Open Letter: Dr Nicholas Kazanas to Michael Witzel

[Guest guest]

A PDF of the letter on the letterhead and all the diacritics can be obtained

from me upon request. See the text below.

 

Vishal Agarwal

 

*****************************

 

 

 

Open Letter to Prof. M. Witzel

 

Dear Michael,

 

& #932;hank you for drawing attention to my Indoaryan Origins and Other Vedic

Issues published by Aditya Prakashan, N. Delhi (Dec 2009).

 

It has been said that greed and dishonesty are the scourges of modern times

(i.e. Kaliyuga). I do not think you suffer from the first. But you certainly

suffer from the second (= lying and lampooning). You display a most unsubtle

capability to present distorted evidence and mislead the brave few who follow

you.

 

Why do you state with such nonchalant disregard for the facts that I was

" admitted, regrettably, without peer review in the JIES (vol 30-31, 2002-3) " ?

Your statement merely corroborates your bigotry.

 

I pointed out in the course of that 2002-3 debate in my `Final Reply' that the

referees accepted my paper with two comments: –

 

a) " [T]he author gives different arguments against recent works by Witzel (and

some other scholars) who oppose the idea of an autochthonous character... Some

of these critical thoughts are quite interesting. "

 

b) " Maybe the age of the first arrival of Indo-Europeans... in India should be

pushed further back. "

 

Please, consult Mallory for independent testimony on this – unless you think he

too is up to his ears in " Hindutva " .

 

For further details, see JIES, vol 31, 1-2, 2003, p 193. It is §6 of my reply to

you(!) and the other critics in that debate. But, in usual fashion, having said

your sloppy, scurrilous piece, you did not bother to examine my reply to it.

 

But your dishonesty goes beyond simple social behaviour and corrodes your

scholarship. You prefer to read Geldner's translation (which is misleading in

many respects) rather than the original, which does present difficulties. Thus

you go on blabbering about `horses and chariots' instead of meeting and

explaining other, more obvious points. I note you have now stopped referring to

Genetics and gene flow, as you did some years back, since this area no longer

holds hopes for the mainstream view and shows that the movement is Out of

India.

 

What's so remarkable about horses and chariots?

 

You know perfectly well that the presence of horses in India goes back to 17000

BP. You also know that remains of horse in a human environment in N-W India

(from the Seven-river land to the Gangetic plain) are very scarce at all periods

from c4500 BCE to the early centuries CE. Will you announce to the world that

after 1500 or 1200 BCE the quantity of equine remains increases so significantly

that it indicates a massive entry of horses as well

 

as the IndoEuropeans? If you can't do this (and archaeologists certainly won't

allow it), then stop dragging in horses bedazzling the ignorant.

 

If the horse remains at, say, 700 BCE are not significantly more than, say,

2300, then this much trumpeted argument is merely a red herring.

 

Chariots are even more damning. No traces of your cherished chariot from Egypt

(c 1300) or Andronovo (c 1800 BCE) are found after 1500/1200 down to, say, 700.

The only indications come with rock-drawings in the period from 4000 to 1700 BCE

where carts are drawn by antelopes (!) bulls and horses (Lordblanchet 1992/2001:

319-335) and, of course, from Mauryan depictions! Your strident cry about

chariots is another red herring. But there is more.

 

Is it possible you don't know that the Rigvedic ratha `vehicle' is said to be

not only p & #7771;thu `broad' (1.123.1) and b & #7771;hat `tall, big' (6.61.13),

but also vari & #7779; & #7789;ha...vandhura `widest...box/seating space' (6.47.9),

trivandhura `three seated' (1.41.2; 7.71.4; etc) and a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura

`eight seated' (10.53.7)! The only real-life, not mythological, ratha in a race

we know is mentioned in 10.102 and this is pulled by oxen. Nowhere in the 1000

hymns of the & #7770;gveda is

there one single mention of a real-life battle with horse-drawn rathas. Nor is

there mention of a slim, light, two- or one-seated vehicle. (Even the

A & #347;vins'car, anas in 10.85.10,12, takes at least three!)

 

The scholars of the 19th century translated the Rigvedic ratha (or anas) as

`chariot' thinking of Greece and Rome, and the notion stuck. Surely it is

obvious that this a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura mini-bus has nothing to do with your

imaginary chariots? So please, get off your high horse and/or battle-chariot!

