method of dating RV, III

[Sn. Subrahmanya]

> Michael Witzel wrote:
>
>But there is alrady Iranian (Avest.) is'tiia, from the same root...
>Apparently they knew of bricks, maybe learned it from the (pre-)BMAC
>cultures, before c.  2000 BC. at the northern fringes of Iran/Afghanistan.
>Note the two separate formations (perhaps, also cf. Tocharian izcem).
>
Unable to produce any evidence of new intrusive or different culture -
invasion/migration theorists are now reduced to postulating
"takeover of power"  or "learning" from pre-existing cultures !!.

Parpola writes "The BMAC emerged as a direct continuation of
previous cultural developments in southern Turkmenistan. Its local
origin can be reconciled with the hypothesis of BMAC's Aryan linguistic
affinity only by assuming that the dramatic changes in its
socio-political structure C 1800BC resulted from the takeover of
power in Margiana by small groups of Aryan-speaking nomads coming
from the North" (pg363,IndoAryans of Ancient South Asia. Ed:Erdosy ).

So, the data is 'reconciled' into a pre-supposed migrationist hypothesis!.
If this aint retrofitting, what is ?

Actually, this is "standard operating procedure" of invasion/migration
theorists :  Presuppose a invasion/migration first , and then proceed to
interpret the data to fit it.

Coming to Sambara's forts, maybe Witzel can explain why it cannot
be a case of the indigenous Rgvedic aryas campaign against the Dasas.
Because - as Parpola states "Bactria and Margiana is precisely the region
where the Dasas, Dahyus and Panis are placed in Old Persian, Greek and Latin
sources" (pg367)


Regards,
Subrahmanya