NOTES

* A first, shorter version of this paper was written in 1997 and was to be
published that year in a special issue of a science journal in India; this
has mysteriously not materialized and was in fact abandoned in 1999; this
paper has been constantly updated in light of recent indigenist
discussions; it has been revised now (Dec. 2000), especially in the
linguistic section, as H. Hock's discussion (1999) of  "Out of India"
scenarios has relieved me of a detailed treatment of  several such theories
(Misra 1992).

1 On this question see now Witzel 2000; see below § 9, end.
2 See, however, such early and clear statements against an "Aryan race"  as
those by  M. Mueller 1888,  H. Hirt 1907: 6-7, Franz Boas 1910  [1966].
3 Confusingly, linguists sometimes use "Aryan" as a shortcut designation of
IIr. because both Iranians and Indo-Aryans call themselves and their
language arya/Arya (see below).
4 Staal 1983: I 683-6, with special reference to techniques of
memorization; Staal 1986, 1989.
5 Max Mueller had come to a similar chronology, but --long before the
prehistory and archaeological past of S.Asia was known at all-- one based
on internal evidence and some speculation, a fact he often underlined even
late in his career. This is nowadays misrepresented by the autochthonists,
especially Rajaram (1995), who accuses Mueller to have invented this
chronology to fit in with Bishop Usher's biblical calculations!
6 This date obviously depends on Archaeology. While dates for iron had been
creeping up over the last few decades, there is a recent re-evaluation of
the Iron Age, see Possehl 1999b, and Agrawal & Kharakwal (in press).
Apparently, the introduction of iron in India differs as per region but is
close to 1000 BCE. Occasional finds of meteoric iron and its use of course
predate that of  regularly produced, smelted iron.
7 For indigenous dates which place the RV thousands of years earlier, see
below §11 sqq. Similarly, Talageri (2000, cf. below n. 84, 87, 140, 173,
175, 216) who purports to have based his historical analysis of the RV only
on the text itself, betrays a purANic mentality and inadvertently
introduces such traditional data (see below, and Witzel 2001). His analysis
is based on an inappropriate RV text, the late version compiled and
redacted by ZAkalya in the later brAhmaNa period. This includes various
additions and changes made by centuries of orthoepic diaskeuasis.  Such a
procedure must lead to wrong results, according to the old computer adage:
garbage in, garbage out. In order to reach an understanding of the actual
Rgvedic period, one has to take as one's basis a secure text without
additions, as established by Oldenberg already in 1888. Talageri's 500 pp.
book is dealt with in detail elsewhere (Witzel 2001); it suffices to point
out this basic flaw here. (Interestingly, he quotes  and approves, five
years later, my 1995 approach but proceeds to turn it on its head, using
the dubious methods detailed above, and below n. 40 etc.)
8 See below §18, on vas'ana [vaz'ana], -az- > e. The reasons for the older
forms in Mitanni IA seems to be  that the  Mitanni, who had been in contact
with speakers of pre-OIA before the RV, have preserved these archaic forms.
9 Maximally, but unlikely, 1900 BCE, the time of the disintegration of the
Indus civilization. The exact date of IA influx and incursion is still
unsettled but must be pre-iron age (1200, or even 1000/900 BCE, see Possehl
and Gullapalli 1999).
10 For details, and for the transfer of Zoroastrianism into the Persis, see
K. Hoffmann 1992.
11 Elst 1999: 207, along with many other Indian writers,  curiously takes
the asuras as real life enemies of the Vedic Aryans; he then turns this
conflict into one between the Iranian and Vedic peoples, with their
different kinds of worship, and makes the "Kashmir-based Anava (= Iranian)
people fight "against the paurava/Vedic heartland in sapta saindhavah";
consequently, he claims, the Iranians also changed the meaning of deva
'god' to daeuua 'demon'... (All these are outdated views that were
prominent around the turn of the 19th/20th century).
12  RV 1.25.20; cf. also RV 7.87.4, 7.66.813 Generally, against its use, Zimmer (1990) and cf. Cowgill (1986: 66-68);
but note its usefulness (§12.6), in the discussion of plants and animals.
14  For many decades now, a discredited term which is too vague to describe
the great degree of variation among humans and not a valid indicator of
anthropological and genetic distinctions between various human populations;
see Cavalli-Sforza 1995.
15 Some writers are still confused by the racist terminology of the 'blond,
blue-eyed Aryan'. As Cavalli-Sforza (1994) has shown, such physical
characteristics are local adaptations to a northern climate  (e.g.,
prominent in the non-IE speaking Finns). Elst (1999: 230) strangely
concludes from such data that the home of IE "lay further to the
southeast," [in N. India] and that the Panjab "was already an area of first
colonialization, bringing people of a new and whiter physical type [=
Panjabis]  into the expanding Aryan [= IE!] speech community which was
originally darker". pataJjali, mahAbhASya [2.2.6: 411:16 sqq.] with a
reference to piGgala- and kapila-keza 'golden/tawny haired' Brahmins is
discussed as well. -- For those who still stress outward appearance
('race') it may be instructive to look at the photos of a well known actor
(turned from 'white' > 'black') or a female of mixed "African-American and
Native American" ancestry, who after a little make up, convincingly appears
as 'Caucasian', Black, East Asian, etc. (Stringer and McKie 1996: 172-3).
16 Curiously, Elst 1999: 174 sq., elaborates on this well known fact by
stressing that the European Pre-Kurgan population has come from the East,
and considers it "one of the reasonable hypotheses" that they came from
India. Reasonable? India has always functioned  --apart from being a
stepping stone the very early migration of Homo Sapiens from Africa to
(S.)E. Asia and Australia in c. 50,000-40,000 BCE-- as  a cul de sac.
17 Elst 1999: 209 discusses the designation of the 'Others' in the RV as
'black'  by simply pointing to the richness of metaphors in Sanskrit. See
rather Witzel 1995 and Hock 1999; Elst's discussion of varNa (1999: 210)
lacks the old IE aspect of attributing color to the three classes (Puhvel
1987);  he rather combines them with the much later Indian concept of the
colors of  sattva, rajas, and tamas!
18 The point is merely mentioned here in passing as some writers still use
such characterizations frequently and as  they attach importance to such
sentences as the preceding one from Kashmir which simply express regional
racism. Others, usually 'autochthonously' minded writers have frequently
attacked,  preferably on the internet, my earlier statements (1995) which
were made precisely in the same spirit as the ones here. At any rate, what
kind of outward appearance would one expect from northwestern immigrants?
That of Bengalis or Tamils, or rather  that of Afghanis?
19 The term a-nAs, which occurs just once in the Rgveda, was originally
translated as 'mouthless' by Grassmann etc. (see below, n. 230), but has
later on been understood by MacDonell-Keith etc. as 'noseless, snub-nosed';
see now Hock (1999) and cf. the speculations and elaborations of Elst
(1999: 208).
20 He summarizes the results presented by Hemphill, Lukacs and Kennedy,
Biological adaptations and affinities of the Bronze Age Harappans, in:
Harappa Excavations 1986-1990, edited by R. Meadow; see now Kennedy 2000.
