Talk:Out of India theory/Archive 5

Dravidians immigrating to Punjab in Mid-Vedic time - a speculation of Witzel

Witzel speculates about Dravidians immigrating to Punjab via Baluchistan from outside ancient India in Notes 17 of main article. No where in Dravidian history , scripts or legends such a immigration from central asia via baluchistan to punjab is noted or remembered. Even Aryans or Dravidians or their supposed central asian homeland have no traces of such `powerful' brothers & sisters. Infact Dravidian legends says that they immigrated from more southernly land of current India which was once a unified land mass. And, what happended to their more darker shade and Indus Dravidian scenario ? That's why I tell that Indo-Europeanists are good in fabricating some stories ( like AIT - based on their favourable interpretation ). This is like some joke for them to cook some stories whenever some contradictive scenario appears. If Rig-Vedic people are told to adopt some Dravidian influences then how they could replace language `X' of IVC people ? Sometimes Dravidians are nomadic aboriginal type people , then after IVC findings they become highly civilized and now they all together immigrate to India via baluchistan and meet Rig-Vedic Aryans in Punjab during Mid Rig-Vedic time !!! It seems that all Indo-Europeanists ( upto Witzel ) are good `cook' ! That means all allegories of Witzel telling IVC as Dravidian were wrong. So, why he should be considered `scholar' ?

Read Talageri's book which is more cohesive with all datas available. I am now sure that after 10-15 years Witzel will again jump to new `conclusion' and his `scholarly' work during those years will be `wasted' ! WIN 08:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Once again. This is the page for discussion of what to include in the page. Your opinions and personal taste in scholarship is of no relevance.Maunus 09:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, is there any scientific data to support his speculation of Dravidian Immigration in ancient India ? If yes, then present to me. WIN 09:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not the topic of this article. Discontinue your ramblings.Maunus 09:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not ? This is mentioned in main article's Dravidian substratum ... section. Retroflex is not limited to Dravidian languages and is found in IE Russian and Polish languages also. If Sanskrit's Retroflex is due to Dravidian influences then explain for Ruusian & Polish.Witzel is involving those points which requires proof of other scientific fields. And, without which IT IS just ramblings. WIN 10:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Witzel s not the only one who supposes dravidian influence in Indic. This has been suggested since EMenau and the foremost scholars of contact linguistics agree. Even the linguists who believe that other explanations are preferrable acknowledge that it is a possibility. And you were rambling about dravidian migrations which are of no consequence to either argument. The retroflexes of Swedish, norwegian american english are not at all comparable to what is found in indic their development is well understood - the developments in Indic aren't. The retroflexes in polish and russian are only phonetically retroflex and only found in sibilants as a consequene of palatalizations - also not comparable. Indic languages are the only IE languages that have a full series of phonemically contrasted retroflexes - and the only language group to be in contact with several languages that have retroflex series reonstructed all the way back to the proto level - a fair basis for assuming a contact origin. You should either sit down and learn something about linguistics or stop acting as if you know anything about it.Maunus 10:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I am again asking to you that do you have any scientific data for Immigration of Dravidians in Indian subcontinent? First give evidence for this. WIN 11:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How does 250,000,000 Dravidian speakers living in the indian subcontinent strike you as evidence? However: It is irrelevant!!! Maunus 11:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

`Inventing' language X for IVC defies any logical understanding. So, highly civilized & advanced IVC people adopted IA and Dravidian and all 3 forgot that adoption alongwith any immigration. It seems that it was very easy for coming aryans & dravidians to impose their language on IVC people.

