremely pathetic, if not pathological.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"There are those who feel the Vedas and Vedic culture and civilization are the root and fountainhead of the whole of Indian culture"
ReplyDeletenobody 'feels' so, it is being interpreted based on internal indic literature references and corroborated with evidences from other disciplines, no way comparable to/like AIT by fake vested interests indologists. If you like western point of view, it's your choice, and certainly falls under the category of fake indic narratives.
Rumesh Babu
Please continue your tirade. It is always better for readers to see the most extreme and illogical claims made by the claimants themselves rather than listed out by me.
DeleteYour comments are illustrating in the most effective manner everything that I have written in my article.
Actually you should be debating these matters not with me but with your equivalents in the opposite camp like Zakir Naik and Evangelist "scholars" who share your extremist views about religious texts even if the texts are different.
"There are those who reject all sciences and paradigms which they feel go against their idea of Indian culture:"
ReplyDeletefake wrong statement. you seem to be interested in 'breaking india'/AIT oriented indic works. all the best, try your luck, only to fail due to its own weight.
Rumesh Babu
Namaste Talageri ji,
ReplyDeleteJust read your addition to the blog. I agree that these type of claims of dating to 60,000 years or so are preposterous.
It is a sad state of affairs to be honest.
Your anchor point of Late Rigvedic books/culture with Mitanni data and Avesta is so decisive that in a normal world I would have expected to see a united Hindu front to come forward to disprove the AIT/AMT.
Recently I read that the earliest attestation of IE language at south russian steples is after 1000BC yet it does not seem to bother the western scholars/proponents of the steppe homeland.
Anyway, I am not sure if you have read this paper but I would love to see your review as your name also came in this paper. It seems like that Indian geneticist Niraj Rai and his team of western geneticists may just be following this paper to propose an OIT case based on genetics, prehistoric records of Purana and Rigveda, and the Indian archeological data. Please give it a read.
Here is the list of tweets from Niraj Rai
https://twitter.com/NirajRai3/status/1344333524745166850?s=19
https://twitter.com/NirajRai3/status/1345267690940768257?s=19
https://twitter.com/NirajRai3/status/1345268138787553281?s=19
Here is the link to the paper by Giacommo Benedetti
https://www.academia.edu/7683313/The_Chronology_of_Puranic_Kings_and_Rigvedic_Rishis_in_Comparison_with_the_Phases_of_the_Sindhu_Sarasvati_Civilization
🙏🏻 and regards,
Rahul Chawla
Thank you very much, I will read them.
DeleteI mean no disrespect to you, but since you have posted one of my tweets snippet so I thought of letting you know that I am a blind devotee of nobody. Neither your's nor Mr.Oak's or Mr.VedVeer Arya's. Just like yours I also have some disagreements with there work also.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say "present day timeline" I mean the present day established timeline of the mainstream historians which is wrong. Date of Mauryans and Alexander, Buddha Nirvana, Dates of Babylonian kings, egyptian chronology are all full of flows. As a result date of Mittani-Kassites of west Asia in 1700-1500 BCE also by default became wrong as there timeperiods are linked to Egyptian and Babylonian. So your date of RigVeda which uses Mittani-Kassite dates as a reference for your timeline also gets invalid.
I never doubted your IE homeland, migration theory and relative chronology and I still have full faith in them but sorry your timeline of 3500-3000 BCE for RigVeda is not acceptable.
Anyone can have disagreements with anyone else. But you are right, I generally accept what you call the "present day timeline" for those dates. But you are wrong in calling this wrong.
DeleteBut they are not dates "linked to Egyptian and Babylonian", they are dates linked to scientific procedures for dating like carbon dating and thermonuclear luminescence dating, etc. Until more accurate scientific processes for dating material cultures come up, they have to be respected.
The mistakes arise when oral texts (or oral tape-recordings as Witzel correctly describes them) like the Rigveda and Avesta are given dates based on assumed theories (like the AIT) rather than on the correspondences with scientifically dated cultures related to them (like the Mitanni), or when archaeological cultures and genetic features are assigned linguistic identities based on extraneous historical theories which have no connections with the correctness or otherwise of scientific dating procedures.
To disagree with force-fitted theories, it is not necessary to disagree with scientifically established dates. The dates of Mitanni and Kassites are scientifically established (like the dates of Egyptian and Mesopotamian history) and cannot be summarily rejected based on wishful thinking and ideological preferences.