 

You are obviously unaware that the climate re the AIT is changing not only in

India but also in the ivory towers of the West. In 2009 the Institute for the

Study of Man (Washington DC) brought out in the Journal of Indo-European Studies

Monograph Series, No 55, a book

by Prof Angela Marcantonio (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions

about its Status. All papers were thoroughly examined by referees. The longest

one (60 pages) is by N.Kazanas, `Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan

Indigenism'. (Yes, I know, this event too is to be deeply regretted by you and

other bigots.)

 

And now my priyatama & #347;atru, I too regret that I won't bother to read

anything you or your braves write about this issue in the future – until you

offer a rational (not sciencefiction) explanation why the RV knows nothing of

bricks, cotton, iconic representations, ruins and other common Harappan

features, but the Sarasvat & #299; is a mighty river, while in later,

post-Rigvedic texts these features are frequently present and the Sarasvat & #299;

is a dried-up river.

 

Best wishes,

 

N. Kazanas

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishal,

 

I would be thankful, if you could send me the PDF-version of Kazanas' open letter to M. Witzel.

 

Warm regards,

Egbert

 

N.B. Are you acquainted with my decipherment of the Indus script on the ground of the Rg-Veda?

 

 

-

vishalsagarwal

Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:45 AM

Open Letter: Dr Nicholas Kazanas to Michael Witzel

A PDF of the letter on the letterhead and all the diacritics can be obtained from me upon request. See the text below.Vishal Agarwal *****************************Open Letter to Prof. M. WitzelDear Michael, & #932;hank you for drawing attention to my Indoaryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues published by Aditya Prakashan, N. Delhi (Dec 2009).It has been said that greed and dishonesty are the scourges of modern times (i.e. Kaliyuga). I do not think you suffer from the first. But you certainly suffer from the second (= lying and lampooning). You display a most unsubtle capability to present distorted evidence and mislead the brave few who follow you.Why do you state with such nonchalant disregard for the facts that I was "admitted, regrettably, without peer review in the JIES (vol 30-31, 2002-3)"? Your statement merely corroborates your bigotry.I pointed out in the course of that 2002-3 debate in my `Final Reply' that the referees accepted my paper with two comments: –a) "[T]he author gives different arguments against recent works by Witzel (and some other scholars) who oppose the idea of an autochthonous character... Some of these critical thoughts are quite interesting."b) "Maybe the age of the first arrival of Indo-Europeans... in India should be pushed further back."Please, consult Mallory for independent testimony on this – unless you think he too is up to his ears in "Hindutva".For further details, see JIES, vol 31, 1-2, 2003, p 193. It is §6 of my reply to you(!) and the other critics in that debate. But, in usual fashion, having said your sloppy, scurrilous piece, you did not bother to examine my reply to it.But your dishonesty goes beyond simple social behaviour and corrodes your scholarship. You prefer to read Geldner's translation (which is misleading in many respects) rather than the original, which does present difficulties. Thus you go on blabbering about `horses and chariots' instead of meeting and explaining other, more obvious points. I note you have now stopped referring to Genetics and gene flow, as you did some years back, since this area no longer holds hopes for the mainstream view and shows that the movement is Out of India.What's so remarkable about horses and chariots?You know perfectly well that the presence of horses in India goes back to 17000 BP. You also know that remains of horse in a human environment in N-W India (from the Seven-river land to the Gangetic plain) are very scarce at all periods from c4500 BCE to the early centuries CE. Will you announce to the world that after 1500 or 1200 BCE the quantity of equine remains increases so significantly that it indicates a massive entry of horses as wellas the IndoEuropeans? If you can't do this (and archaeologists certainly won't allow it), then stop dragging in horses bedazzling the ignorant.If the horse remains at, say, 700 BCE are not significantly more than, say, 2300, then this much trumpeted argument is merely a red herring.Chariots are even more damning. No traces of your cherished chariot from Egypt (c 1300) or Andronovo (c 1800 BCE) are found after 1500/1200 down to, say, 700. The only indications come with rock-drawings in the period from 4000 to 1700 BCE where carts are drawn by antelopes (!) bulls and horses (Lordblanchet 1992/2001: 319-335) and, of course, from Mauryan depictions! Your strident cry about chariots is another red herring. But there is more.Is it possible you don't know that the Rigvedic ratha `vehicle' is said to be not only p & #7771;thu `broad' (1.123.1) and b & #7771;hat `tall, big' (6.61.13), but also vari & #7779; & #7789;ha...vandhura `widest...box/seating space' (6.47.9), trivandhura `three seated' (1.41.2; 7.71.4; etc) and a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura `eight seated' (10.53.7)! The only real-life, not mythological, ratha in a race we know is mentioned in 10.102 and this is pulled by oxen. Nowhere in the 1000 hymns of the & #7770;gveda is there one single mention of a real-life battle with horse-drawn rathas. Nor is there mention of a slim, light, two- or one-seated vehicle. (Even the A & #347;vins'car, anas in 10.85.10,12, takes at least three!)The scholars of the 19th century translated the Rigvedic ratha (or anas) as `chariot' thinking of Greece and Rome, and the notion stuck. Surely it is obvious that this a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura mini-bus has nothing to do with your imaginary chariots? So please, get off your high horse and/or battle-chariot!You are obviously unaware that the climate re the AIT is changing not only in India but also in the ivory towers of the West. In 2009 the Institute for the Study of Man (Washington DC) brought out in the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No 55, a book by Prof Angela Marcantonio (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. All papers were thoroughly examined by referees. The longest one (60 pages) is by N.Kazanas, `Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism'. (Yes, I know, this event too is to be deeply regretted by you and other bigots.)And now my priyatama & #347;atru, I too regret that I won't bother to read anything you or your braves write about this issue in the future – until you offer a rational (not sciencefiction) explanation why the RV knows nothing of bricks, cotton, iconic representations, ruins and other common Harappan features, but the Sarasvat & #299; is a mighty river, while in later, post-Rigvedic texts these features are frequently present and the Sarasvat & #299; is a dried-up river.Best wishes,N. Kazanas

