Kazanas' comment on the controversy: 'Probability in Ancient India'
Friday, July 8, 2011
Comment by S. Kalyanraman: It is not surprising that the subject of
Probability in Ancient India should result in the invocation of the
hobby-horse, AIT doctrine.
I agree with Kazanas. Witzel's froth of 'scientific facts' do, in
fact, reveal the non-existence of any evidence at all for the
mainstream AIT doctrine.
Thanks to Witzel for the service rendered in debunking the AIT
This doctrine should disappear from all school text books.
Probability in Ancient India: A debate
About the controversy: 'Probability in Ancient India'.
6 July 2011
In the recent controversy about 'Probability in Ancient India' on the
Internet I couldn't but be surprised at the dignity with which Raju
replies to Witzel even though the latter yet again feels it necessary
to deride and distort. Raju does see, however, Witzel's usual trick
of assigning a false position to his opponents and then attacking
that. On the other hand one must feel grateful to Witzel since his
comments always reveal the non-existence of any arguments and solid
evidences for the mainstream Doctrine of the AIT. This time he sneers
at bona fide scientific research calling it "Antiquity Frenzy"
(perhaps unaware of anthropological evidences showing that much of
our knowledge, theoretical and technological, was current in
Mesolithic and Palaeolithic times) and then dismisses the probable
Rgved date of 4000 BCE on "scientific facts", as he calls them.
"The RV is full of horses and chariots; but horse-drawn spokewheeled
chariots were invented only around 2000 BCE (either in the Ural
steppes or in Mesopotamia, scholars disagree); and the steppe animal,
the horse (equus caballus), was absent in South Asia until it was
introduced from the steppes around 1800/1700 BCE (just as in
Mesopotamia and Egypt). Other (inscriptional, linguistic and
archaeological) data point to composition of the RV around 1400-1000
BCE." (25,6,2011.) This vedist professor has not yet realised that
there are no chariots of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Urallic sort
in the RV. The two words anas and ratha mean much the same, 'car' or
'cart'. The ratha is never described as one- or two-seated vehicle
(as were the neareastern and european chariots) but as three-seated
and even as eight-seated a??avandhura, i.e. a mini-bus! But our
learned professor carries on about near-eastern chariots and horses.
And again deliberately ignores that the rigvedic cars are drawn by
birds, by antelopes, by donkeys and mules and by oxen and very rarely
by horses. In fact the only realistic race is in the 10th Book and
the car is drawn by an ox!
As for horse-remains, there are several found in the mature Harappan
phase, i.e. 2500-2100, and there is evidence of horses as far back as
4500 BCE. Moreover, there we do not find any increase of horse-
remains after 1500 BCE and the alleged entry of horse-riding Aryans.
Increased evidence of horses and chariots appears only after 300 BCE.
So Witzel's "scientific facts" are mere froth. So are his other date
inscriptional, linguistic and archaeological; and I dare him to
produce one hard fact from these areas showing that the RV was
composed 1400-1000 BCE. There is none.
On the contrary, all expert archaeologists from the 1980's agree that
there is no evidence whatever of any entry of Aryans from 4500 to 600
BCE. The RV knows nothing of the Harappan cities, deserted or ruined,
and their culture but the post-rigvedic texts do know of baked
bricks, of statues and paintings, of cotton and wheat and other
features of the Indus Sarasvati culture. Then, Genetics shows that
there is no flow of genes into N-W India but, on the contrary the
flow is out of India.
As I said, we must be grateful for Witzel's interventions which
reveal so acutely the non-existence of any evidence at all for the