--- In cybalist@..., "Piotr Gasiorowski" <gpiotr@...> wrote:>
Talking of Michael Witzel (of Harvard), he is also the author of the
most thorough, competent, eloquent and _devastating_ refutation of
all the aspects and variants of the "Out of India" theory I've ever
seen published. It is available online and I recommend it very warmly
to anyone interested in the prehistory of India and not deterred by
the technical discussion of the linguistic issues involved and the
sheer length of the article:
> > http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/EJVS-7-3.htm
Piotr:
There is a well-argued refutation of this EJVS article. Please don't
be deterred by its length. It is also a useful piece for review by
Indo-European linguists, apart from revisiting terms such as
ratava_hana which can simply mean, 'chariot-vehicle' instead of its
being a 'platform.' [This non-trivial issue is related to the 'light-
weight' and 'dismantle-able' nature of the IE chariot which is
supposed to have been brought in by the Aryans from outside.] Of
course, Sarasvati_ appears as the centre-piece of the arguments.
It will be nice if you take Dr. Kazanas' arguments into account which
are equally eloquent and devastating againt the Out of Europe
theories. I recommend this URL warmly to anyone interested in an
objective, unbiased study of prehistory of Bha_rata:
Dr. Kazanas has written a reply to professor Witzel at
http://www.voi.org/general_inbox/Kazanas/addendum.pdf
[Start from Page 5 for Dr. K's views; the first 4 pages are a preface
with email exchanges which set the stage for the forceful and lucid
rejoinder].