Notes (contd.) 126 Excluded are, of course, the real exports from India such as rice, cotton, beryl, etc., see Witzel 1999a,b. 127 They have been employed, by Ivanov-Gramkrelidze (1984, I 443), with a completely different result, as proof that the IE homeland was in Anatolia/Armenia. However, the irregular correspondences seen in kapi : Engl. ape; i-bha : ele-phant-; or lIs : leon, etc. are typical for loan words, not for original, inherited PIE vocabulary. Cf. Elst 1999: 131 sq., who even uses words such as pRdAku 'panther' which clearly are loans (Witzel 1999 a,b). The attested use of pRdAku for 'panther' and 'snake' as indicating closeness to the original designation is not only linguistically impossible (loanwords!) but also cognitively light-weight: animals similar in appearance (spots!) are named by the same word. Classical Sanskrit is full of them. The argument that some animal names in Skt. still are etymologically transparent can also be made for those of the "druhyu emigrants", the Engl. bear, Dutch bruin, etc. -- Even matsya 'fish' is derived by Elst from mad 'wet' (EWA II 298 "hardly likely"), in spite of Avestan massia, Pers. mAhI < IIr *matya; it belongs, according to Mayrhofer EWA II, 1986: 298, not to a word for 'wet', but to *mad(a)s 'food'. All of this demonstrates Elst's lack of linguistic sophistication. Just as (other parts of) his books, even such seemingly straightforward sections have to be checked and re-checked. 128 Elst (1999: 131), taking his cue from Gamkrelidze and Ivanov 1984 (= 1995), takes these shaky etymologies for granted and concludes that IE came from a tropical area. He adds (199: 131-2) a few very unlikely comparisons on his own: Latin leo(n) from Skt. rav 'ho howl', mayUra 'peacock' from mA to bleat, gaja 'elephant from garj 'to trumpet'; pRdAku (cf. Witzel 1999) which designates both panther and panther snake (note, Lubotsky 1999, lecture at the 2nd Ved. workshop at Kyoto) as referring to primordial formations in IE -- as if animal designations were not easily transferred! 129 See summary by Cowgill 1986:86 sq. 130 Small, transient and migrating bands and groups such as the Indo-Aryans or even larger ones such as the Huns are not easily traced; and, will we ever will find archaeological traces of the well attested emigration of a small group such as that of the Gypsies? -- Linguistics (see above, n. 23) and genetics, however, clinch the case: the Bulgarian Gypsies, for example, have the typical Indian mtDNA (M type) and Y chromosomes but are only to some 30% Indian; for the rest they have acquired European genes. This is the exact reversal of the general Indian situation, with some 25% of W./C. Asian genes (7). -- Autochthonists will have a hard time to explain how these Indian emigrants 'selected' their genes on emigration from India, and 'export' only the 30% proper Indian ones... In short, the same impossible scenario as in the assumed earlier 'export' of Indian linguistic features westwards by the IE = "Druhyu" emigrants (see above, 12.2 ). 131 Elst had not seen this paper by the time he wrote his 1999 book; he supplies a lot of completely unsubstantiated speculation instead, of how the Indo-Europeans could have left the subcontinent to settle in Central Asia and Europe, (see 1999: 126 sq.). 132 Change of meaning ''wheel(s)'' > ''chariot'' (pars pro toto) is a common occurrence in linguistic experience. 133 There have been efforts, always on the internet, to push back the dates of chariots and spoked wheels (also implied by Talageri's 2000 years of composition for the RV, see Witzel 2001), to dilute the difference between chariots and carts/ four wheeled wagons, to find horses all over India well before the accepted date of c. 1700 BCE; there even has been the truly asinine proposition to change the meaning of Skt. azva 'horse' (Equus caballus)and to include under this word the ass/donkey (gardabha, rAsabha, khara, etc., Equus asinus) and the half-ass (Equus hemionus khur). Here as elsewhere, it is useless to enter a discussion, as such views are based, all too often, on lack of expertise in the very subjects such sites proffer to discuss. On the internet, everyone is his/her own 'expert'. 134 See now however, M.A. Littauer and J.H. Crouwel 1996 for a Near Eastern origin. 135 Any other scenario would amount to very special pleading, again: One can hardly maintain that the Vedic 'Panjabis' received these local loans only after the Iranians had left. 136 The map in Parpola 1994 includes Tibetan, but this development is late, and typical for the Lhasa dialect. However, Khotanese Saka, just north of the Pamirs, has retroflexes. 137 This has indeed happened to the Gypsies: in Turkey, N. Africa, Europe. 138 Interestingly, the c. 1000 year old Indian Parsi pronunciation and recitation in Zoroastrian ritual(!) of Avestan, while clearly Indianizing, as in xs'athra > [kSatra], has not yet developed retroflexes. 139 Note that this stage, minus the Indian retroflexion, is still preserved in Mitanni IA vash-ana- [vAz'h-ana]. 