Hi arish108,
DeleteThe Mitanni data is NOT based on chronology but it has been archeologically carbon dated, this is the earliest attestation of Sanskrit/IA language (or atleast the remnants of it) which in fact is related to LATE RV books. Mitanni data is not disputable for 1500BC.
Yes you can dispute the chronology, personally I also do not agree with the anchor point of Alexander-Chandragupta which is false and Piyadasi = Ashoka is an unproved equation, both claims riddled with issues upon issues.
But yea Mitanni and Kassite have dated scientifically. It places the Late Rigveda Mandala proper within the Indian subcontinent in the 3rd millennium BCE.
These dating can be related with genetic evidence we have from Narasimhan et al and Shinde et al 2019, where we see 8 Indus valley individuals found on the east Iranian site of Shahir-e-sokhta & their skeletons have been C-dated to between 2500-2000BCE, it is likely that they were proto-Mitanni.
Ok fine. Then please explain the epoch of Buddha Nirvana at 1864 BCE as established by Mr.VedVeer Arya (again I did have disagreements with some of his analysis also). By the time of Buddha the Vedic age also already a remote antiquity of past.
ReplyDeleteHere are two links you can view. Also in the video link there is also a discussion related to carbon dating of findings at Lumbini .
As Talageri ji said "scientific procedures for dating like carbon dating and.....".
https://www.academia.edu/43562153/The_Epoch_of_Buddha_Nirv%C4%81%E1%B9%87a_1864_BCE_
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt4GtfOWZWQ
Thanks for the links I will go through them when I have time. At the moment I wont make any comment on Budha Nirvana as I have not personally done any examination of it.
DeleteI did examine the Alexander-Chandragupta anchors point and Piyadasi = Ashoka Maurya equation and do not find this a reliable anchor point. That I can at least agree. But what are the repercussions of it? I dont know. Ofcourse this takes back the Maurya in antiquity but how much? I dont know yet.
But the Mitanni-Kassite-Avesta with Late Rigveda as examined by Talageri ji is a very reliable anchor point for the late RV books/culture. To any honest scholar this should raise alarm and AIT can easily be discarded. As soon as the RV is pushed back in 3rd m. bce. the AIT is out of the window.
Although I do believe that the old books goes much more in antiquity perhaps to 4th m. bce or older (can't say).
Note that the archeologist SR Rao with many others also places the early Harappan phase to early 6th millenium bce based on the site of Bhirrana, Kalibangan & others. Bhirrana starts to see the bricks in certain ratio starting from early 6th m. bce. and there are other advancements to see starting in that period too.
ofcourse old RV is definitely not the very first composition in Sanskrit, there must have been many prior to that in perhaps more primitive forms. Basically having a mere chronology is not sufficient. In my understanding, there are several new words which are also found in the old RV not common with other IE branches, that limits us from going too much into antiquity because PIE precedes old Rigvedic Sanskrit. Pre-Rigvedic Sanskrit may just be PIE itself regardless there are certain limitations based on the available data we have.
Actually I have placed the completion of most of the Rigveda around 2000 BCE, with final additions being made mainly in Book 10 up till around 1500 BCE when the Rigveda was given its final form.
DeleteIn my blog "The Recorded History of the Indo-Europeans, pt. 2", I have pointed out: "The distinctive new culture of the Late Rigvedic Period (i.e. the period of composition of the New Books) must have started developing (again at the very barest minimum) at least 300 years earlier: i.e. in at least 2600 BCE."
Further, I wrote: "The Late Rigvedic Period was prededed by the Middle Rigvedic Period (i.e. the period of composition of the Middle Old Books 4,2), and this, in turn, was preceded by the Early Rigvedic Period. (i.e. the period of composition of the Old Books 6,3,7). At a bare minimum, the beginnings of the Early Rigvedic Period must go back into the late 4th millennium BCE, ie., before 3000 BCE."
I gave this as the "bare minimum". So the earliest hymns in the Old Books can definitely go back deep into the fourth millennium or earlier (though not thousands of years earlier).
The only problem is that unlike the Mitanni evidence for the New Books, we do not have concrete comparative evidence indicating exactly how much earlier.
Arish ji, since you have taken up the question of carbon dating, I want to assure you that if there is indeed carbon dating evidence showing that the date of the Buddha (not the date of Lumbini, which is a geographical area which existed as a geographical area even probably 20000 years ago) is in the second millennium BCE, I will accept this and change my views.