-- Apparently, the distinction is between early 2nd millennium skeleta and
samples from populations dated to after 800 BCE (late Bronze age and early
Iron age of Sarai Khola). Given the difference in time, this may not mean
much. Note also that  the calibration of radiocarbon dates in the Eighties
was inconsistent, and that around 800 BCE the amount of C14 in the
atmosphere started dropping. Ordinary radiocarbon dates for the period 800
- 400 BC, have highly unpredictable uncalibrated values. A new
investigation is in order. -- Similarly about the continuity of Indian
populations,  Kenoyer (as quoted by Elst 1999: 236; -- Elst, however, then
lapses into an altogether inappropriate political discussion of what
Kenoyer might have thought, or not, about present Indian politics and the
BJP! It is a mystery why such political items constantly get introduced
into discussions of archaeological and literary facts).
21 This point, already mentioned in Witzel 1995, is deliberately(?)
misunderstood by indigenists and Out of India  proponents (usually, on the
internet).  It does not matter  that the Huns' intrusion was an actual
invasion (and not a trickling in) by a group of horse riding nomads: they
left as little genetic imprint in the European subcontinent as the
immigrating IA bands and tribes did in the Indian subcontinent. In so far,
both types of incursions can be compared well, in spite of the loud
protests of the autochthonists who like to brand such statements as
'invasionist';  however, see below n. 23.
22 RV 10.16.14, etc. speaks of  burial, cremation, exposing bodies on trees
and of 'throwing' dead bodies away.
23 While preliminary mtDNA data taken from present day populations do not
show much variation -- mtDNA is restricted to the (frequently more
sedentary) female lineage only -- there are indications already that the
study of the male-only Y chromosome will revolutionize our thinking. In any
immigration scenario, the Y chromosome obviously is of more interest. The
matter has been discussed at length at the Third Round Table on
Ethnogenesis of South and Central Asia at Harvard University, May 12-14,
2000, see: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~sanskrit/RoundTableSchedule.html.
Just as in Bamshad  et al. (2001), there are clear indications of several
incursions, after c. 50,000 BCE, of bearers of different types of Y
chromosome polymorphisms from Western Asia, terminating in South Asia or
proceeding further eastwards. Several of them do not correspond to, and go
beyond, the seven Principal Components of Cavalli-Sforza et al. (1994:
135-8). The impact of immigrants, however, can have been relatively
minimal. See for example Cavalli-Sforza about the immigrant Magyars
(Hungarians). They now look just like their neighbors, as these late, 9th
cent. CE, horse riding invaders left only a minimal trace in the larger
Danubian gene pool (quoted by Elst 1999: 224,  from an interview of
Cavalli-Sforza in Le Nouvel Observateur of 1/23/1992); see now Semino 2000:
1158 for lack of "Uralic genes" in Hungary. Nevertheless, the Magyars, just
like Indo-Aryan speakers, imposed or transmitted, under certain social
conditions, their language to the local population, and the Magyars also
retained their own religion until they turned to the local religion,
Christianity, around 1000 CE.
24 It is a fallacy to compare various Brahmin groups of India in order to
establish a common older type. Brahmins, just like other groups, have
intermarried with local people, otherwise how would some Newar Brahmins
have 'Mongoloid' characteristics, or how would Brahmins of various parts of
India have more in common with local populations than with their
'brethren', e.g. in the northwest? Studies based on just one area and a few
markers only, such as E. Andhra (Bamshad 2001) do not help much (cf. also
Elst 1999: 214, 217). Early acculturation processes (especially when
following the model of Ehret, 1988) may have resulted in the  inclusion of
many local elements into the brAhmaNa class, cf. Kuiper 1955, 1991, 2000,
Witzel  1989, 1995, 1997, 1999a,b.
25 Note the difficulty of obtaining contemporary DNA materials due to the
(telling!) transition to cremation in the early post-Indus period (Cemetery
H at Harappa and in  Cholistan).
26 Cf. Witzel 1995. Many of such data  have been summed up and cogently
discussed by Kochhar 1999; however, not all of his results (e.g. the
restriction of the RV habitat to S. Afghanistan) can be  sustained.
27 Actually, even this is, strictly speaking, not necessary. The constant
interaction of "Afghan" highlanders and Indus plain agriculturists could
have set off the process. A further opening was created when, after the
collapse of the Indus Civilization, many of its people moved eastwards,
thus leaving much of the Indus plains free for IA style cattle breeding. A
few agricultural communities (especially along the rivers) nevertheless
continued, something that the substrate agricultural vocabulary of the RV
clearly indicates (Kuiper 1991, Witzel 1999a,b). In an acculturation
scenario the actual (small) number of people (often used a 'clinching'
argument by autochthonists) that set off the wave of adaptations does not
matter: it is enough that the 'status kit'  (Ehret)of the innovative group
(the pastoralist Indo-Aryans) was copied by some neighboring populations,
and then spread further. -- Hock (forthc.) seems to have misunderstood me
(1995: 322) when I mention transhumance movements. He thinks that this
weakens my case. On the contrary, such constant, repetitive movements
strengthen the case for close contact with the plains and eventual
acculturation, a fact well known from nomad studies elsewhere. (Note also
the take-over model: nomads, such as Arabs, Turks that were in close
contact with sedentary populations and who eventually usurped power in
their host societies).
28 Others are more problematic. Elst (1999: 183) has the IA gods
inda-bugash, but this collocation is not listed in Balkan (1954). We find
the maruts, perhaps bhaga (as bugas'!).-- himalaya (Rajaram & Frawley 1997:
123) is a phantom, as it refers to the Kassite female deity s'umaliya, see
Balkan (1954). Incidentally, note that [Kikkuli's] manual on horse training
in not at all "written in virtually pure Sanskrit" (Rajaram and Frawley
1997: 123). From what tertiary sources did they derive these innovative
insights? -- Curiously, Elst (1999: 184) lets the Kassites immigrate,
without any evidence (but probably following Rajaram & Frawley 1997: 124),
"from Sindh to S. Mesopotamia" as a "conquering aristocracy" in a "planned
invasion," after the "desiccation of the Sarasvati area in 2000 BCE."
Actually, the Kassite language is neither Indo-Aryan, nor Sumerian,
Elamite, Akkadian or Hurrite. It is belongs to altogether unknown language
group; for details see Balkan 1954.
29 For other areas of Eurasia; -- in the case of South Asia, however, he
thinks of elite dominance achieved through Indo-Aryan immigration.
30 See Hock, forthc. (lecture at the July 2000 meeting of the World
Association of Vedic Studies at Hoboken, NJ, kindly made available to me by
the author).
31 The Gypsies claim to be from Egypt or from Ur, that is biblical S. Iraq,
the Afghanis from Palestine (see below).
32 Necessarily, in the (north-)west. Who, in all seriousness, would claim
IA immigration via the difficult western Himalayan/Pamir trails or, worse,
from South of  the Vindhyas? (The Vindhyas, incidentally, are not  even
mentioned in Vedic literature). Immigration or large scale movement by
armies via the often difficult high passes of the Himalayas has been
extremely rare, and is attested apparently only in the case of some Saka at
the beginning of our era, of the Turkish adventurer Haidar into Kashmir in
the early 15th cent.,  of  a Chinese army into U.P. in the early  7th c.