As said by Witzel in that paper, Rig-Veda is source for this speculation then why Indo-Europeanists failed to detect Dravidian immigration alongwith Aryans ? And, instead Dravidians were pictured always so different inspite `understanding' Rig-Veda for last 150 years by those linguists. WIN 12:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

try to at least understand a hypothesis before "criticising" it. And go 'discussing' on a discussion forum, not here. dab (𒁳) 14:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The point being made by Win is that mainstream is creating lots of complexity to explain the evidence. Now we have potential Language X of IVC, proposed migration of Dravidian after IA in Punjab as per Witzel (he states all arguments based on Dravidian should be thrown out), Munda also thrown in the mix. RV has retroflex based on Dravidian, but loan words based on Munda and maybe Language X. IVC must have been the New York of 3 millinimum, when you go to New York, you get absorbed and you can't change New York. So when we talk about unlikely Isoglosses, this unlikely impact is also relevent to OIT discussion. What is the mainstream position regarding language of IVC?Sbhushan 15:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of Witzel's idea. But the crucial point is this, it is a hypothesis, forwarded as speculative, not as some mystical "knowledge" about what the IVC must have been like. Candidates for the language of the Mature IVC are Dravidian, Indo-Iranian and Munda (or, some lost phylum). In Witzel's scenario, Munda is preferred, this is all. "Middle Rigvedic" times are not in the 3rd millennium, Witzel proposes that these movements occurred around 1500-1300 BCE. And the IVC at the time was not looking "like New York", I can assure you. It looked more like Rome in 800 CE. THe reason I am sceptical of Witzel's idea is that Munda is just a far western outlier of Austro-Asiatic, and an Indian Urheimat for Austro-Asiatic is just as far-fetched as an Indian Urheimat for Indo-European. It seems also unlikely, I agree, that the IVC should have left next to no linguistic trace, and I think that Dravidian fits the expected pattern of the remnants of IVC perfectly. Parpola thinks so too, and of course Witzel is aware that this is the favoured scenario, and he doesn't try to misrepresent the case as "OIT proponents" seem to be dependent on doing. dab (𒁳) 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we can agree that the situation is not conclusive (that is also scholarly opinion) and re. rest we can agree to disagree. Reading Witzel's articles is a torture. All the statements are speculation of one person or other, so nothing should be quoted as facts. For the Dravidian OIT article, the inconculsive argument is clear and I don't think we can add more to it.Sbhushan 16:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

we can agree that nothing is known about the language of the IVC, no need to "agree to disagree" here. It should be made very clear that "Indo-Iranian IVC" is a required, but not sufficient condition for OIT. That is, "I-Ir IVC" is a weaker claim than "OIT". It is important to note this prominently, since much confusion seems to stem from the idea that the two are equivalent. "I-Ir IVC" is not compatible with the Kurgan hypothesis, but it is perfectly compatible with e.g. the Anatolian hypothesis. If an I-Ir IVC should be made to appear likely in the future, mainstream scholars would probably flock to the Anatolian hypothesis in droves. dab (𒁳) 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, the "agree to disagree" comment was an attempt to end this fruitless discussion. We are not here to solve this. We are just documenting OIT position and mainstream argument against them. Mainstream dates that you mentioned are also speculation and those dates are exactly what OIT is challenging. Both sides are proposing certain dates based on some analysis that they prefer. It is too early to state one position as being fact. That is something which we can agree on while disagreeing on the proposed dates. I don't want to get back to unlikely scenario discussion as I have already identified unlikely in PIE outside India.Sbhushan 18:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

this is strong. It was you who continually tried to "solve" things by misrepresenting motley collections of "Aryan IVC" as factual. I do not have, and never did have a problem with Elst and Kazanas advancing positions that fly in the face of mainstream scholarship. Really, it's fine. You are perfectly free to discuss any subject you like on Wikipedia, just as long as you don't misrepresent communis opinio. You, however, have been doing nothing but this, consistently, consciously, and ad nauseam. You are quite obviously not here for encyclopedic discussion of the topic, but simply for unenlightening brute and boring single-topic pov pushing. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, hold a minute. You are asked to give proper ref. of all your POV pushing words to counter writers like Bryant etc. but you are constantly failing to do so. So, you don't have any right to write bad for other who writes with proper quotes. So, find some AM supporter's proper ref. and quote them against that respective quote. WIN 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Archaeo-Astronomy