DeleteI have not read the link sent by you but I will do so. But if (you are sure that)there is actual carbon dating evidence showing that the Buddha Nirvana took place in the second millennium BCE (whatever the exact year), it is not my acceptance which will change the tide. There are many open-minded archaeologists like Dr B B Lal, Dr Vasant Shinde, etc. who could make an official declaration that the Buddha Nirvana is carbon-datable to the second millennium BCE. There will then be no room for doubt.
Shrikant ji
DeleteThanks for more elaboration on this. Some archeologists now suggest that Early Harappan phase can be pushed to early 6th m. bce. as they see certain advancements in several sites from that period. It is quite possible as you also said that Old Rigveda books could go more into antiquity to early 4th m bce and earlier. This seems quite plaussible based on the cultural and technological advancements of Indus-Sarasvati valley sites.
I have a couple of questions for you. If the answers are long you can refer to your article or chapters of your books.
1. As we know that we have a scarcity of inscriptional data prior to Piyadasi inscriptions on stone, pillars etc. Are there any references within the Vedic literature about the use of Banana leaves for writing purposes? Or perhaps something which probably would decompose and thus has been lost over time.?
2. How much does the old Rigvedic language differ from the reconstructed PIE ? As we know that poets tend to use certain non-common words in their poetry, is it possible that the new words used in Old Rigveda are perhaps just the poetic fanciful additions ? I know word like 'Samudra' for sea is used in whole Rigveda where as IE word for it is 'mīra' as listed by Panini in ashtadhaya as you exaplined in one of your blogs. How big is the difference between PIE and Old Rigvedic language, is it real or apparent ?
3. Is it possible that rather than PIE it was some other dialects of pre-Rigvedic Sanskrit which when migrated out with Druhyu started to take new forms in their destination location.
The reason I ask is that there is genetic trail seen from IVC to BMAC starting 3000BC and then after that BMAC's cultural influence is seen at steppes. Then we know how steppe people invaded Europe starting around 2700BC to 2400BC. The point is that Druyu migration is infact seen in the genetics too.
A request
Can you please make all your books also available as Kindle editions.
If you need any assistance with it, I am happy to look into and assist with it.
Regards,
Rahul Chawla
My question is not about the usage of Mittani-Kassites data as a reference or reliable anchor point but actually the dates given to them.
ReplyDeleteIts very easy to say that everything has been done scientifically but when somebody digs deep into the topic then only one can experienced that whether it is totally devoid of flaws or not..
I do not understand what you are trying to say. The carbon dating is for the dates of the actual Mitanni data itself, not for "the usage of Mitanni-Kassite data as a reference or reliable anchor point": that "usage" was done by me from the above carbon dating of the actual Mitanni records.
DeleteOr perhaps you have dug deeper into the topic, and found scientific evidence of alternate carbon dating showing that the Mitanni-Kassite data in West Asia is hundreds (if not thousands) of years older than the Kassite records dated at 1750 BCE and the Mitanni records dated around 1500 BCE.
DeleteIf so, I will welcome this evidence and change my dating. This is a genuine promise.
Sir can you please tell me which Mittani-Kassites artifacts or ruins have been carbon dated?
DeleteI cannot. Firstly I don't know how "artifacts or ruins" can be classified as "Mitanni-Kassite" unless they had decipherable inscriptions in some known language making it clear that they were Mitanni-Kassite artifacts or ruins.
DeleteThe Mitanni data does not consist of "artifacts or ruins", it consists of numerous documents from Syria, Mesopotamia or Egypt which refer to the Mitanni-Kassites of the time, including the Kikkuli document on horse-training and racing and certain treaties. They have been carbon dated.
And no, I cannot give you a list of those documents and the carbon dates for each of them. If you doubt that they exist, please do your own research and write a book proving that they do not exist.
I have said many times before that the time for my answering questions is long past. It is time other people answered my questions or proved my evidence wrong. In this case, you took up my point about carbon dating to claim that there was carbon-dating evidence showing that Mitanni-Kassites and the Buddha belonged to far earlier periods than claimed by the "present time line". I asked you questions about your claims. If you cannot answer them, say so and admit that your claims were just bravado and not to be taken seriously. Do not try to avoid the issue by asking counter-questions as red herrings.