CE, called in to help Harsha's successor, see n. 37. -- Individual Vedic
passages, including those used in my 1995 paper -- in general, this is
merely a first brief outline of method and a first summary of a longer
study to follow,-- certainly can be discussed or challenged, which is
always welcome. For one such case, see below n. 46. -- Hock (forthc.) has
now challenged my interpretation (actually merely an aside, in parentheses,
Witzel 1995: 324) of another passage, RV 2.11.18, where I took savyataH "on
the left" as meaning 'north'. This statement was based on a previous
detailed study of the designations for the directions of the sky (Witzel
1972) that was ignored by Hock (who, ironically, then proceeds to tell
readers virtually the same IE facts as given in more detail in Witzel
1972). In that early paper, I pointed out cases where 'right' = south, and
where 'left' (savya, even uttara!) mean 'north' in IE languages. In that
sense, my apparently enigmatic statement: "Vedic poets faced the east -
their presumed goal -- in contemplating the world." Hock seems to have
misunderstood the passage: the "presumed goal" of course refers to the
immigration theory,  "contemplation" to the Vedic (and IE) world view. --
While this passage by no means is a proof for an eastward immigration of
the Indo-Aryans and certainly was not presented as one, it fits in the
general scheme of movement, for which I presented an initial account and
cumulative evidence in my 1995 paper. And that is why it was quoted. In
short, a lot ado about nothing. Of course, this singular sentence (as
discussed by Hock in his forthc. paper, at a conference) has again be used
to advantage by some fervent adversaries of the immigration theory, as
always on the internet, to "prove" that the immigration (their "invasion")
theory as such  is wrong.
33 We cannot rely at all on a connection between rip- and the Rhipaen
(Ural) mountains, as mentioned by Bongard-Levin (quoted in Witzel 1995).
Since my casual reference to his paper has been repeatedly discussed (and
misinterpreted) on the internet (and by Talageri 2000: 96, 467, in
'psychological' fashion!), I underline, again, that the similarity between
Greek Rhip- and Ved. rip-  is accidental, and that RV rip-  'deceit'  has
nothing to do with the Ural Mountains.
34 The sindhu = O.P. handu, Avest. h@Ndu, if with P. Thieme, from sidh 'to
divide', does indeed divide not only the Vedic and Iranian territories, but
it also is the boundary (cf. Avest. zraiiah vourukaS~a) between the settled
world and the Beyond; however, in several Indian languages (incl.
Burushaski sinda, Werchikwar dial. sende < Shina : sin?) it simply seems to
indicate 'river', perhaps a secondary development. A. Hintze (1998) has
shown early take-over of IA geographical terms into Iranian; note also that
the mythical central mountain, us.h@Ndauua 'emerging from the river/ocean
[vourukaS~a]' (see Witzel 2000, 1984) presupposes an IIr word *sindhu
'boundary of the inhabited world, big stream, ocean'.
35 Elst (1999: 206), neglecting or misrepresenting the linguistic
arguments, takes the dAsa/daha as "the Vedic people's white-skinned
Iranians cousins" (sic! ) while most of the dasyu, dAsa of the RV clearly
are Indian tribes of the Greater Panjab. Rather, he takes, against the
Greek, Iranian and Indian evidence quoted above, the specialized North
Iranian (Khotanese) meaning 'man' as the original meaning of the word.
36 Parpola 1988; cf. also Harmatta, in Dani 1992: 357-378, Re'dei 1986, 1988.
37 The little used Himalayan route of immigration is to be excluded (only
some Saka and medieval Turks are known to have used it). The RV does not
contain strong reminiscences of Xinjiang or W. Tibet, with the only
possible exclusion of the rasA RV 10.75, cf. however Staal  1990 (and a
forthc. paper). -- For the Afghani highland areas, see now Witzel 2000,
with references to some non-IA reminiscences in Avestan texts.
38 Elst (199: 167) brings up the indigenist contention of a 'sea-going'
sarasvatI -- for this see below §26 and n. 202, 206. Note, however:  while
the Iranian haraxvaitI does not flow to the 'sea' but into a lake or
rather, series of lakes (the Hamun) -- Elst and others  autochthonists
generally neglect the meaning of the word samudra in the Veda (see Klaus
1986)--   both rivers end in inland desert deltas of terminal lakes (Hamun)
viz. the sarasvatI inland delta near Ft. Derawar; see §25.
39 Elst (1999: 166) excoriates me for not supplying data of reminiscences
that are in fact well known (Parpola 1988, etc.) and that are actually
mentioned in Witzel 1995: 321, 103, 109 sq. --  In addition, he reverses
such data to make them fit an unlikely emigration of the Indo-Europeans
from India (see below). In the same context, Elst (1999: 168 sq.)
misrepresents, in a discussion of Staal's theories of the directions in the
agnicayana, the meaning of Indo-Iranian directions of the sky. Avestan
paurva  (correctly,  paouruua) does not mean 'south' (Elst)  but 'east',
see Witzel 1972.
40 Elst (1999: 171) excoriates me for not noticing that Iranian connections
in the RV are restricted to the 'late' 8th maNDala and that are, in his
view, not found in the oldest parts of the RV. This is a fallacy: see above
on the rivers rasA,  sarasvatI, sarayu, gomatI, sindhu and persons such as
the (half-mythical) mountain chieftain zambara who are prominent in the old
books 4-6. In this context, Elst brings up and relies on the conclusions of
Talageri (2000) whose "survey of the relative chronology of all Rg-Vedic
kings and poets has been based exclusively on the internal  textual
evidence, and yields a completely consistent chronology" and whose "main
finding is that the geographical gradient of Vedic Aryan culture in its
Rg-vedic stage is from east to west..." This view is based on a fallacy as
well: Talageri, in spite of claiming to use only RV-internal evidence, uses
the post-Rgvedic anukramaNIs as the basis of his theory and even
surrepetitiously injects purANic notions (see § 7, n.178, Witzel 2001).
41 See Witzel 1995. Individual passages can and should certainly be
discussed. However, Hock (forthc.) goes to far in denying any value to
allusions and descriptions referring to immigration as found in the RV:
against the background of strong linguistic and (so far, sporadic)
archaeological evidence, they serve as supporting materials and additional
evidence; cf. n. 26 sq., above.
42 They rely on *one* mistranslated statement in the purANas (see Witzel
2001, and below n. 86), composed and collected  several thousand years
after the fact. On the unreliability of the purANic accounts see §19, and
Soehnen  1986.
43 Witzel 1979, 1986, Wezler 1996.
44 The Sandhi in gandhArayasparzavo is problematic. The MSS are corrupt
ansd differ very much from each other. However, parzu must be intended; it
is attested since RV 8.6.46, a book that has western (Iranian) leanings
(Witzel 1999), cf. OP pArsa 'Persian' < *pArsva < *pArc'ua. The Arattas
(with various spellings, AraTTa, arATTa), are a western people as well,
like the gandhAra and other 'outsiders' (bAhIka, ZB 1.7.8.3, Mbh 8.2030).