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishal,

 

Thanks for the letter. Great reply! And Nicholas remains well-mannered and a true scholar with his balanced reply.

 

regards,

Ishwa

 

From: vishalagarwalDate: Thu, 4 Feb 2010 04:45:45 +0000 Open Letter: Dr Nicholas Kazanas to Michael Witzel

 

 

A PDF of the letter on the letterhead and all the diacritics can be obtained from me upon request. See the text below.Vishal Agarwal *****************************Open Letter to Prof. M. WitzelDear Michael, & #932;hank you for drawing attention to my Indoaryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues published by Aditya Prakashan, N. Delhi (Dec 2009).It has been said that greed and dishonesty are the scourges of modern times (i.e. Kaliyuga). I do not think you suffer from the first. But you certainly suffer from the second (= lying and lampooning). You display a most unsubtle capability to present distorted evidence and mislead the brave few who follow you.Why do you state with such nonchalant disregard for the facts that I was "admitted, regrettably, without peer review in the JIES (vol 30-31, 2002-3)"? Your statement merely corroborates your bigotry.I pointed out in the course of that 2002-3 debate in my `Final Reply' that the referees accepted my paper with two comments: –a) "[T]he author gives different arguments against recent works by Witzel (and some other scholars) who oppose the idea of an autochthonous character... Some of these critical thoughts are quite interesting."b) "Maybe the age of the first arrival of Indo-Europeans... in India should be pushed further back."Please, consult Mallory for independent testimony on this – unless you think he too is up to his ears in "Hindutva".For further details, see JIES, vol 31, 1-2, 2003, p 193. It is §6 of my reply to you(!) and the other critics in that debate. But, in usual fashion, having said your sloppy, scurrilous piece, you did not bother to examine my reply to it.But your dishonesty goes beyond simple social behaviour and corrodes your scholarship. You prefer to read Geldner's translation (which is misleading in many respects) rather than the original, which does present difficulties. Thus you go on blabbering about `horses and chariots' instead of meeting and explaining other, more obvious points. I note you have now stopped referring to Genetics and gene flow, as you did some years back, since this area no longer holds hopes for the mainstream view and shows that the movement is Out of India.What's so remarkable about horses and chariots?You know perfectly well that the presence of horses in India goes back to 17000 BP. You also know that remains of horse in a human environment in N-W India (from the Seven-river land to the Gangetic plain) are very scarce at all periods from c4500 BCE to the early centuries CE. Will you announce to the world that after 1500 or 1200 BCE the quantity of equine remains increases so significantly that it indicates a massive entry of horses as wellas the IndoEuropeans? If you can't do this (and archaeologists certainly won't allow it), then stop dragging in horses bedazzling the ignorant.If the horse remains at, say, 700 BCE are not significantly more than, say, 2300, then this much trumpeted argument is merely a red herring.Chariots are even more damning. No traces of your cherished chariot from Egypt (c 1300) or Andronovo (c 1800 BCE) are found after 1500/1200 down to, say, 700. The only indications come with rock-drawings in the period from 4000 to 1700 BCE where carts are drawn by antelopes (!) bulls and horses (Lordblanchet 1992/2001: 319-335) and, of course, from Mauryan depictions! Your strident cry about chariots is another red herring. But there is more.Is it possible you don't know that the Rigvedic ratha `vehicle' is said to be not only p & #7771;thu `broad' (1.123.1) and b & #7771;hat `tall, big' (6.61.13), but also vari & #7779; & #7789;ha...vandhura `widest...box/seating space' (6.47.9), trivandhura `three seated' (1.41.2; 7.71.4; etc) and a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura `eight seated' (10.53.7)! The only real-life, not mythological, ratha in a race we know is mentioned in 10.102 and this is pulled by oxen. Nowhere in the 1000 hymns of the & #7770;gveda is there one single mention of a real-life battle with horse-drawn rathas. Nor is there mention of a slim, light, two- or one-seated vehicle. (Even the A & #347;vins'car, anas in 10.85.10,12, takes at least three!)The scholars of the 19th century translated the Rigvedic ratha (or anas) as `chariot' thinking of Greece and Rome, and the notion stuck. Surely it is obvious that this a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura mini-bus has nothing to do with your imaginary chariots? So please, get off your high horse and/or battle-chariot!You are obviously unaware that the climate re the AIT is changing not only in India but also in the ivory towers of the West. In 2009 the Institute for the Study of Man (Washington DC) brought out in the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No 55, a book by Prof Angela Marcantonio (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. All papers were thoroughly examined by referees. The longest one (60 pages) is by N.Kazanas, `Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism'. (Yes, I know, this event too is to be deeply regretted by you and other bigots.)And now my priyatama & #347;atru, I too regret that I won't bother to read anything you or your braves write about this issue in the future – until you offer a rational (not sciencefiction) explanation why the RV knows nothing of bricks, cotton, iconic representations, ruins and other common Harappan features, but the Sarasvat & #299; is a mighty river, while in later, post-Rigvedic texts these features are frequently present and the Sarasvat & #299; is a dried-up river.Best wishes,N. Kazanas