Mittani inscriptions weren't carbona dated,ancient documents are hardly ever carbon dated as most of the time they can't be carbon dated. Infact if they were carbon dated we would have one date for the Mittani. I stead historians have 3 dates for mittani called the high, middle or short chronology. This is because historians date Mittani based on mentions of other kings like Rgypt or Hittite. The chronology of Ancient Middle East is not well established. Historians could manage to to give 3 dates for a given dynasty, but never one date. some 100-200 years of different. The date of mittani you see in most articles is the middle chronology.
DeleteHi Anonymous,
DeleteEven if we go with Middle Chronology - 17th century to 13th century period of Mitanni, it still keeps the Late Rigveda books/culture in Indian subcontinent in the 3rd m bce
In the context of this post, none of the chronologies could ever the place Late Rigveda books in 6th m bce as claimed by Nilesh Oak. and he also erroneously places Early Rigveda books to 22,000bce and older.
I know, but I was advocating a strong chronology reform, not just for India, but for the other civilizations. Vedveer Arya's chronology reform can explain alot of discrpencies. He managaed to explain a discrepency that led one scholar to the phantom time hypothesis.
DeleteThe alexander and Chandragupta identification was based on biased opinion of william Jones who used Megasthenes indica to establish a sheet anchor. Megasthenes mentions sandrocottus/sandrocyptus as alexander contemporary, he also mentions that sandrocottus killed a previous king named xandrames. Now Alexander's contemporary was Chandragupta Maurya then the problem arises that the maurya king killed mahapadma nanda, and his name doesn't sound anything like xandrames, and nor did any Nanda king for that matter. And nor did any later maurya king have Chandra in their name. Megasthenes mentions the Andhra tribe as a contemporary of sandrocottus and alexander. The andhra kings rules after the mauryas. At the same the xandrames of Megasthenes Indica is likely king Chandramsha of the naga dynasty who ruled later. Then sandrocottus can be Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the naga dynasty.
ReplyDeleteYouy speak of babylon chronology, yet you msy not realise that the near easter chronology isn;t well established. For example there are sets of dates for King Hemurabi, this causes a ultra high, midle, and short chronology.. This is because they are trying to find a date between 2000 BCE and 1000 BCe for the Venus tablet, which would give the date of Ammisaduqa he 4 decendant of Hemurabi. No historian has been able to reconcile the astronomy of the tablet with any of the conventional dates. But if we look 660 years prior around 2100 BCe, we see the Venus tablet explains the obsevrations around 2500-2400 BCE, which would place Ammisaduqa at 2400 BCe and thus Hemmurabi at 2600 bce. See how need to reconcile everything before we can have a united front against AIT.
ReplyDeleteOk so you accept that Mitanni-Kassite dates are connected with Egyptian and other Mesopotamian (probably Hittite) chronology. I hope you know that the world chronology was already set up by the western scholars long before all this dating techniques came into existed.
ReplyDeleteAlso where did I say anything that documents relating to Mitanni-Kassites didn’t exist? I just asked which ruins or artefacts have been carbon dated. And by artefacts I mean like inscriptions, clay tablets, pottery, etc.
Also where did I say anything about carbon-dating evidences showing Mittani-kassites to far earlier period? Also when did I try to avoid the issue by asking counter questions? I have only asked you about Mittani-Kassite dating and still am.
I may not know everything and not an expert related to it so trying to get a clear picture. Since Indian chronology is linked with the world chronology so any mistake in the world chronology will effect Indian chronology also and vice-versa. So when I asked how Mittani-kassite chronology was set up, you said by carbon dating of documents from Syria, Mesopotamia or Egypt. Now if I ask what type documents( stone inscription, clay tablets or papyrus), is it wrong to ask that, because you also knows that everything can’t be carbon dated and most of the time other datable objects near to it is being used to give them a date which may not be correct all the time.
I am not trying to say that Mittani-kassites were not from 1700-1500 BCE but were from 5000-4000 BCE, No, I am not calming that but the chronology with which others have worked with shows that the 18th dynasty of Egypt which was contemporary to the Mitanni kings can be dated to be around 2300-2000 BCE and not 1550-1290 BCE. So this will push the Mitanni dates by almost a thousand year and there remote Vedic ancestors in the Middle East by couple of more centuries.
You may have a different view regarding archeoastronomy but ancient calendars are mostly based on astronomy. I don’t know what is wrong with using astronomical evidences which our ancient texts are full of.
I don’t know if you have already read all the works of Nilesh Oak, VedVeer Arya and others but if not then will you first read their work and then try to criticise them point by point showing them that the evidences they used, its interpretations and their analysis were wrong, maybe by writing another book just like you have done in case of tony joseph.
