Page "The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis" Paragraph 20

Talageri wrote a critique of a number of scholars such as Griffith, Pargiter, Tilak and Aurobindo in his book on the Rig Veda.

In Chapter 9, he singled out Michael Witzel's ( 1995 ) interpretation of the structure and history of the Rig Veda.

In this chapter, Talageri alleges " Professor Witzel inventing evidence, suppressing inconvenient data, following an inconsistent methodology, retrofitting data into pre-conceived notions, contradicting himself again and again, and using misleading language ".

Witzel later wrote a review of Talageri's book.

He based it on Talageris ' alleged ignorance of the long-established structure of the Rigveda ( Oldenberg 1888, English 2003.

Talageri also uses the purportedly late Vedic Anukramani ( a list of poets, deities and meters ) in analyzing the text of the Rigveda that is, per current scholarly consensus, and challenged by Talageri, hundreds of years earlier.

Both items combined render, in Witzel's view, the book entirely erroneous, and he therefore did not find it necessary to write a lengthy rebuttal of chapter 9, stating that it is " a long and confused ‘ analysis ’" and that, therefore, the " angry assault on my 1995 paper … can thankfully be passed over here ".

It should be noted that Talageri's central thesis is to recast the chronology of the Rg Vedic texts.

His conclusions ( revision of Aryan Invasion theory, etc.

) follows from this alternative history.

Talageri considers his evidence unaddressed by Witzel, and the debate seems to have taken on the aspect of two scholars talking past each other.