I've been on wikibreak, will be back fully in some weeks. Just asking why the Archaeo-Astronomy section was mercilessly deleted? I'll get to work on this page in some weeks, looks like it is in a bit of revert warring. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 23:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back. Would appreciate a fresh look at the changed page. Do you thing OIT is being mis-represnted in any way?Sbhushan 03:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

nobleeagle, I appreciate requests for citation of specific claims, but to remove the general mainstream characterization of the Rigveda, which is detailed and referenced on Rigveda and absolutely uncontroversia does not appear as a very fair move. Also, the removal of the fact that no IE branch has "memories of an Urheimat" is similar to the removal of a statement that the moon is not made of cheese because no academic opinion saying "the moon is not made of cheese" was cited. dab (𒁳) 13:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, Regarding Ghandhara comments, the references are from Mandala 8 and from DasRajan fight when certain group of Aryans were exiled to that area and created Gandhara. They did not come from there. Scholarly consensus is that book 8 is from later period if not one of the last. So you can not reverse the accepted chronology. You had also removed an ealier comment which showed that RV people had strong roots in the area. Parpola's speculation can not be quoted as mainstream fact. Regarding details on Rigveda, it seems that needs to be cleaned up to. Most of the information on that is dated. Some of the details are going back to period when mainstream was talking about invasion. "Nomad" is a comment left from that period. The Ten King fight is a very major fight and the reason that Witzel now has to push back date of RV. Rigvedic people were well settled in the area for as long as they can remember, fighting with each other for territory and engaged in agriculture. Please don't quote invasion related old history, you are setting up straw-man.Sbhushan 14:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

what are you even talking about? the Dasharajna battle is in mandala 7, and all we know about it is from four or five verses. Don't try to tell me about "scholarly consensus", not after your history of misrepresentation of authors' positions. Ask Nobleeagle to check your facts for you before we even address them here, since you quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about. dab (𒁳) 14:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please read before commenting, it says Mandala 8 and DasRajan. It does not say that DasRajan is in Manadala 8. You are the one misrepresenting positions, only error you ever found in my words was a missing "square" from Kilometer. Now I have had about enough of your unilateral and arbitary edits. I am chaning the PCT back and if this time you change it again without discussing it, I will be forced to conclude that you don't have any intention to talk.

I have indeed come to the conclusion that you are only here to cherry pick and push the article text as far as you can to create a dishonest illusion of academic support, and unless you act in a way to dispel that impression, I am indeed not terribly interested in further debate with you. If this was a respectable hypothesis, it wouldn't need all these propaganda tricks, you could just state it like it is, pros and cons, and be done. dab (𒁳) 16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, in regards to your comments above about the moon not being made out of cheese. I think you know that that analogy is out of place in the context you placed it in. I'm not sure whether my facts are wrong but I've definitely read that the Iranians mentioned an origin outside of the region in which they settled. Indeed, one of the points in favour of the OIT is that some have deduced that the Avesta mentions a Western homeland. Do none of the other IE branches (lets leave out the Iranians here) have memory that they were not always settled in their respective homelands but had arrived from other places? Maybe no IE branch can specify a specific place. I mean, it may not mention a specific location of their Urheimat but it may at least mention that they immigrated from somewhere far. Btw, what of the archaeo-astronomy section. I think astronomical references from the RigVeda can be used to help dating it, and the dating of the RigVeda is essential to the AMT argument. Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The "moon is not made of cheese" bit is exactly what it feels like contributing to this article from the mainstream point of view. How can we be expected to find counter arguments to arguments that are so so obviously flawed that nobody from the mainstream camp has wasted their time arguing against them? But on the other hand if we don't find those arguments it looks like the moon is obviously made of cheese and the people who think otherwise have no case at all. The similarities between OIT and PCT and the nordic centered model are so obvious that it should of course be mentioned. Nationalist movements always advance chose to theories that gives their country a special place - and just like eurocentric models are used by european nationalists of course indian nationalists support OIT. You are being disingenious if you try to deny that, that is like denying that there exist such a thing as indian nationalism. Of course the OIT does have support outside of Hindu and indian nationalist groups, but those groups do support it for mostly religious and nationalist reasons, of course they do. But that alone doesn't discredit the theory, a theory can be right no matter whom is the advocate of it - that depends only on arguments. The indocentricness of the OIT should be mentioned as comparable to the eurocentricness of the PCT in the artcle - simply because it is.Maunus 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, why Bishop Caldwell's Dravidian race theory was not considered as religious & nationalist at that time ?