I am not criticising your work neither I am trying to lecture you or troll you. I am only trying to get everything in place. I have asked you lots of questions related to your work in the past and got satisfactory answers. I have also asked this type of questions on twitter to Nilesh.Oak and VedvVeer Arya related to their work but sometimes unable to receive satisfactory answers. Since work of all three of you is backed by logic and arguments but still the timeline provided by all three of you are contradictory to each other, so I am trying for getting a clear picture of Indian history by analysing all different types of work. I hope you will understand.
I am attaching a link related to Egyptian chronology, hope you will read it.
https://www.academia.edu/45603386/The_Chronology_of_Ancient_Egypt
It is clear that there is no scientific carbon dating supporting any of the claims made by you. When you write "the chronology with which others have worked with shows that the 18th dynasty of Egypt which was contemporary to the Mitanni kings can be dated to be around 2300-2000 BCE and not 1550-1290 BCE. So this will push the Mitanni dates by almost a thousand year and there remote Vedic ancestors in the Middle East by couple of more centuries" you are only reiterating the works of Ved Veer Arya which you have referred to many times before. So your earlier claims to carbon dating evidence was clearly just a bluff which I called out: your case is still based on the works of the same chronology rewriters as before.
DeleteIn the above article, I have noted the dates by Ved Veer Arya for the Rigveda (11500-10500 BCE), Shatapatha Brahmana (8800 BCE), Aryabhata 3150 BCE (!!) etc. I have no wish to sit debating these dates, but those who want to can be happy with them; I can have no objections. I will continue to accept what you call the "present time line" with the necessary (but not wishful fantasy) corrections. If people treat this as something bad, that is their problem, and I think I have said everything I could say on that subject in this article and in my replies to comments.
Seems like either you haven't understood or don't want to understand. I have already provided a video link related to Buddha Nirvana where carbon dating relating to some finding at Lumbini was discussed.
DeleteAnd before saying that my "carbon dating evidence was clearly just a bluff" will you please tell me where I have exactly presented any new evidences about carbon dating of Mittani-kassite.
You are continuously trying to put words in my mouth which I never said. I have already asked you to show me where
"I say anything that documents relating to Mitanni-Kassites didn’t exist?"
or
"where did I say anything about carbon-dating evidences showing Mittani-kassites to far earlier period?"
You can have disagreement with anyone but criticising them without reading or understanding there work and giving layman arguments that there work involves archeoastronomy which you didn't trust and at the same time rejecting all other corroborative evidence presented by them, is itself is a bluff.
I have also asked you "what is wrong with using astronomical evidences which our ancient texts are full of." but you remain quite on that.
I am not an expert in this field but your silence shows that you are also no expert in this field. So criticising somebody in a filed of which you yourself has no expertise but they has is itself reflects arrogance.
This is pathetic. You don't seem to be reading anything I have written.
Delete"Ok so you accept that Mitanni-Kassite dates are connected with Egyptian and other Mesopotamian (probably Hittite) chronology. I hope you know that the world chronology was already set up by the western scholars long before all this dating techniques came into existed."
For the last time, Mitanni-Kassite dating has nothing to do with any "Egyptian and other Mesopotamian (probably Hittite) chronology....already set up by the western scholars long before all this dating techniques came into existence". All these datings as accepted at "present" are based on carbon-dating.
And carbon dating (or any other such scientific dating technique) is the only point under discussion. Instead of quibbling about what you said and what I said, let me repeat: if you dispute the carbon-dating of the Mitanni data or the date of the Buddha (carbon dates of Lumbini having nothing directly with the historical Buddha are worth zero in this discussion), and you cannot provide carbon dates proving your point, and only rely on the conclusions of scholars who date the Rigveda at 11500 BCE and Aryabhata at 3150 BCE, then that ends the discussion.
Using phrases like "layman arguments", "no expert", "arrogance" etc. do not help your case, though it will bring you enthusiastic support in groups where I am being abused. You can abuse me to your heart's content (even declaring that you have won the debate and I have lost it) but I am not going to waste my time on such crap anymore. This is my last reply.
Ok fine, If you think that I haven't read anything what you have written and what ever I have asked is just crap then sorry for wasting your time.
ReplyDeleteSomeone just sent me a screenshot of your tweet saying "Let's hope Shrikant Talageri read this paper".