One may compare the old Mesopotamian name Aratta, indicating a distant
eastern country from where Lapis Lazuli is brought (Witzel 1980); it seems
to refer to Arachosia, which is just north of  the Chagai Hills that
produce Lapis (just as the more famous  Badakhshan, north of the
Hindukush); see now Possehl 1996b and P. Steinkeller 1998. -- Elst 1999:
184 wants to understand this ancient Sumerian term as a prAkRt word, from
a-rASTra, again inventing an early prAkRt before 2000 BCE, which simply is
linguistically impossible  (see n.167, on Mitanni satta) and which also
does not fit the non-IIr. linguistic picture of 3rd millennium Greater Iran
(see § 17).
45 Alternatively, echoing the first sentence: "amAvasu (went) westwards."
See discussion in the next note.
46 This passage, quoted in an earlier publications (1989, excerpted and
--unfortunately-- simply computer-copied in 1995), was not correctly
translated as printed in 1989/1995. It has elicited lively, if not emotive
and abusive internet discussions, even alleging  "fabrication of evidence"
(see also Elst 1999: 164, who misattributes to me "the desire to counter
the increasing skepticism regarding the Aryan invasion theory", as reason
for writing my paper), -- all of  this in spite of repeated on-line
clarifications over the years and of general apologies (Witzel 1997: 262
n.21). -- Retrospectively, I should have printed the full explanation in
that footnote, but I was sure then that I could  do so in the earlier
version of  this very paper, slated for print in 1997).
What had occurred was that I had unfortunately misplaced a parenthesis in
the original publication of 1989 devoted not to the Aryan migration but to
OIA dialects (and simply copied in my 1995 paper, a short summary of RV
history), -- i.e. I printed: "(His other people) stayed at home in the
West"  instead of:  (His other people stayed) at home in the West". In this
way I had unfortunately intermingled translation and interpretation in
these two summary style papers, without any further discussion, -- which
set me up for such on-line criticisms as that of  recent adversaries who
deduce (e.g., amusingly, in the Indian right wing journal, The Organiser)
that I do not even know the rudiments of pANinean grammar. (Of course, I
teach, in first year Sanskrit, the past tense of amA  + vas as amAvasan,
not amAvasuH, a 'mistake' some critics rhetorically accuse me of, in spite
of hundreds of correct translations of such past tenses!) Or, worse, they
accuse me of "fabricating evidence" for the invasion theory.
However, the passage plays, in the usual brAhmaNa style, with these names
and their nirukta-like interpretations and etymologies. They are based
(apart from Ayu : AyuS 'full life span'), on the names of the two sons of
purUravas, amAvasyu : amA vas 'to dwell at home', as opposed to Ayu :  ay/i
'to go', contrasting the 'stay home' peoples in the west (AmAvasyavaH:
gandhAra, parzu, arATTa) with those (AyavaH: kuru-paJcAla, kAzi-videha)
who went /went forth (ay/i + pra vraj) eastwards, as the text clearly says.
--
A note of caution may be added: The missing verb in the collocation pratyaG
amAvasus allows, of course, suppletion of pravavrAja. If one follows that
line of argument,  one group (the AyavaH) 'went east', the other one (the
AmAvasyavaH) 'went west', both from an unknown central area, to the west of
the kuru lands. The kurukSetra area is excluded as the kurus went eastwards
(i.e. toward it!), apparently from somewhere in the Panjab, (e.g., from the
paruSNI, the place of the Ten Kings' Battle, RV 7.18).
While the syntax may speak for the second possibility, the inherent
etymological and stylistic possibilities render both interpretations given
above somewhat ambiguous. -- Whatever interpretation one chooses, this
evidence for movements inside the subcontinent (or from its northeastern
borders, in Afghanistan) changes little about the bulk of evidence
assembled from linguistics and from the RV itself that points to an outside
origin of Vedic Sanskrit and its initial speakers. In other words, the
weight given by some the internet to their point that a different
interpretation of this passage would remove (all) evidence for an
immigration/trickling in of speakers of Indo-Aryan is, at a minimum
overblown, and in fact just a rhetorical ploy. This passage is of course
just one, and a late one at that,  speaking of tribal movements. Therefore,
Elst's overblown summary (1999: 165) "The fact that a world-class
specialist has to content himself with a late text... and that has to twist
its meaning this much in order to get an invasionist story out of it..." is
just rhetorics. The passage in question is just one point in the whole
scheme of immigration and acculturation, a fact that Elst does not take
into account here.  ---
The gandhAri clearly are located in E. Afghanistan/N. Pakistan, the parzu
in Afghanistan and the arATTa seem to represent the Arachosians (cf. Witzel
1980); note the Mesopot. Aratta, the land of Lapis Lazuli (cf. Possehl
1996b, Steinkeller 1998).
47 The parzu and arATTa are not known to be orthoprax, the gandhAri may be
so, if we apply upaniSadic notices, such as BAU 3.3., cf. Witzel 1987.
48 The adoption of  the eastern tribes (puNDra etc.) legend by vizvAmitra
in the zunaHzepa legend (AB 7.13 sqq.) clearly reflects this policy. The
AraTTa (BZS 18.13) appear next to other peoples outside the Kuru orthoprax
orbit: gAndhAra, sauvIra, karaskara, kaliGga; some of these and others in
eastern and southern India are still regarded as 'outsiders' in late Vedic
texts (AB 7.18); for earlier 'outsiders' such as the balhika, kAzi, aGga
see AV 5.22, PS 12.1-2. and not the constant criticism of the "Panjabis",
from the brAhmaNa texts onwards.
49 An emigration westwards, as imagined by Out of India  proponents, is
excluded by a variety of arguments, discussed below, see §12.2 sqq.
50 Curiously, Elst (1999: 172), after constantly propagating Out of India
theories, makes a half-hearted turn: "perhaps such an invasion from a
non-Indian homeland into India took place at a much earlier date, so that
is  was forgotten by the time of the composition of the Rg-Veda." When
should Elst's hypothetical immigration have taken place, at the time of the
African Exodus, 50,000 BCE? Or with the arrival of wheat in the last 10,000
years, from the Near East (Ved. godhUma < gant-uma < N. Eastern **xand ?
51 In Vedic this would be: arya, tura/tUra, *zarima, *z(y)ena, dAsa.
52  Leaving aside various incorrect details  (e.g., 'writing' of the gAthAs
by Zoroaster; angra mainiiu < aGgiras!), Elst's (and also Talageri's)
identification of airiiana,m vaEjah as Kashmir is entirely gratuitous
(Witzel 2000). -- Elst (1999: 196) even makes the Croats (Hrvat) descend
from the Iranian haraxvaitI (a feature now often repeated on the internet),
while it is a well known fact of IE linguistics that Slavic retains IE s
(but, Iran. harah <  IIr  saras < IE  *seles). Of course, nothing is ever
heard of a movement of the Arachosians towards Croatia... (and there are no
connections with the Alans, who moved westwards from the steppes with the
Vandals). -- Elst generally assumes, with Talageri, an emigration of the
Iranians ("Anava") from Kashmir into the Punjab and hence to Iran, just
because the vIdEvdAd mentions the hapta h@Ndu lands; he conveniently
neglects that  according to this text, the Panjab is one of the least
desirable lands (15th out 16, being "too hot", see Witzel 2000). Hock
(forthc.) discusses these assumptions of Elst and his predecessors
(Talageri, Bhargava) in some detail, and states, correctly, that the
vIdevdAd cannot be used to show an emigration Out of India (Elst's
"obviously Kashmir"). However, Hock proceeds to use the text as a possible
testimony for an immigration into India, including the old but wrong
assertion that airiiana,m vaEjah could be Choresmia. This entirely
overlooks the ancient Indian and Iranian schemes of organization of
territories  (summed up in Witzel 2000). The text simply has an
anti-clockwise description of the (east) Iranian (airiia) lands.