PCT don't have any scientific data to their support ( check it on WP article ) and OIT finds AMT flaws and OIT support from range of scientific or scriptual supports. That's why PCT can not be equated with OIT to degrade it. WIN 10:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong - PCT has an equal amount of pseudoarguments in its favor as OIT (and like OIT a few actual arguments)- the reason it doesn't look like it is that that WP article on PCT is much less biased and reflect the most widely accepted viewpoint in a way I fear this article never will.Maunus 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

PCT is at least as respectable as OIT. The only difference being that the latter has hosts of uninformed young nationalists touting it on the internet, while the former is proposed by a couple of fringy but distinguished Italian archaeologists. Until we agree that the number of internet users that take pride in pushing the theory out of nationalist pride is completely irrelevant, there can be no progress. We are now getting Armenian nationalsts pushing the Armenian hypothesis, see Talk:Armenia recently, the only difference is that there are 7 million Armenians as opposed to 700 million Indo-Aryans, so that the incidence of nationalist propaganda on Indo-Aryan related articles is expected to be about 100 times higher. Which is what we indeed observe. dab (𒁳) 11:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It's more than just nationalism. There is also the religious motivation, which is not present in Christian and Muslim countries, in which religious identity is not tied to a model of national continuity in the face of repeated intrusion from alien cultures. If your religious traditions are a product of a definite historical moment of "conversion" from outside then an objection to alien intrusion seems far less relevant. When you add to that the fact that India's experience under British domination is recent - and coincides with the rise and decline of "Aryan" theory in the west - then I think it's more powerful than just a matter of numbers. I suspect that if, say, Scandanavia, had resisted conversion to Christianity then the situation would be similar regarding the Penka/Kossinna theory of Nordic origins. Scandanavia was still "pagan" when most of Europe had converted. It's possible to imagine that it would have resisted conversion and fended off a series of crusade-like attempts to force it into the Christian fold. If so a national identity would be forged around resistance to intrusion and an immemorial religious identity which cannot have come about from any "invasion". We would have Scandanavians insulted by the "Christian fundamentalists" whose insisance that their religion came from Central Asia was part of a project to denigrate their traditions. Paul B 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

we finally need a good discussion of this, at Nationalism and archaeology, please contribute, Paul. However, I have my doubts about your interpretation. Of course nationalism and religion are closely interlocked, this is why almost all great nationalist conflicts are fought out along religions lines (hell, even the Iraqi civil war is fought between creed divisions, and the idea of nationalism itself emerged during the Reformation). Natively, Hindu culture is emphatically ahistoric. Ancient Indian sources are simply not interested in dates and events. There is no historiography in India prior to the Middle Ages, which makes it so extremely difficult to date anything with any precision. This insistence on antiquity is a product of colonialism, it appears that Indians got the idea that insisting on hoary time depths of their history is somehow a matter of nationalist pride from the British, what with British Israelism and related nonsense of the period. This is paired with the previous complete innocence of the culture of dealing with any sense of historical depth, so that the resulting claims are often not just tall but positively fantastic. To most of these "OIT proponents", it is completely irrelevant whether they can claim a "history" of five, ten, or seventy millennia, just as long as they can insist that their culture is older than anything else, and remained nailed to the spot during all this time. This is what should not be discussed in this article, but over at nationalism and archaeology and related articles. This article is for what little academic merit there is, admittedly, to the OIT. There are indeed corresponding mythologies surrounding European Christianization, virulent in Wicca concepts of "The Burning Times" and claims of "pagan continuity" (Dafo, Neo-Druidism). This is precisely the same mechanism, it's just that there we have a minor group of confused conspiracy theorists that have not developed the sheer cricital mass to have a significant effect. Another example is of course "Creation Science", here more religious than ethnic I grant you, which has indeed gathered enough momentum to have an effect at least in the USA. All this has nothing to do with ancient history, of course, but rather with sociology and human group behaviour. dab (𒁳) 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Speaking as someone who knows more about archaeoastronomy and the history of astronomy than about Indian culture, I can only comment that the attempt to date vaguely defined astronomical events on the basis of astronomical calculations is extremely treacherous. In a recent example a colleague tried to date a medieval European diagram that gave the positions of all the visible planets within 30° (a zodiacal sign). His dating turned out to be in error because he missed an equally good match some 500 years later.