 

New Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.

[Guest guest]

Dear Vishal,

 

The horse is compared to an antelope in Rig-Veda I.163.1 already. In Rig-Veda X.95.8, the famous dialogue between king Pururavas and the water-woman Urvashi, the king compares the water-women in general with gazelles (antelopes) and with horses that fear to touch/to be yoked to a car (ratha). This proves that horse-drawn chariots were known at that time. In X.95.3 race-horses are mentioned too. The Ribhus, divine workmen, constructed a horse-drawn car for Indra, the king of the gods, and for the Ashvins, the divine twins. The very name Ashvin, having horses, would be meaningless, if they had no connection with horses.

Bullock-drawn toy-carts have been excavated in the Indus Valley. The Indus script has wheels with and without spokes and there are some still more exquisite wheel-signs. As a rule, cars drawn by oxen have no spokes, but discs. The horse-drawn spoke-wheeled car must have been used by the kings and the rich merchants in the Indus cities. Horse-bones were found in Surkotada. That they have not been found in Mohenjo Dharo and Harappa may be due to the fact, that only a small part of these big cities has been excavated and probably not the pens for the horses.

It is quite probable that the Aryans learnt the art of horse-driving like the preparation of the soma-sap from the Indus priests. This presumption is supported by the fact that the Soma is called a car-driver in the Veda. After the end of the major Indus towns some tribes or families may have travelled out of India and others may have come to India on horse-back or with bullock-carts. It is a linear way of thought to look for o n e home of the Aryans only.

Witzel has a very large number of adherents, he has a whole power trust behind him. To enter into this phalanx requires more substantiate arguments which can only be obtained by a careful study of the Indus script which is not regarded as a script at all by Witzel and his peer reviewers. Personal attacks only strengthen the opponent. They should therefore be avoided under all circumstances.