53 This calque was formed on the basis of the old Indo-European stem -tu
which then became fossile (-tvI, tum, tave, etc.), see Kuiper 1967.
54 The RV is, by and large, a composition of poets of the pUru and bharata,
and not of some earlier IA tribes already living  in the Panjab (Witzel
1995). -- Such types of linguistic relationship are, of course, different
from a genetic relationship that some adherents of the autochthonous theory
suppose (see below). Cf. also Deshpande's essay on Sanskrit in his
saMskRtasubodhinI.
55 Rajaram 1995: 219 "unproven conjectures", and similar statements. He
regards comparative linguistics as 'unscientific', -- strange, for a
science that can make predictions! Yet, Rajaram is a scientist, an engineer
and mathematician by training.
56 Surprisingly, Talageri (1993: 205) finds that "the overwhelming majority
of  Sanskrit names for Indian plants and animals are derived from Sanskrit
and Indo-European (Bryant 1999: 74), even such structurally unfit words as
aTavi, kapi, bIja etc. (see discussion below). Even a brief  look into
KEWA, EWA (Mayrhofer's "unclear" etc.) would have convinced him of the
opposite -- but he simply does  not use such basic handbooks. In addition,
he regards linguistic arguments as 'hairsplitting' (2000: 248, 299), or  as
'a linguistic ploy'.
57 Especially when the underlying language is not one of the known ones --
IA, Proto-Drav., Proto-Munda, Proto-Burushaski, etc. but one of the unknown
Gangetic languages (such as  Masica's "Language X", see Masica 1979) or  my
own proposal for the Panjab-based prefixing Para-Munda language (Witzel
1999 a,b); cf.  Bryant 1999: 73.
58 In the heavily Anglicized Massachusetts area, for example, one does not
need to know the local native American language to notice that place names
such as Massatoit, Massachusetts, Wachusetts, Montachusetts, Cohasset,
Neponset, Mattapoisett, Mattapan, Mashpee, Chicopee, Nantucket, Pawtucket
are related and without English etymology.
59 The problem is entirely misunderstood by those (quoted  by Bryant 1999:
72) who merely delight in pointing out the differences in etymological
proposals by IE, Drav., or Munda proponents. That does not discredit the
linguistic (or even the etymological) method, as these branches of
linguistics are not yet as developed as IE/IA.  Even when the linguistic
method will have been refined in the non-IA languages of S. Asia, there
always will be some difference in opinion in those cases that actually
allow multiple interpretation, that is after one has applied the structural
rules of IA/IE,  Drav., Munda, described below; for  details  see Witzel
forthc. b).
60 With the exception of the onomatopoetic *kik in 'magpie', Skt. kiki- in
kikidIvi (EWA I 349); *mag/meg does not exist in IE.
61 C = consonant, M = voiced/mediae, T = unvoiced/tenues,  R = resonants =
y/w/r/l; not allowed are the types RCe- or  Rse- (Skt. *Rka, *usa, etc.),
and the types: *bed, *bhet, *tebh, *pep, *teurk/tekt (Skt. *bad, bhat,
tabh, tork). See Mayrhofer 1986: 95,  Szemere'nyi 1970: 90 sqq.
62 In short: (S) (T) (R) e (R) (T/S) where T = all occlusives, R =
resonant; forbidden are: M - M (*bed), M - T (*bhet), T - M (*tebh), same
occl. in one root, such as:  no *pep (exc. *ses), final 2 occl. or final 2
sonants, no: *tewrk, *tekt; - but  s-Teigh etc. are allowed. -- In spite of
these rules,  it does not mean that IA etymologies have not been attempted,
see KEWA, EWA, often working with supposed Prakritisms, as in the
improbable case of maganda < mRgAda 'deer eater'.
63 This should eliminate the doubt of those indigenists (cf. Bryant 1999:
80) who simply reject the notion of an unknown language or language family
as source for the local loan words, language(s) that have subsequently been
lost. After all, Sumerian, Elamite, Etruscan etc. belong to such isolated
language families and these language(s) (families) have disappeared without
descendants. Such deliberations, however, do not deter linguistic amateurs
such as Talageri (1993: 200) who speaks of "a twilight zone of purely
hypothetical non-existent languages." How many languages disappear in India
per decade now?  Including Nahali, fairly close to Talageri's home. They
all will be pretty "hypothetical" in a decade or so unless they are
recorded now (see Mother Tongue II-III, 1996-97): a useful, but largely
neglected field of study by those who engage in endless AIT/OIT
discussions, and could do useful work in the linguistic/cultural history of
India instead. Especially, as 'tribals' have been and to some extent still
are off limits for non-Indian researchers.
64 Cf. the discussion by Bryant 1999: 75. It is precisely these local words
that are of importance if the Indo-Aryans would have been autochthonous to
the Greater Panjab. But, such plants and animal names are 'foreign',
non-IE/IA (see Witzel 1999a,b). -- It is quite different problem (Bryant
1999: 76) that many plant names in IE do not have a clear etymon. Bryant
overlooks that they are IE, IA  in structure and as such, inherited from
PIE into IA. Worse, Talageri simply does not understand how a language
develops over time, from pre-PIE to PIE to IIr, to IA (1993: 206) when he
thinks that such words simply were colloquial or slang words. That, of
course, fits nicely with his view that 'rare' words in Skt. may have a
colloquial origins as well. All remain within the fold!
65 Details in Witzel 1999a, cf. Bryant 1999: 78. Significantly, there is a
cluster of non-IA names in  eastern Panjab and Haryana (including the local
name of the sarasvatI, vi<s'am>bal/z'!), where the successor  cultures of
the Indus Civilization continued  for  a long time.
66 Bryant's proposal  (1999: 77) that the non-IE loanwords in Iranian must
come from the Proto-IIr that was spoken in Eastern Iran before the Iranians
moved in cannot be substantiated. The individual P-Iran. and P-IA  forms of
such loans often differ from each other (Witzel 1999a, b, Lubotsky,
forthc.) which is typical for repeated loans from a third source. However,
he thinks that there are no local loan words in Iranian from the pre-IE
languages; nevertheless  see Witzel 1999a,b.
67 Similarly, the Huns in India are only known from historical records and
from the survival of their name as (hara-)hUNa in the MahAbhArata or hUN in
some Rajasthani clans.
68One may also think of part of the assemblage of the Cemetery H culture of
the Panjab (see above, n. 25).
69 J. Lukacs asserts unequivocally that no significant population changes
took place in the centuries prior to 800 BC; see now Kennedy 1995,  2000.