Some lessons can be learned from this case for the Indian attempts at precise dating. When you add to this the fact that no discussions of this problem have appeared in peer reviewed journals in archaeoastronomy or the history of astronomy -- where they could be subjected to appropriate technical evaluation -- one must suspect the validity of these archaeoastronomical claims. They were rightfully deleted here. --SteveMcCluskey 16:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the map intended to illustrate the theory or mock it?

There are so many problems with the map that I wonder whether it is supposed to mock the theory or illustrate it. First of all, the Middle East is shown to be I-E by 2000 BC. Are the Semitic languages supposed to have arrived to Arabia and the Middle East after this date? Secondly, north-eastern Europe (Finland and northern Russia) was traditionally Fenno-Ugric. The map appears to have been made without any deeper linguistic, historic and geographic insight.--Berig 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It was created to illustrate Elst's assertions. Elst states (without explaining his reasons) that as "more people migrated from India to become the West-Asian Indo-Aryans... [They] pushed as far west as Palestine, making their mark for a few centuries (18th-12th century BC) in different parts of West Asia before disappearing through assimilation".[1] He may just be referring to the Philistines, in which case the inclusion of Arabia is rather OTT, but he's rather vague. But he seems to have the view that ancient Summerians were IE too[2]. Much of this stuff is like reading the finer works of Alfred Rosenberg. Paul B 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :).--Berig 14:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

but is Arabia actually included in "Indo-European territory"? "West Asian Indo-Aryans" are the Mitanni ruling class, and possibly some Scythian tribes, that's it. If this is really Elst's map, I must say, the more details transpire about his "emerging scenario" the more inconsequential it looks. It is symptomatic of OIT proposals that they discuss Sarasvati and Krttakas ad nauseam, but only have a very vague notion, and less interest, of anything that is actually "outside India" (viz., the very topic they are supposedly addressing). I could come up with a more convincing "OIT" map off the top of my head. That would be OR, of course. But maybe I should publish an arguable scenario for OIT somewhere? It sure would enhance my popularity among our Indian editors here. I predict that if I was to publish a coherent OIT scenario somewhere, I will be mentioned as "eminent scholar" on this page within the month :) dab (𒁳) 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, i am sure that if you publish your research, you would make a much better scholar, atleast when compared to the likes of Michael Witzel. By the way, (i am just eager to know) how would you deal with IVC in your OIT scenario. would it be an isolated language which no longer exists?

<please correct me if i am wrong> Whatever i could gather about PCT is that it is a fringe linguistic theory which argues that PIE existed and got separated during the paleolithics. It is in no way concerned with the Urheimat, nor is it Euro-centric in any way. Why is there a reference to PCT in this article. PCT can sure be compared with proto-vedic continuity.nids(♂) 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saraswati river's identification is accepted by most archaeologists, for instance Kenoyer, Raymond and Bridget Allchin, G. L. Possehl or D. P. Agrawal. WIN 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

yes? even if that is the case, what does this have to do with OIT? It is also accepted that the Helmand was called "Sarasvati". All that gives us are two rivers with the same name, proving that name transfer must have been possible one way or the other. dab (𒁳) 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

For Saraswati and afghan Harahvaiti or modern Helmund, read http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/english/documents/ReplytoWitzelJIES.pdf page 12 to 16.

Changing of indic `S' to iranian `H' is well known one but reverse is not found to occur. If you know the reverse then quote here. WIN 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Do Iranians mention an external homeland in their texts?