DeleteI read it, but I don't think you have. Please read before jumping into the fray. The paper you refer to says they have found the oldest Buddhist shrine which they date to 550 BCE. But when have I ever insisted that the Buddha lived in the fifth or fourth century BCE (as many western scholars indeed do? I even read Witzel's claims to that effect). I have always referred to the Buddha's date as the sixth century BCE, without claiming to be able to declare the exact year. That still does not prove the dates claimed by Ved Veer Arya. I would be happy if that date stood corroborated but unfortunately it is not. Do you people think others cannot read?
Talageri ji,
ReplyDeleteI have just one thing to add to your discussion with arish108. As far as I have understood, the Mittani names represent a culture developed during the period of composition of the new Books, and this culture continued well into the later Vedic and even post Vedic period. If so, then it's entirely possible that Mitannis could have migrated during the later Vedic or perhaps the early post-Vedic period. This could push your dates for RV further back by several centuries, couldn't it?
In other words, is there any clinching evidence that would make the Mittani presence in India contemporaneous with the period of new books? Because if this new culture continued into the post Vedic period, the Mittanis could have migrated around that time too.
Thanks and Regards!
Yes, but there are many subtle distinctions involved. The period of Book 10, the last perid within the New Period, also basically must have been finished by around 2000 BCE, but new additions continued to be made into Book 10 till 1500 BCE (e.g. the Devapi hymn).
DeleteIn my blog "The use of 'Astronomical' Evidence in the Rigveda", I wrote:
"As to when the Late period started, all that can be said is that the Late books of the Rigveda can be again divided into three groups: book 5 is undoubtedly the oldest of the Late books, and stands out from the rest in being a family book, in having the pankti meter (but not yet the mahāpankti and śakvarī), and in being still unacquainted with western animals, places, lakes and mountains. Book 10 is undoubtedly the latest, being distinguished from all the other nine books in countless ways. And books 1,8,9 form a group between these two books. The only question now is: did the ancestors of the Mitanni kings migrate from India during the period of composition of book 5, or the period of books 1-8-9, or the period of book 10? In effect, the later, within the Late period, they migrated from India, the further back from 2000 BCE the Late period can be speculated to have started. But even if they left in the earliest of the three periods, the period of book 5, the starting point of the Late Rigvedic period still goes back beyond 2000 BCE at the latest. [The rare name Indrota, common to the Mitanni records and book 8, however, would indicate that the Mitanni left well after the period of book 8, and this pushes the beginnings of the Late Rigvedic period much further back]."
Also, about the date of the Mahabharata, I wrote:
"otherwise, the cultural atmosphere of the Mahābhārata is also one rich in horse-driven chariots with spoked wheels, which would be natural in 1500 BCE but not in 3100 BCE. Also, it may be noted that the only notable name of an actual Mahābhārata character (excluding mythical persons like Yayātī and his sons) mentioned in the Rigveda is Śantanu, the grandfather of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and Paṇḍu, who appears in a hymn composed by his brother Devāpī in book 10, the last and latest book of the Rigveda. This confirms that the Mahābhārata took place at a time subsequent to the invention of spokes and the domestication of the camel and donkey (all of which appear in all the earlier Late books). Therefore, the date for the Mahābhārata war and for the completion of the Rigveda must be placed in the mid-second-millennium BCE rather than in the late fourth millennium BCE."
As the Mitanni are found in West Asia before this, they must have left in a pre-Mahabharata period, therefore it is less likely to be a post-Rigvedic period. They left with spoked wheels, but without a common name for the spoked wheels.
Dear Talageri ji,
DeleteIt is nicely compiled information. Has its own merits and demerits into which I don't intend to delve in. My question:
How much reliable would you think Rajatarangini could be considered for dating of Mahabharata?
Regards
Atul Kuthiala
Yes Mr.Talageri! You are right. Nilesh Oak and his followers must watch this video to know what is science : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRjEPwL8Lxk - Thaumaturgists!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyes
DeleteScience is politized and any fact gets twisted
ReplyDeleteTalageri sir, with all due respects, I want to just say one thing. One needs to be humble especially when it comes to scholarly disagreement who are not antagonistic. One good thing about Nilesh Oak is , he may be wrong in his dating of Ramayana but he understands sanskrit because of Marathi background and we need to appreciate that. I tried to contact you before to present few things about Vedic Sanskrit never received a reply for that. We need thorough sanskrit scholarship to date Ramayana and Mahabharata.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSir, thank you very much for your very high scholarly argument which educate me to think critically. Since, I am not the students of archeology or history but out of the great interest I have some doubts over the pro-Vedic and advocacy of Sanskrit argument that
ReplyDelete1) Is it geologically possible that river Ganga and Yamuna which has referred in so called 11000 BC old Mahabharata are flowing on the same channel and geographical belt since 10000 years?
