04-13-2004, 09:45 AM
Just to clarify: Mueller came up with his dates based on what he called the categorization of Indic literatures. He discerned the existence of approximately 5 early phases: 1)Indo-Iranian 2) R^ig Vedic 3) Later Vedic 4) brAhmana 5) sUtra
He was more or less correct in identifying the latter 4 are genuine Indic categories and that they preceded Buddha and the pAli cannon. He sort of implicitly assumed the first category. Next he assumed that the 4 Indic classes were sequential and went on to assign each an arbitary 200 year window and extrapolated the vedic date. While he was partially correct in this regard, he failed to realize that there were parallels for R^ig vedic, yajushes, brAhmaNa and sUtra structures even amongst the Iranians and that these formulation per say went back to proto-Indo-Iranian. So assign rigid dates to the sequential literary classes was flawed. Secondly, he had no information or basis to justify the arbitrary values he assigned to his steps in extrapolation.
However, this date stuck on in the minds of Indologists, who internalized it as sound reasoning. When finally challenged M.Witzel (and T. Elizarenkova) came to rescue of these dates by inventing new arguments with similar flaws. 1) He argued that the vedic texts were composed in India after the Harrapan civilization collapsed. Since the later collapsed around 1300 BC he placed the R^ig close to MM's date. He bases this assumption on the claim the Vedas know no cities. This later claim can be disputed especially for the later vedic layers.
2) He argued that I-Ir should be merely around 2000 BC based on remains of chariots in central Asia. But Central Asia is a vast area and the chariots recovered to date can hardly be the earliest chariot ever made.
The astronomical dates from different vedic texts are span quite a range from earliest dim allusions of 4000BC to latest of 1500-1300 BC. With several intermediate dates. This I would estimate as the core window which needs to be considered for any further studies.
As for Tilak's Arctic claim, I believe people have unduely made fun of him, without bothering to read the original. While he may have exaggerated the results, I believe, from personal analysis of the vedic texts, that he was correct in that there are echos of a far northern latitude than what may be expected of India, and a clear knowledge of snow and 6 seasons combined with the northern latitude. These suggest that the R^ig does preserve at least a *memory* of a more northern region. This combined with the linguisitic evidence strongly favoring non-Indian origins of the Indo-Aryans suggests that they indeed occupied a far more northerly latitude to start with. When exactly they moved into India is indeed a puzzling point, but I would give the range as between 3500-1500 BC. What this means vis-a-vis the Indus civilization is unclear to me as of now. I tend to accept that at least a later part of the Indus civilization had incorporated Indo-Aryans and they were *not* responsible for the demise of the IVC. I also believe that the IAs did not invade in small stream but as large mass with considerable diversity even within them.
Finally the Mueller date depends on the date of the Buddha- while recently Indian scholars (eg see Kalavai Venkat on IC list) have argued for a Buddha earlier than commonly believed. I can imagine earlier by say 100-200 years but otherwise feel that there is no strong reason to re-date buddha and the ashokan inscriptions.
He was more or less correct in identifying the latter 4 are genuine Indic categories and that they preceded Buddha and the pAli cannon. He sort of implicitly assumed the first category. Next he assumed that the 4 Indic classes were sequential and went on to assign each an arbitary 200 year window and extrapolated the vedic date. While he was partially correct in this regard, he failed to realize that there were parallels for R^ig vedic, yajushes, brAhmaNa and sUtra structures even amongst the Iranians and that these formulation per say went back to proto-Indo-Iranian. So assign rigid dates to the sequential literary classes was flawed. Secondly, he had no information or basis to justify the arbitrary values he assigned to his steps in extrapolation.
However, this date stuck on in the minds of Indologists, who internalized it as sound reasoning. When finally challenged M.Witzel (and T. Elizarenkova) came to rescue of these dates by inventing new arguments with similar flaws. 1) He argued that the vedic texts were composed in India after the Harrapan civilization collapsed. Since the later collapsed around 1300 BC he placed the R^ig close to MM's date. He bases this assumption on the claim the Vedas know no cities. This later claim can be disputed especially for the later vedic layers.
2) He argued that I-Ir should be merely around 2000 BC based on remains of chariots in central Asia. But Central Asia is a vast area and the chariots recovered to date can hardly be the earliest chariot ever made.
The astronomical dates from different vedic texts are span quite a range from earliest dim allusions of 4000BC to latest of 1500-1300 BC. With several intermediate dates. This I would estimate as the core window which needs to be considered for any further studies.
As for Tilak's Arctic claim, I believe people have unduely made fun of him, without bothering to read the original. While he may have exaggerated the results, I believe, from personal analysis of the vedic texts, that he was correct in that there are echos of a far northern latitude than what may be expected of India, and a clear knowledge of snow and 6 seasons combined with the northern latitude. These suggest that the R^ig does preserve at least a *memory* of a more northern region. This combined with the linguisitic evidence strongly favoring non-Indian origins of the Indo-Aryans suggests that they indeed occupied a far more northerly latitude to start with. When exactly they moved into India is indeed a puzzling point, but I would give the range as between 3500-1500 BC. What this means vis-a-vis the Indus civilization is unclear to me as of now. I tend to accept that at least a later part of the Indus civilization had incorporated Indo-Aryans and they were *not* responsible for the demise of the IVC. I also believe that the IAs did not invade in small stream but as large mass with considerable diversity even within them.
Finally the Mueller date depends on the date of the Buddha- while recently Indian scholars (eg see Kalavai Venkat on IC list) have argued for a Buddha earlier than commonly believed. I can imagine earlier by say 100-200 years but otherwise feel that there is no strong reason to re-date buddha and the ashokan inscriptions.