Can anyone answer that in a straightforward way instead of talking about the inner funadementals of Indian and Armenian nationalism? Nobleeagle ^[TALK] [C] 05:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes they do. with an odd discription of their homeland as having 10 winter months and 2 summer months. (sorry i dont have the source).nids(♂) 08:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

See Airyanem Vaejah. Paul B 08:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

that's not looking at an "Iranian" homeland, but at best at an "Avestan" homeland. Avestan vs. Old Persian already shows the fundamental division between E and W Iranian. There is no memory of a Proto-Iranian homeland, let alone a Proto-Indo-Iranian one, and Airyanem Vaejah is little more than a term in extremely obscure texts that offers itself to whatever interpretation you like. The Avestan homeland has been located to anywhere between Azerbaijan and Balochistan, and Iranian peoples were indeed scattered over all that area long before our earliest texts. See also Avestan_language#Classification. dab (𒁳) 11:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Urheimat section: Gandhara comment

Dab, I am sure you have the right reference, but it might have slipped your mind to quote the page #. I checked the Asko Parpola (2005) document Study of the Ancient Indus Script and Gandhara is only quoted in References on page 65. There is no linking it with the statement in Urheimat section. Were you referencing different document? If same document, can you please add the page #. I am on Wikibreak and am not frequently checking.Sbhushan 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

fully cited on Indo-Iranians. I am not into duplicating discussions onto pages where they are completely offtopic, and am in favour of removing the entire pointless section. The "Memories of an Urheimat" started out as rhetoric BS, we have added the reasons why it is rhetoric BS, and it now stands as a dicussion of completely irrelevant non-sequiturs. Like most of this article, I might add. If you did honest research before adding idly inconsequential non-arguments, this article could be short and to the point: OIT was suggested by Schlegel, and recently by a few authors. It never gained mainstream acceptance, for such and such reasons, period, next article. What you are doing (not to mention WIN) are continuous dishonest attempts at spinning misrepresenting the situation. It is a plain fact that the Armenian hypothesis has far better academic credentials than OIT, and is still justly classified as a widely rejected proposal. dab (𒁳) 11:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, to raise your knowledge about Armenian hypothesis or other Urheimat hypothesis , refer paper by Prof. B.B.Lal who is Director General (Retd.), Archaeological Survey of India named `The Homeland of Indo-European Languages and Culture: Some Thoughts' http://www.geocities.com/ifihhome/articles/bbl001.html. Read The Caucasus Region point for Armenian hypothesis. WIN 09:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the article is more directed at your level, WIN, but you should read it; Lal humbly suggests NW India is a more likely candidate than Sogdiana, and he is "well aware" that the suggestion is widely discredited, precisely the fact you have been trying to edit out of Wikipedia for months. I am not defending the Armenian hypothesis. I am merely stating the fact that it has better academic support than OIT. dab (𒁳) 09:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

WIN, let me introduce you to Ararat arev (talk · contribs), you should discuss the question of Indo-European origins with him, I'm sure you will be great friends. If you reach a conclusion, I will listen to it. dab (𒁳) 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, you are hiding words in that paper. Prof. B.B.Lal searches for homeland from Anatolia, Armenia, Kurgan , Sogdiana. And, gives clear picture that why that hypothesis is not possible or in accordance with overall picture. But , then he takes NW South Asia and after checking states that it is much better than Sogdiana.

Don't mis-guide by writing in English but not `able' to `read and `understand it. Since you can not refute Prof. B.B.Lal's points , you are writing about my LEVEL. But, that way you are showing your LEVEL. WIN 10:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not wish to refute Lal, his article is fine. He insists on dating the Rigveda by the "Sarasvati" argument, that's basically it. We do discuss the "Sarasvati argument" for what it is worth, and we can well add Lal as a supporter, no problem. His article is perfecly fine as defending a minority position. dab (𒁳) 11:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Dab, I noticed that you have changed the referenced article name and publication date. Could you also please add the page number in the citation. Indo-Iranians page doesn't have anything about Gandhara. If you have changed the words from original publication, could you please post the original words on the talk page to help the verification. Thanks..Sbhushan 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)