70 Talageri, though mentioning --unlike other OIT advocates--  the value of
linguistics (2000: 415),  merely lists some words and compares them as
look-alikes, in nirukta fashion. Data are listed and discussed without any
apparent linguistic background and with lack of any critical, linguistic
faculty. Elst is better prepared philologically and linguistically, yet
still lacks linguistic sophistication; his linguistic evaluation (1999: 118
sqq, 137) is lacuneous and misses much of what is discussed in this paper;
this lack is substituted  for by a lot of gratuitous speculation of when
and how the hypothetical Indian Indo-Europeans could have emigrated from
India.
71 No doubt due to his complete (self-imposed?) scholarly isolation at
Benares. His (lone?) trip to an international meeting in Dushanbe, duly
noted in his introduction his 1992 book, provided him with some contacts,
-- unfortunately not the best ones, see his rather uncritical use of
Harmatta's materials (below §12.2, n.97).
72 Bryant (1999) reports that he found, already in 1994-5,   that a
majority of Indian scholars "had rejected the Aryan invasion/migration
completely, or were open to reconsider it."
73 For one such case see below,  n. 235. -- The opposite is seen in
deriving Skt. from Arabic in a book published in Pakistan: Mazhar 1982.
74 The list of such internet and printed publications waxes  greatly, by
the month. There now exists a closely knit, self-adulatory group, members
of which often write conjointly and/or copy from each other. Quite
boringly, they also churn out long identical passages, in book after book,
sometimes paragraph by paragraph, all copied in cottage industry fashion
from earlier books and papers; the whole scene has become one virtually
indistinguishable hotchpotch. A 'canonical' list would  include, among
others: Choudhury 1993, Elst 1999, Danino  1996, Feuerstein, Kak, and
Frawley  1995, Frawley 1994, Kak 1994, Klostermaier (in Rajaram and Frawley
1997), Misra 1992, Rajaram 1993, 1995, Rajaram and Frawley 1995, 1997,
Rajaram and Jha 2000, Sethna 1980, 1981, 1989, 1992, Talageri 1993, 2000.
Among them, Choudhury stands somewhat apart by his extreme chauvinism. --
These and many others frequent the internet with letters and statements
ranging from scholarly opinions and prepublications to inane accusations
and blatant politics and hate speech; such ephemeral 'sources' are not
listed here; I have, however, been collecting them as they will form
interesting source material for a study of the landscape of (expatriate)
Indian mind of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.
75 For place names see also Szemere'nyi (1970), and Vennemann 1994, and the
new (IA) substrate theories in Lubotsky (forthc.).
76 The recent denigration of this shift by some OIT-ers  such as Elst is
entirely disingenuous; he insists on calling any migration or 'trickling
in' an "invasion". However, immigration / trickling in and acculturation
(which works both ways, from newcomer to indigenous, and from indigenous to
newcomer!) is something entirely different from a (military) invasion, or
from overpowering and/or from eradicating the local population. --
Incidentally, I have it on good oral authority that the idea of Indra
destroying the 'fortification walls' of the Indus towns was created by V.S.
Agrawal who served as cicerone in Wheeler's time, and that Wheeler merely
overheard him and simply picked up the idea.
77 To mention a personal experience: when I related some of the materials
that went into this paper to a well-known scholar of the older generation
some three years ago (that is, someone who has considerably advanced our
understanding of the Indo-Iranian and IA question) this scholar was simply
unaware of  the present discussion, and in fact, could not believe what he
heard.
78 Elst, though not without philological and linguistic training (Ph.D.
Leuven, Belgium), is quite lacuneous in his interpretations and does not
discuss the fine linguistic details, see below and n. 70. In his "Update"
(Elst 1999), he delights in speculating about an Indian Urheimat of IE and
a subsequent emigration, with 'Indian' invasions of Europe, all while
neglecting that linguistic data speak against it, see Hock 1999 and §12.3
sqq.
79 Though Talageri (2000) even refuses the link of Vedic with Iranian.
80 Note for example, in the present context, the discussion among
scientists  about the various palaeo-channels of the sarasvatI
(Sarsuti-Ghaggar-Hakra), in  Radhakrishnan and  Merh (1999), or the first
appearance of the horse in South Asia (Meadow 1998).
81 Such absolute skepticism, though, is always welcome as a hermeneutic
tool; but, it has to be relativized: one may maintain that linguistic
palaeontology does not work (S. Zimmer 1990), but how is it that IE words
for plants and animals consistently point to a temperate climate and to a
time frame before the use of iron, chariots, etc.? The few apparent
inconsistencies can be explained (e.g., doubtful etymologies for the
'elephant', etc. see below n.127, 149).
82 It might be summed up as follows. If his rules were correct, we would
expect Skt. azva 'horse' to correspond to Latin equu-s, but then how could
ka 'who' to correspond to Latin qui-s? How could z as well as k turn into
Latin qu (and how does the -u- come about)?  Skt. k usually corresponds to
c [k] in Latin, as in kalaza, Lat. calix; kaJcate, L. cingO; kRNatti, cf.
L. cratis, crassus; kavi, L. caveO; kUpa, L. cUpa; kupyati, L. cupiO;
kakSA, L. coxa;  kraviS, L. cruor,  etc. On the other hand, Skt. z
corresponds to a palatal k' which also appears as c [k] in Latin. How would
the early Latin speakers have 'decided' which sound to 'choose'?  ---
Again, if  IE *a > e, o, a, how could the early Latin speakers 'decide' to
turn the initial a- and final a of azva into e- and -u respectively? Worse,
if Skt. agni 'fire' corresponds to Latin igni-s, why does a turn to i? Or
how can Skt.  avRtta-/ajJAta correspond to Latin invert-/ ignotu-? Misra
has not explained such cases and has provided only some ad hoc rules to
show the closeness of IE and Skt. -- However, all these developments have
been explained by IE linguistics, for more than a century,  in a coherent
way (IE = Latin e, o, a > Skt. a; IE > vowel n > Skt. a,  Lat. in, etc. ).
83 Archaeologists have proposed as area of the domestication of the horse
and the (later) development of the horse drawn chariot, in the Ukraine and
the plains west and east of the Urals. From there, a trail of evidence
leads to Pirak (c. 1700 BC), the Swat valley (c. 1400 BC),  -- and, of
course, to the RV (textual evidence, see §8).
84 The unspoken "principle" of locating the (IE) homeland: "the homeland is
at, or close to the homeland of the author of the book in question..."
(Witzel, 2000). --  Talageri claims to have based his study of the RV only
on RV materials, but introduces late Vedic and purANic concepts (see below
§12.2, Witzel 2001); not surprisingly, then,  the outcome is a Gangetic
homeland.
85 Elst 1999: 159 sq. stresses, like many other indigenists, that "India
was the best place on earth for food production"  and that "a generous
country like India must have had a large population," both unsubstantiated
articles of faith. Note that the Indus Valley has only gradually been
settled, from the Baluchi/Afghani hills, and that  the Gangetic plain
remained very sparsely settled for much longer. (Cf. also the negative
description of the Panjab by E. Iranians, in vIdEvdAd, see n. 52). Elst's
imaginative description is compounded by repeating the nationalistic view
that "the ancient Hindus colonized the world". But India, by and large,
always has been a cul de sac. Otherwise, autochthonists wonder why a 'large
population' could take over IA language(s) brought in by a few tribes. A
few comparisons across history would have provided many and diverse
examples. For the dominance model: Norman French introduced by a few
knights and their followers in Anglo-Saxon England, or for a trade
language: Swahili, starting out from the coast and by now covering most of
E. Africa and the eastern half of the Congo (incidentally, mostly spreading
without Islamization).
