ARYAN INVASION THEORY HOAX

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 
doctrine. 
This doctrine should disappear from all school text books. 
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/84073836/Probabilityinancientindia 
Probability in Ancient India: A debate 
About the controversy: 'Probability in Ancient India'. 
N. Kazanas 
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 
mainstream Doctrine.