2) Is it possible the name of the rivers are continuing the same till today as it referred in this text?
3) How much it is possible that the name of the places and cities which have remained the same since 11000 years and these are still in exit with the same name? Etc.
Sir, I do understand that these doubts may not sound you scholarly enquiry but I can see and observe that even just after 200 years the name of the city and rivers keep on changing. Dear sir, you are requested that if you find my sincere curiosity kindly answer. Thank you.
Dear Mr. Talageri,
ReplyDeleteI posted a couple of questions in the comments section. Not sure if you even read through those. I know it is not mandatory for you to answer each and every query posted here.
In your OP so much emphasis/reliability is given to carbon dating, as if it the last word.
The Westerners have been known to be in the habit of creating false evidence to suit their agenda. Moreover, I am neither your fan nor of Nilesh Oak's, but attempt to understand both and come to my own conclusions.
Just want you to have a look at the following tweet, if you please may.
https://twitter.com/FmBanksofYamuna/status/1435969900237910022?s=20
A corollary to carbon dating dependence and reliance -
If samples from ancient past are not available for one reason or the other, does this mean that the stated events in the remote past did not occur?
With Best regards
BB Lal dated Mahabharata to 800 - 900BC based on archeology, (PGW culture connecting all MB sites and a flood demolishing, hastinapur). I know he supports the Vedic identity of Harappans now but I don't know whether he still stands by his dating of MB. What's your opinion on this?
ReplyDeleteI checked just now - He dates MB to 980BC based on archeology and puranas , so only one of you can be correct, Can you comment on his dating,sir?
Deletehttps://www.quora.com/Has-the-Mahabharata-happened-during-the-Vedic-civilization/answer/Kiron-Krishnan-1?ch=10&oid=178184084&share=83b956f8&srid=uKE2d&target_type=answer
ReplyDeleteAn uncommon perspective about Mahabharata - Vedic connection.
There are 3 answers attached to the one above! It surely looks complicated!
You can ignore his personal speculations if you want and I don't expect you to reply to this comment but IMHO, anyone really interested about historicity of Mahabharata should DEFINITELY READ his writings
DeleteBefore, the owner of the blog replies, I will add to what you have posted from Quora.
DeletePlease read the following draft paper on dating of Surya Siddhanta, Valmiki Ramayana, Mahabharata war etc. Maybe you get some answer(s).
https://www.academia.edu/68539052/Shveta_Varaha_Kalpa_Surya_Siddhanta_Valmiki_Ramayana_Mahabharata_and_the_Present
Sir, I don't mean to offend you but Talageri sir wrote this article specifically to address these kinds of wild erroneous theories, he has already written his opinion on using astronomy and dating Ramayana and Mahabharata to 6-12th millenium BCE.
DeleteSo kindly post it as a separate comment since what I've shared is completely in disagreement with the paper shared by you
PS - Sir, kiron Anna might appear to be a bitter person as he doesn't have high regards for Epics and Puranas but please have a look at the references he has given in his answers!
Thank you for your comment. No offence taken.
Delete1. Yes Talageri ji has expressed his view about astronomical dating of dating of Ramayana and Mahabharata to 6-12th millennium BCE. I am in agreement with his views, but not in full.
Shri Taligeri has enumerated eight omens mentioned by Veda Vyasa:
1. The sun, when rising and setting, is covered with the headless trunks of corpses, and clouds shaped like maces envelop the sun.
2. The sun, moon and stars all appear to be blazing with fire even in the late evenings.
3. Even on the brightest fifteenth night of the lighted fortnight, the moon becomes invisible.
4. The sky looks as if it is full of battling boars and cats, and the cloudless skies emit roars (of thunder).
5. The images of Gods and Goddesses alternately start laughing, or trembling, or vomiting blood through their mouths, or start sweating profusely before collapsing.
6. Drums start emitting sounds without being beaten, chariots start moving without being pulled by animals, and all kinds of birds utter terrible cries.
7. Huge swarms of insects rise in the air, and the clouds rain dust and flesh.
8. Arundhatī, known for her righteousness, keeps her lord Vasiṣṭha on her back, the planet Śanī appears to be afflicting the constellation Rohiṇī, and the sign of the deer on the moon deviates from its normal position.
