by N. Kazanas
This paper examines the general IndoEuropean issue and argues in favour of Indoaryan indigenism against the AIT (Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory) which has been mainstream doctrine for more than a century. The extreme positions that there was no ProtoIndoEuropean (PIE) language or that this language is as currently reconstructed are refuted: the evidence suggests there was a PIE language but this cannot be reconstructed and all efforts and confidence in this reconstruction are misplaced. Indeed, all reconstructions of Proto-languages seem futile and, since they are in no way verifiable, should not be used as evidence for historical events. Indeed all the data used as evidence by the AIT are wholly conjectural and arbitrary and often consist of misrepresentations and distortions, as will be clearly demonstrated in detail. All the arguments used for the AIT have been analytically presented by E. Bryant (2001) and summed up in his concluding chapter. These will be examined one by one and shown to be fallacious. We shall also refer to some material not in Bryant - e.g. genetic studies after 2001CE and mythological motifs never examined in this connection.
(Download the PDF file - 291kB)
In this paper I argue that the IndoAryans (IA hereafter) are indigenous from at least 4500 (all dates are BCE except when otherwise stated) and possibly 7000. In this effort are utilized the latest archaeological finds and data from Archaeoastronomy, Anthropology and Palaeontology. I use in addition neglected cultural and linguistic evidence. I find no evidence at all for an invasion. The new term "migration" is a misnomer since a migration could not have produced the results found in that area. The Rigveda (=RV) is neither post-Harappan nor contemporaneous with the ISC but much earlier, ie from the 4th millennium (with minor exceptions) and perhaps before.
The bibliography of this study is available as a separate pdf file.
This paper was published in the Journal of IndoEuropean Studies 2002.
(Download the PDF file - 300kB)
|'The RV Date - a Postscript', by N. Kazanas |
This examines some of Prof M Witzel's (erroneous) notions which perpetuate the AIT (=Aryan Invasion Theory) and which had not been discussed in 'The RV and IndoEuropeans'. It presents some new evidence and new ideas for a pre-3100 BC date of the RV and the indigenous origin of the IndoAryans and criticizes Prof Witzel's vicious attacks on some Indian and non-Indian scholars, who promote the indigenist point of view.
(Download the PDF file - 78kB)
|'AIT and Scholarship', by N. Kazanas |
N Kazanas wrote 'AIT and Scholarship' in May-June 2001. This was first posted here. It deals with some additional (erroneous) notions of Prof M Witzel and the major (but not all) aspects of his 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts' (EJVS 7-3, pp 1-93, 2001). Apart from the AIT, this study examines other cases of corruption in academic disciplines like Egyptology, Anthropology etc, where evidence against maistream views is discarded, as well as the etymology of the terms 'academia' and 'academic' and the development from Plato's Academy in Athens to modern notions.
(Download the PDF file - 233kB)
|'Reply to prof. Witzel', by N. Kazanas |
Prof Witzel wrote a very superficial critique of 'AIT and Scholarship' ignoring the title, lampooning the presentation of the development of modern academia and making all kinds of irrelevant remarks (5/7/01). So N Kazanas wrote a reply selecting some of the mosts salient points in 'Addendum to "AIT and Scholarship"': reply to Prof Witzel and incorporating some (lengthy) remarks of V Agarwal. All this was completed and posted in sept 2001 here. The most significant point, apart from Prof Witzel's irrelevances, is N Achar's firm discovery that some astronomical dates in the Mahabharata indicate the date of 3067 BC for the Great War.
(Download the PDF file - 138kB)
|'Final Reply', by N. Kazanas. |
Reply to nine critics in the debate on Indoaryan Οrigins initiated by and published in theJournal of Indo-european Studies, 2002-2003.
(Download the PDF file - 170kB)
|'A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda'' by Vishal Agarwal, |
11 August 2003.
(Journal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. 31, No.1-2: pp.107-185, 2003).
The " A Reply to Michael Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda' " was sent to us by V.Agarwal (Minesotta, USA). It was written in July 2003 as a reply to Prof M. Witzel's 'Ein Fremdling im Rgveda', 2003, Journal of Indo-European Studies, and was posted on the Journal's website. It provides supplementary material to N. Kazanas' 'Final Reply' covering various aspects not dealt with by, or unknown to the latter. One should note that when Kazanas mentions "black copper" (kRshNa-/karshaNa-ayas or Syama- 'swarthy metal') he nowhere means bronze as Witzel takes it (p 175) and Agarwal need not have elaborated the bronze-aspect.
(Download the PDF file - 596kB)
This essay is published in 2004 Indian Linguistics. It challenges many generally accepted notions in IndoEuropean linguistics like the 5-grade ablaut, labio-velar sounds, roots etc. At the same time it discloses the great antiquity of Sanskrit (or Vedic) and argues that the Sanskrit retroflex sounds are ProtoIndoEuropean, but lost in the other IE stocks.
(Download the PDF file - 159kB)
Published in VVRI 2006
This paper examines more than 400 lexical items that have cognations in 3 or more IE branches (Vedic, Greek, Italic etc) and denote as far as possible invariable things, qualities and activities (bodily parts, relations and actions like breathing, dressing, rising etc). Sanskrit appears to have lost far fewer items and preserves much greater inner organic coherence than the other branches. This supports the general idea that Sanskrit is much closer to Proto-Indo-European and that, since this could happen only in sedentary conditions, the Indoaryan speakers of Sanskrit did not move (much) from the original homeland. Moreover, the criticism that this conclusion does not take into account the large literature in Sanskrit is shown to be fallacious. This collection of words is a good treasury for any comparisons.
(Download the PDF file - 415kB)