Re: [tied] Re: Aryan Migrations

Actually, this is not a refutation of Witzel's "Autochthonous Aryans?" but Kazanas's reply to Witzel's critique of Kazanas's "The AIT and Scholarship", a curious article which was intended as as a refutation of Witzel's arguments (but developed partly into a lengthy off-topic essay on the sociology and history of science) ... Oops, are you still with me?

It would hardly make sense to discuss the latest addendum on its own, so anyone interested in the matter should begin with the beginning, or at least read the critique to which Kazanas refers:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Kazanas.htm

The title "Dr." might suggest that N. Kazanas has some sholarly qualifications in linguistics, archeology, Indology or any field of relevance to the dispute. This seems not to be the case, so I find it strange if somebody talks on the same breath, e.g., of "Dr. Kazanas and Dr. Hock" in this context, as V. Agarwal regularly does. Adding "Dr." to someone's name apparently turns him into an expert, whatever his PhD is in.

Piotr

----- Original Message -----
From: S.Kalyanaraman

To: cybalist@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 2:26 AM

Subject: [tied] Re: Aryan Migrations

--- 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].