Out of all these I am agreement with him for all except 3 and 8. ( Not sure if my agreement matters at all) The two quotes certainly qualify to be called astronomical observations of MB times. How a particular researcher uses these in his presentation/research is entirely his choice.
Having said, what I gather from above is that Talageri ji's opinion is based on a specific researcher. Using the same yardstick in the case of all others would be unfair to the rest.
I am not sure if PS pertains to my post. My email ID is published in a few draft papers uploaded on Academia. Link already given above. It may be appropriate to correspond directly rather than using this private platform.
PS. What I understood was that the conclusions in the quoted draft paper were in agreement with what Kiron Anna mentioned on Quora.
I referred both Talageri and you as sir, that was a mistake, my PS was addressed to Talageri sir and I wish you well for your future endeavours.
DeleteTalageri sir, I don't mind you not replying to me but just read those Quora posts. I believe the data presented by him are important. as far as I know, even he places "Mahabharat age" near 15th century BCE at the end of Rigvedic period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi, Shrikant Talegeri sir. Huge respect to you. Loved this article. However, something caught my attention. In this article, you wrote:
ReplyDelete"Sandracottus/Xandramese" issue, and I was as excited with the dates of the Buddha and the Mauryas being pushed back by a millennium as anyone else. However, I later saw the flaws in this, and concentrated on a more rational stance."
Could you please mention what are some flaws in this issue? Many Indic scholars subscribe to this, and I took it as the truth, now I'm confused. Please, could you send me the link if you have already talked about this issue?
There are many flaws in this, and as it is an issue which caught my attention long ago (in my college days and before I started on my first book) I do not remember all the flaws.
DeleteBut the main one, which I consider a clinching one, although many on the Indian side keep arguing against it, is the Kalsi (in Uttarakhand) edict (edict 13) of Ashoka, dated 250 BCE, which names five Greek kings from different parts of West Asia (Antiochos, Ptolemy, Magas and Alexander (not the original Alxander) who are all known to have reigned in those different areas around 250 BCE. The edict also names the Cholas and Pandyas of the same period.
The fifth king, missed out above, is Antigonos.
DeleteThanks for replying, sir. Big fan. Btw I'm reading your book Rigveda: A Historical Evidence. It's a game changer, absolutely loving it. Thanks for your work, next I'll be reading Avesta and Rigveda the Final Evidence.
DeleteComing to the issue we were discussing, I remember reading one paper on Academia where this issue was addressed. It goes like this (I'm paraphrasing it):
"The entire claim of Chandragupta Maurya is Sandrakutus, is based on Greek historian Megasthenes' work called Indika, which mentions king Sandrakutus. Scholars identified this Sandrakutus as king Chandragupta Maurya. But Megasthenes neither mention Chanakya, the great minister of king Chandragupta Maurya, nor did he Chanakya mention in his works any Greek Alexander or Megasthenes who visited the court of Sandrakutus. Also, Megasthenes mentioned two kings who preceded Sandrakutus and those were Xandramas and Sandrocyptus. These names have no resemblance whatsoever with the name such as Dhana Nanda or Bimbisara."
This is the standard argument I'm aware of by some Indic scholars who claim Sandrakutus is not Chandragupta Maurya. So, that's why I'm confused now, and want to know if this view has some ground to stand on or it's just a deliberate attempt by some Indic scholars push back Indian chronology?
It is in fact this standard argument which first enthused me in my college days, and I would still appreciate a more detailed explanation of this. There was a full-fledged article on it in a (then popular) magazine called Mirror. However, the evidence of the Ashoka edict, along with the evidence of the established dating of all the Greek kings and the Chola and Pandya kings, completely outbalances it.
DeleteTalageri Sir,
DeleteCould Sandracottus be Chandraketugarh Bengal?
Recently, I read a post:
"𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚'𝐬 𝐒𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐨-𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 structure as per Megasthenes 302-288 BC. He was a companion of Alexander lived with Sibyrtius, satrap of Arachosia, and often speaks of his visiting Sandracottus"
Talageri Sir,
ReplyDeleteI have an observation about Dr. Oak's dating of Valmiki Ramayana (VR) to circa 12000 BCE
In VR there appears an observation by Hanuman of presence of three and four tusk-elephants in Ravana Lanka when he visits that palace in search of Sita.
Could these be Gomphotheres who went extinct around 12,000 to 10,000 years ago?