86 It must be pointed out that all of this is based on one misrepresented
passage from several purANas, given by Talageri 1993: 368 and 2000: 260
sq., typically, twice in untranslated form, which makes it easy to impute
any meaning desired, in case a "first historical emigration ... of the
Druhyu into the areas to the north of Afghanistan (ie. into Central Asia
and beyond)." The passage is found with some variants, at BrahmANda
2.74.11, Brahma 13.152, HarivaMza 1841, Matsya 48.9, VAyu 99.11, cf. also
ViSNu 4.17.5, BhAgavata 9.23.15, see Kirfel 1927: 522: PracetasaH
putrazataM rAjAnaH sarva eva te //  mleccharASTrAdhipAH sarve udIcIm dizam
AzritAH, which means, of course, not that these '100' kings conquered the
'northern countries' way beyond the Hindukush or Himalayas, but that all
these 100 kings, sons of pracetAs (a descendant of a 'druhyu'), kings of
mleccha kingdoms, are 'adjacent' (Azrita) to the 'northern direction,' --
which since the Vedas and pANini has signified Greater gandhAra. -- Elst
(1999: 122) even weaves in the disputed Bangani evidence (Witzel 1999 a,b)
that point to a western (centum) IE remnant in the Himachal Pradesh Hills,
like that of  Tocharian in Xinjiang, W. China.
87 Talageri achieves such evidence by twisting the facts his way:  see the
discussion of Jahnův‡, n. 90, Witzel 2001.
88 sarayu, then was not  yet  the mod. Sarju in U.P.; gomatI,  that in PB
25.7.2 is already located in vibhinduka land, i.e. is the modern Gumti in
U.P., Witzel 1987:193.
89 RV 5.53.9, the mythical river at the end of the world or high up in the
Himalayas, the rasA /Avest. ranghA, and the kubhA (Kabul R.), krumu
(Kurram), sarayu (Herat R.); and 10.64.9: sarasvatI (=haraxvaitI, Helmand),
sarayu (Herat R.), sindhu (Indus); (see Witzel 1987, 1995, 1999; note that
both lists are probably ordered anti-clockwise, Witzel, 2000).
90 Note Mbh 1.3722 etc., son of ajamIDha, his daughter = gaGgA; -- jAhnAvI
Mbh 3.8211; jAhnava PB 22.12; cf. jahnu's descendants at AB 7.18, AzvZS
12.14, = 'gaGgA' at BhGItA 10.31, ViSNu Pur. 398; cf. Macdonell-Keith,
Vedic Index.
91 Note that the center of settlement in RV 3 is the eastern Panjab and the
sarasvatI area of Haryana, see Witzel 1995: 320.
92 For example, settlement in Kashmir by any Rgvedic tribe is very
doubtful, see Witzel 1994; in the later brAhmaNa period, uttara-madra
(however, not uttara-kuru) may refer to Kashmir .
93 Witzel 1987,1989, 1997. However, the "north", gandhAra and uttara-madra,
(uttara-kuru?) are always excluded, see Witzel 1989: 101.
94 See discussion in §9, nirukta, pataJjali and the kamboja language.
95 But see above §9 on the sarasvatI as political center in sudAs' time.
96  The following account was written before I heard, at the beginning of
Oct. 2000, of the author's demise. I am sorry that he can no longer reply
to the following points. However, as his book has been quoted in virtually
every publication propagating the autochthonous point of view, it is
important to point out  the facts which remain, even if  de mortuis nihil
nisi bene.
97 Reprinted in Harmatta 1992: 360-367. Harmatta actually is an historian
who, nevertheless,  is called by Misra "one of the leading
Indo-Europeanists." His paper has been used by many indigenists who cannot
judge these linguistic  materials.
98 Misra, of course, denies the development IE e, o, a > IIr, Ved. a;  this
reversal to early 19th cent. linguistics is refuted by Hock 1999.
99 Harmatta's list has no clear examples that date back to PIE. One may
discuss PFU *mete 'honey' < PIE *medhu, but the quality of the PFU vowels
preserved in these words is open to doubt (see below). Further, the
retaining of -w- in PFU *arwa 'present given to a guest' surprises as PIE
*orgwha- should have lost its labiovelar quality already by the time the
word turned into IIr *argha. Note, however, that Mayrhofer, EWA 114,
regards the PFU form as problematic (from *arg'a?, Finn. arvo); Katz's
Habilschrift was not available to me.
100 Parpola 1998, however, conflates the two stages and further conflates
them with the representation of IE e/o/a by FU e, o, a, ae etc.
101 These facts  should be counterchecked by FU specialists who may be able
to explain this phenomenon by vowel harmony or by the peculiarities of PFU
stress.
102 Conversely, there is apparently little FU in IE. Such one-sided
relationships, however, are not uncommon as they follow the predominant
cultural flow. The reason for the early occurrence of word for bee
(*meks'e) and honey (IE *medhu) may lie elsewhere, in the usefulness of
bee's wax to produce cire perdue metal products, which seem to be earlier
in the Taiga woodlands than in the steppes and even further south. In other
words, we here have a reverse cultural flow, from the woodlands into the
steppes. -- It must be pointed out that the few words in PFU that still
retain the nom. sg. masc. -s, such as tarwas, martas, taivas, porc'as,
werkas (and, including the case of pakas 'god', with a typical, much later,
Iran. semantic development from IIr Bhaga-s, the (god) "Share", see below)
do not point to an earlier take-over than that of other words without -s.
For, there are words such as the presumably very early *arwa 'present',
*jewae,  or *meks'e, where this has not taken place. -- However, the
typical Iran. change s > h is not yet seen in Harmatta's material, and it
may indeed be fairly late (c. 1000 BCE, see A. Hintze 1998). In short, some
of the late words  in the list may be of North Iranian (Scythian/Saka)
origin. -- For connections between IE and Altaic, see A. Rona-Tas 1988.
103 This is not to say that even the RV has a few forms, such as the
-disputed- jyotiS < dyotiS (aan de Wiel 2000); however Mitanni does not
have any such developments, see below (§18).
104 Some other topics of this nature will be taken up below (§13 sqq.) The
following passage, however, does not need any comment:  "In ancient times
in India such  RSis were very powerful. They were great teachers,
researchers, philosophers and scientists. If agastya had some power he
might have helped in bringing down the abnormal height of the vindhya
mountains which created a lack of contact of North and South. Thus a least
this is much likely that due to some factor the height of the vindhya
mountains became abnormally high, so that the path for contact of North and
South was blocked and due to the growth of population the people in the
North had to spread, naturally farther North. They used the routes like the
Khyber pass and left it and lost all contact and were finally lost to their
people ... as a result the Aryans had to go outside to North-West through
the Himalayan passes and this consequently was responsible for the spread
of Indo-European language family to the outside world." (Misra 1992: 70) Is
this  linguistics, prehistory, a 'scientific' mahA-bhArata? Or just a
reverse version of O. Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century?
