Dates of written Rgveda

[Steve Farmer]

George Thompson writes, concerning a post of mine questioning the date
that Michael Witzel gives for the first written Rgveda:

> So here we go again.  Another truly NAIVE challenge from someone who, in all
> ignorance, asserts that *Vedicists* are naive.
>
> In fact, Vedicists have long wrestled with this problem.  It is
> understandable that you and other comparatists might be skeptical about the
> large claims that are made for the fidelity of Vedic oral tradition.  But if
> you did your homework you would know:
>
> that in a *very* large Vedic literature there is *not one* reference to
> writing anywhere;
>
> that there is no solid evidence for writing in the Indan sub-continent before
> the 3rd cent. BCE [whereas, if we are willing to overcome reasonable doubt,
> we *might* be able to push that date back to the 6th cent. BCE -- in any
> case, by this date the Vedic period is essentially over, or about to end];
>
> that the Vedic tradition developed, very early, a remarkable system of
> mnemonic devices intended to assure the accurate transmission of  the
> traditional texts;
>
> that the date of the RV, for linguistic reasons alone, cannot be reasonably
> put very much *after* 1000 BCE, so that in fact there has been an extended
> period of time during which it was transmitted purely by oral means;

It wasn't my intention to be impolite. If I seemed so, please except my
sincere apologies. Nevertheless, my scholarly questions remain. Here they
are, rephrased, I hope, less polemically:

1. Is there indeed a consensus among Vedicists that the Rgveda was passed
on for as much as two millennia through "near-perfect ORAL transmission"
(to quote Michael Witzel) until it "was first written down c. 1000 CE"? If
true, this would be a unique situation in premodern thought; that is the
source of my skepticism.

2. How is this consensus view -- if there *is* indeed a consensus --
reconciled with repeated suggestions in the Laws of Manu that the Vedas
were utilized at least at some point in antiquity in literate form? This
is a serious question that requires a evidential response. Are there
textual strata in the Laws of Manu that date from as late as 1000 CE,
providing conservative Vedicists with an easy way out of the problem? If
not, how do they face this and similar counterevidence?

3. The obvious signs of textual stratification in the received text of the
Rgveda suggests that various hymns were repeatedly *reshaped* in early
stages of the text's oral development. How, this being the case, do
Indologists explain that the text in *later* oral periods remained
unchanged for nearly two millennia? How *can* a textual canon be fixed
over wide geographical and cultural regions in the absence of written
exemplars? What makes the relationship between oral and written traditions
in Vedic sources different from that found in every other premodern
tradition?

Thompson further writes:

> the Vedic tradition developed, very early, a remarkable system of
> mnemonic devices intended to assure the accurate transmission of  the
> traditional texts

Every premodern society that I've studied created its own elaborate
systems of "mnemonic devices intended to assure the accurate transmission
of the traditional texts" (think of the methods described in the West in
the pseudo-Ciceronian Hortensius) -- and in every such society,
nonetheless, traditions drifted conceptually in largely predictable ways.
Much evidence on this topic has accumulated in dozens of studies of oral
and early-literature traditions in Africa, the Mediterranean, Southeast
Asia, China, Japan, and Mesoamerica. My own studies have uncovered cases
of such drift involving supposedly "near-perfect" memorization of
canonical texts in the premodern West. There is good evidence that
neurobiological constraints on memory systems probably have something to
do with this drift.

If it is really true that premodern Vedic reciters, unlike those found in
every other known premodern civilization, maintained "near-perfect ORAL
transmission" over two millennia of a highly stratified compilation like
the Rgvedas, Indologists should be prepared with a credible reason to
explain India's uniqueness. Alternately, they should be able to point to
other instances of "near-perfect transmission" in premodern societies
outside India. (I'd be extremely interested in what evidence they try to
cite.)

Thompson also writes:

> that the date of the RV, for linguistic reasons alone, cannot be reasonably
> put very much *after* 1000 BCE, so that in fact there has been an extended
> period of time during which it was transmitted purely by oral means

You are missing the point elaborated in #3, above. Abundant internal
evidence demonstrates that the received text of the Rgvedas is itself
"layered" (stratified) -- just like virtually every other known Eurasian
compilation from this level of antiquity. It would certainly be curious if
the Rgveda in its *earliest* stages of oral development were continuously
reshaped by processes of transmission and then, magically, in *later*
stages it became "fixed" in the absence of written exemplars.

Perhaps my questions are naive, as Thompson claims. But if that's the
case, I'm sure that he can quickly point to evidence that demonstrates
that. The use of such evidence would, of course, be much more effective
than declarations ex cathedra.

Best wishes,

Steve Farmer, Ph.D.
http://www.safarmer.com/pico/abstract.html