 

Egbert Richter-Ushanas

 

-

vishalsagarwal

Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:45 AM

Open Letter: Dr Nicholas Kazanas to Michael Witzel

A PDF of the letter on the letterhead and all the diacritics can be obtained from me upon request. See the text below.Vishal Agarwal *****************************Open Letter to Prof. M. WitzelDear Michael, & #932;hank you for drawing attention to my Indoaryan Origins and Other Vedic Issues published by Aditya Prakashan, N. Delhi (Dec 2009).It has been said that greed and dishonesty are the scourges of modern times (i.e. Kaliyuga). I do not think you suffer from the first. But you certainly suffer from the second (= lying and lampooning). You display a most unsubtle capability to present distorted evidence and mislead the brave few who follow you.Why do you state with such nonchalant disregard for the facts that I was "admitted, regrettably, without peer review in the JIES (vol 30-31, 2002-3)"? Your statement merely corroborates your bigotry.I pointed out in the course of that 2002-3 debate in my `Final Reply' that the referees accepted my paper with two comments: –a) "[T]he author gives different arguments against recent works by Witzel (and some other scholars) who oppose the idea of an autochthonous character... Some of these critical thoughts are quite interesting."b) "Maybe the age of the first arrival of Indo-Europeans... in India should be pushed further back."Please, consult Mallory for independent testimony on this – unless you think he too is up to his ears in "Hindutva".For further details, see JIES, vol 31, 1-2, 2003, p 193. It is §6 of my reply to you(!) and the other critics in that debate. But, in usual fashion, having said your sloppy, scurrilous piece, you did not bother to examine my reply to it.But your dishonesty goes beyond simple social behaviour and corrodes your scholarship. You prefer to read Geldner's translation (which is misleading in many respects) rather than the original, which does present difficulties. Thus you go on blabbering about `horses and chariots' instead of meeting and explaining other, more obvious points. I note you have now stopped referring to Genetics and gene flow, as you did some years back, since this area no longer holds hopes for the mainstream view and shows that the movement is Out of India.What's so remarkable about horses and chariots?You know perfectly well that the presence of horses in India goes back to 17000 BP. You also know that remains of horse in a human environment in N-W India (from the Seven-river land to the Gangetic plain) are very scarce at all periods from c4500 BCE to the early centuries CE. Will you announce to the world that after 1500 or 1200 BCE the quantity of equine remains increases so significantly that it indicates a massive entry of horses as wellas the IndoEuropeans? If you can't do this (and archaeologists certainly won't allow it), then stop dragging in horses bedazzling the ignorant.If the horse remains at, say, 700 BCE are not significantly more than, say, 2300, then this much trumpeted argument is merely a red herring.Chariots are even more damning. No traces of your cherished chariot from Egypt (c 1300) or Andronovo (c 1800 BCE) are found after 1500/1200 down to, say, 700. The only indications come with rock-drawings in the period from 4000 to 1700 BCE where carts are drawn by antelopes (!) bulls and horses (Lordblanchet 1992/2001: 319-335) and, of course, from Mauryan depictions! Your strident cry about chariots is another red herring. But there is more.Is it possible you don't know that the Rigvedic ratha `vehicle' is said to be not only p & #7771;thu `broad' (1.123.1) and b & #7771;hat `tall, big' (6.61.13), but also vari & #7779; & #7789;ha...vandhura `widest...box/seating space' (6.47.9), trivandhura `three seated' (1.41.2; 7.71.4; etc) and a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura `eight seated' (10.53.7)! The only real-life, not mythological, ratha in a race we know is mentioned in 10.102 and this is pulled by oxen. Nowhere in the 1000 hymns of the & #7770;gveda is there one single mention of a real-life battle with horse-drawn rathas. Nor is there mention of a slim, light, two- or one-seated vehicle. (Even the A & #347;vins'car, anas in 10.85.10,12, takes at least three!)The scholars of the 19th century translated the Rigvedic ratha (or anas) as `chariot' thinking of Greece and Rome, and the notion stuck. Surely it is obvious that this a & #7779; & #7789;avandhura mini-bus has nothing to do with your imaginary chariots? So please, get off your high horse and/or battle-chariot!You are obviously unaware that the climate re the AIT is changing not only in India but also in the ivory towers of the West. In 2009 the Institute for the Study of Man (Washington DC) brought out in the Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph Series, No 55, a book by Prof Angela Marcantonio (ed) The Indo-European Language Family: Questions about its Status. All papers were thoroughly examined by referees. The longest one (60 pages) is by N.Kazanas, `Indo-European Linguistics and Indo-Aryan Indigenism'. (Yes, I know, this event too is to be deeply regretted by you and other bigots.)And now my priyatama & #347;atru, I too regret that I won't bother to read anything you or your braves write about this issue in the future – until you offer a rational (not sciencefiction) explanation why the RV knows nothing of bricks, cotton, iconic representations, ruins and other common Harappan features, but the Sarasvat & #299; is a mighty river, while in later, post-Rigvedic texts these features are frequently present and the Sarasvat & #299; is a dried-up river.Best wishes,N. Kazanas