105 The same applies to Austronesian, with a very close grouping in Taiwan
(and then in S.E. Asia), but subsequently, with the wider spread of just
one  subfamily, Polynesian, all across the Pacific. -- The center of Slavic
languages would be in or near the northern Carpathian mountains, indeed
close to the actual homeland of the Slavic speaking tribes. That of all
Romance languages would lead to central Italy, in other words,  to Rome. --
Elst 1999: 126 sq. points, as 'proof' for his Indian Urheimat of IE, to
some asymmetric expansions which are found as well, as in the (easily
explainable) case of Australia, with Arnhemland as the center and with the
rest of the continent as the area of a more recent expansion.
106 Elst (1999) includes a long chapter on links of IE with other language
families, with a curious mixture of correct and incorrect data; wrong are,
e.g., p. 141:  Ved. parazu 'axe' is not the same as Mesop. pilakku
'spindle' (see EWA II: 87);  on p. 145 there is the linguistically
surprising statement that, because Drav. and Munda are attested later than
Vedic, there is no reason to assume a borrowing from these languages into
Vedic, -- as if they did not have Proto-forms. -- Elst pays special
attention to links with Austronesian (p. 152 sqq.) as this would push the
Urheimat of IE into S. Asia, or even into S. China and S.E. Asia; this is
followed by a curious speculation of a Manu who would have led the
Indo-Europeans upstream on the Ganges towards the Panjab, ending with (p.
157) "India as a major demographic growth centre from which IE spread to
the north and west and Austronesian to the southeast as far as Polynesia".
The only  redeeming feature here is that he concludes (p. 158) "it is too
early to say that linguistics has proven an Indian origin for the IE
family."
107 Aurobindo felt that not only the people but also the original
connection between the Sanskrit and Tamil tongues to be far closer and more
extensive than is usually supposed and that they may have been two
divergent families derived from one "lost primitive tongue".
108 Nostratic, or Greenberg's just off the press Eur-Asiatic, are another
matter, but even these new theories still do not turn Drav. and IE into
Meso-/Neolithic neighbors inside India.
109 However, Iranian has some pre-RV features, while it misses all Indian
innovations, all of which makes a late emigration impossible, see §17.
110 Which, pace Misra, point to loans made during the Indo-Iranian and
Iranian periods, not in the Vedic period, see above.
111 In fact, most of the autochthonists have not even started to learn the
linguistic 'trade', and simply reject linguistics out of hand, as mentioned
above.
112 Note that the following list can be read both in the new,
autochthonous/indigenous way, that is of leaving India, or in the
'traditional' IE way, of leaving a S.E. European/C. Asian homeland.
113 Only the birch tree is found all the way from India to Europe: bhUrja
'betula utilis' (KS+); note that the Indian birch differs slightly from the
European one. We have: Iran. Pamir dial. furz, Shugni vAwzn < *barznI;
Osset. boers(oe);  Lith. be'rz'as, Serbo-Croat. bre`za; German Birke, Engl.
birch, etc.
114 The fir tree is found as Grk. pi'tus, Lat. pInus <*pItsn-, Skt.
pI'tu-dAru KS+ 'a fir, Pinus deodora' (pUtu'dru AV, pU'tudru TS+,  pUtudAru
KauzS), Dardic *pItsa? 'fir' CDIAL  8236, EWA II 137. Note also the word
for 'resin' which is closely related to trees such as the fir: Lat.
bitUmen, OHG quit 'glue', Ved. (sUtras) ja'tu 'lac, rubber',  N.Pers., z'Ad
'rubber', Pashto z'As'wla 'resin'  < IE *gwetu, EWA I 565.
115 Breton. gwern 'alder', Alban. ver@ 'Populus alba', Armen. geran 'plank,
board', varaNa 'Crataeva Roxburghii'; "unclear" EWA II 513; -- note also
Thieme (1954: 16)  sphya 'belonging to the asp tree', but cf. Pokorny 1959:
55, EWA II 779.
116 The Kashmir Valley now has: deodar (Cedrus deodara), pine (yar, Pinus
excelsa and chIl, Pinus longifolia),  fir,  yew (Taxus baccata), elm,
cypress, plane tree (Platanus orientalis), poplar, lime tree, wild
chestnut, willow, maple, hawthorn, many fruit trees, and at high altitudes:
birch, alder, juniper and rhododendron. -- Note that none of the local
words for these plants, except for the birch, exists west of the
subcontinent, or in autochthonous parlance, was 'exported' westwards.
117 Skt. parjanya, Lith. perku'nas, O. Slav. perunu, etc.
118 Avest. vaEti, OHG wIda, Grk. ite'a, Lat. vitex, Lith. z'il-vitis; cf.
also: OHG  felawa 'willow', Grk. heli'kE,  Ossetic faerw, farwe 'alder'.
119 See above for 'aspen'.
120 As for the distribution of the word, see Bartholomae 1898, Henning
1963, Lane 1967, summary by  Cowgill  1986: 86 sq. Note the famous Greek
adaptation of the word used for  temperate climate tree, the 'beech'  > the
mediterranean Grk. phEgo's 'oak'; while Lat. fagus 'beech', Germ. Buche,
OHG buohha > Slav. buky, and the Bukovina region retain the older meaning;
contrast Russ. bozu 'elder tree', Alban.  bunge, Gr. phEgo's > 'oak', and
note that  Kurd. bUz 'elm'  < *wyg 'elm' is not derived from the 'beech'
word. The word for 'beech' is not found in S.Asia, though the tree itself
was historically found much further east during the Atlanticum than Thieme
thought (1954: 16), that is further east than the famous 'beech line'
(running from Koenigsberg to Odessa). Elst (1999: 130), while not
mentioning the climatic factors, disposes of the beech argument wholesale.
121 The only exception from this evidence are certain later cultural loans,
plants such as 'cotton' or 'mustard.'
122 Differently, Oettinger, Habilschrift 1985 (unpubl.).
123 For Elst (1999: 130,132) this is not a problem as he lets the IE first
settle in India and name the mongoose a 'brown one.' Then, when emigrating
westward, each IE language would mysteriously have transferred this
designation individually to the beaver, and always in the later, post-PIE
form, as per individual subfamily or language in question. Occam applies.
Derivation of the 'beaver' words from Skt. babhru is of course
linguistically impossible.
124 Bartholomae, Indogermanische Forschungen 9, 1888, 272,  Eilers &
Mayrhofer 1962, Henning 1963, Lane 1967, see summary by Cowgill  1986: 68.
125 Elst (1999: 129 sqq.), simply denies the possibility of IE linguistic
palaeontology and quotes an outspoken, always skeptic S. Zimmer (1990) as
his crown witness. It is precipitous to dismiss carefully applied
linguistic paleontology completely (which according to Zimmer is
"approaching its inevitable end -- with a negative result, of course"); cf.
n. 81.

(continues  with sections  f- g)

========================================================
Michael Witzel
Department of Sanskrit & Indian Studies, Harvard University
2 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge MA 02138, USA

ph. 1- 617-496 2990 (also messages)
home page:  http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/mwpage.htm

Elect. Journ. of Vedic Studies: http://nautilus.shore.net/~india/ejvs/