Why AIT dogmatists are stuck on 2000 BCE - 1500 BCE time interval

Those of you who are wondering why AIT dogmatists are stuck on 2000 BCE - 1500 BCE time interval, here is a quick response from the able pen of a medical professional. [the actual answer is multidimensional and much longer.  That is what it takes to fight bullshit]
--
Actually that "constraint" varies from about 1500 to 1000 BC and they are all linguistic constraints because they have so called "attested" evidence of other "Indo-European" languages that start appearing which have been dated after 1000 BC. There are actually many holes in this theory but no one (other than Indians) is bothered.

For example - they know that the Chhand Upastha ("Zend Avesta") mentions the Vedas but Vedas don't mention the latter. Many "weshtern" authors point out the similarities between Atharva Veda and The Zoroastrian book. So the Zoroastrian language is placed as a sister language to "Vedic Sanskrit". Since they have already dated Atharva Veda to beginning of iron age by virtue of mention of black metal, and they place iron age (probably wrongly) in India as 1000 BC - they give a date of about 1000 BC to Atharva Veda and Chhand Upastha/Zend Avesta. Our cunning linguists have "allowed" 500 years for the earlier Rig Veda - placing Rig Veda around 1500 BC

After 1000 BC all sorts of other dates crop up. "Old Persian" is posited to be a daughter language of Zoroastrian - in fact Darius was a Zoroastrian and his Old Persian Behistun inscription in Iran is about 500 BC. between 1000 BC and 500 BC they have placed all sorts of other things including the Buddha. After 500 BC they have Alexander and Chandragupta who is claimed to be Sandrocottus.

I can dispute dates for Panini using various "weshtern" sources - placing him a few centuries earlier. The "Avestan language" is a completely cooked up language - wholly and completely cooked up by cunning linguists from a 12th century Sanskrit rendition of a so called "middle Persian" text by one Neryosang Dhaval.

What is absolutely astounding about these mofos - yes I use a term of contempt - mofos - is that they are perfectly willing to use "linguistc evidence" from Sanskrit texts if its suits their dates. For example "black metal" reference to them is absolute truth. Flat nosed "dasyus" (Dravidians) is absolute truth. "Purs" representing forts of defeated races is truth. IIn fact all these translated words are rubbish. But when the same linguistic evidence from the same texts points to earlier dates like Saraswati river and astronomy dates - they reject all that.

Archaeological evidence is good for them as long as horse bones are not found. When horse bones are found, they are not horses, or there are not enough horse bones. But all this is going to get wiped clean because nowadays there is some real solid paleobotanical and paleo-climactic studies appearing that are giving a very good picture of the environment to correlate with available texts and archaeological evidence. Also Indian explanations of the Vedas showing how people like Muller (who used Sayana) and indeed Sayana himself were going off track in their interpretations of the Vedas contradicting Yaska and earlier commentators on the Veda. Horse sacrifice and horse burials have been conjured up from the Vedas where nothing of the sort is there. A great deal of gaandmasti has gone on..

The Mitanni evidence is actually problematic in many ways because the Sanskrit has a clear link with the Vedas - but it they say that the language was in Syria before reaching India - the route of spread from "Steppe" gets screwed up. Also along with Mitanni are the Sanskrit "Horse training texts of Kikkuli". Current theories claim that people on horses and chariots rode out around 2500 BC - and went in various directions - and towards India they split up into Iranian branch and Indian branch. Iranian became Zoroastrian and Indian branch Sanskrit - both around 1500 BC. But Mitanni is a sort of kabab mein haddi with no clear explanation. It is simply fudged. The only clear explanation is that Vedas already existed by 1800 BC in India and the language was taken to Syria by Indian origin kings. This is a problematic explanation for linguists.

Courtesy: Dr. Shiv Shastry, via Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10211626332716603&id=1314774904