From what I understand, the texts are perhaps from 1800-1500 BCE but the manuscripts aren't. That ancient and medieval manuscripts are almost universally younge

From what I understand, the texts are perhaps from 1800-1500 BCE but the manuscripts aren't. That ancient and medieval manuscripts are almost universally younger copies of older texts is common knowledge. The oldest manuscript in the set of "30 Rigveda scriptures kept in BORI" that you're presumably referring to dates back only to 1464 CE: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.403.6611&rep=rep1&type=pdf http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.403... > 5. Oldest Dated Manuscript: > No. 5/1882-83 (1464 AD) > ... > There are 30 manuscripts of Rigveda at the Institute, collected from different parts of India like Kashmir, Gujarat, the then Rajaputana, Central Provinces etc. They are written in Sharada, Devanagari and Devanagari with Prishthamatra and the material used for writing is birch bark as well as paper. The oldest of these manuscripts is dated 1464 A. D. So if these are the texts you're referring to, then Wikipedia is not out of date here and your information is simply wrong. Not even the UNESCO nomination text attempts to claim that these manuscripts are three thousand years older than how old they actually are.