140 Other examples for the conditioned OIA development of retroflexes examples include : k' > c' > z, and g' > j' > j as seen in: IE *wik'-s > IIr *wic'-s' > Av. vIs' / > Ved. viT 'people, settlement'; but > Latin vIc-u-s, Germanic vik- (as in Viking), etc.; IE *reg'-s > IIr *rAj's' > rAT; > Lat. rEx, Celtic -rix, Germanic -rik, etc.; cf. also Avest. xs'uuas' : Ved. SaS; Lat. sex, Germanic sehs, Grk. heks- etc. 141 To justify this, the autochthonous theory must further assume that the people of the substrate moved into the IA /IE Panjab only after the Iranians and IE had left. A string of secondary assumptions. Occam's razor applies. 142 The Gypsies eventually lost the retroflexes (but when?). 143 See Witzel 1999a,b for details: karpAsa cotton, etc. 144 Note that the tiger, N.Pers. bebr, is found in the N. Iranian mountains from the Elburz to the Kopeh Dagh even today, and the last specimen in the Aral Lake area is reported to have been shot in the Seventies. 145 The reason for its survival in South Asia (Panjabi bhoj, etc.) may have been the economical and common ritual use of birch bark, e.g. for amulets. 146 Perhaps with the exception of the willow (Lat. vitex, etc., see above, n.118) which it is found, along with the poplar, in the riverine forests all over the steppe (Schrader 1890: 440, 275). It is attested in E. Iran where it grows prominently: Avest. vaEti, Pashto vala < *vaitiya; but it is not found in Vedic/Skt., unless it is retained in veta-sa ''reed, ratan, Calamus'', with the expected change in meaning "willow > reed". The poplar and the beech (Lat. fagus etc.) are not attested in Skt.: both trees are not found in S. Asia during the pre-Indus period, even though the beech was then found much further east (N. Caucasus, etc.) than the famous "beech line" (Koenigsberg/Kaliningrad-Odessa). On the other hand, the oak, though found in various forms in Afghanistan, is not attested in Skt., perhaps with the exception of the inherited name of the weather god, Parjanya, who is often linked with the oak in various IE mythologies, see EWA s.v.; for example, Lithuanian perkU'nas, O.Slavic perunu, Lat. querquus, etc., see Pokorny, p. 822; for Class. Skt. parkaTI 'ficus inferiora' see EWA II 192 ~ Ved. plakSa. 147 Friedrich (1970) has pointed out that most IE tree names are nor explainable by IE etymologies (except for the birch tree < 'shining', cf. Bryant 1999). Following the autochthonous line, one could therefore assume that such (supposedly non-IE) names have been borrowed/spread from India. However, IE tree names such as 'beech, oak', etc. have true IE word structure: their roots follow the IE pattern (see above 10), and the suffixes employed are IE as well. In other words, these tree names *are* IE. That there are isolated roots of tree names is not strange. After all, many basic words, such as 'eye' and 'hand', (Pokorny 1959: 775, 447) are isolated in IE, i.e. these roots are not employed outside their narrow realm as (root) nouns other than in clearly derived, secondary ways. Most other basic IE words are related to verbs and therefore have a much wider application in word formation. Yet, no one has ever suggested that a words such as 'eye' is not IE. In addition, many tree names will go back to pre-IE times when their roots still might have had a clear onomastic meaning; these pre-IE words subsequently were automatically changed to fit the IE root structure. 148 Indigenists decry the very concept of substrates, see Elst (1999), --much as they now begin to decry the various historical levels established in genetics, based on the analysis of the male only Y chromosome-- as this would necessarily indicate that Vedic had not been present in NW India since times immemorial. 149 Ved. ibha is of dubious meaning and etymology (Oldenberg 1909-12). At least 2 of the 4 cases in the RV do not refer to 'elephant' but rather to the 'retinue train' or the 'court' of a chieftain. The meaning 'elephant' is attested only in Class. Skt. (Manu+), Pali, see EWA I 194; cf. nevertheless O.Egypt. ',abw, EWA III 28. -- Gamkrelizde and Ivanov link ibha with Latin ele-phant-, etc. but this requires special, otherwise unattested phonetic correspondences such as ele - :: i-, etc. 150 Some of them are of Central Asian origin, see Witzel 1999, Lubotsky forth. 151 E.g., a comparison between the 1st pl. English (we are), German (wir sind), Dutch (wij zijn), shows that Engl. are must be a late internal innovation due to analogy with the 2nd plural form, and the equivalent of 3rd pl. sind/zijn is also substituted by are; while 1st pl. sind/zijn itself comes from the 3rd plural: sie sind/zijn. 152 An auxiliary theory, e.g. of a strong local (Dravidian, etc.) influence on the RV only, as opposed to Iranian --while still in India-- is implausible; the same applies to Drav. influence after the Iranians supposedly left: all of this would require an altogether new theory, constructed out of the blue, of a push towards the northwest by Dravidian. 153 Brentjes' pointing to the peacock motive in Mitanni times art is a very weak argument (for detailed criticism, see Schmidt 1980: 45 sq.) We know that even the Sumerians imported many items from India (Possehl 1996). Further, the peacock motif is attested in Mesopotamia well before the Mitannis. For a list of Mitanni-IA words, cf. now EWA III, Appendix. 154 Mayrhofer 1979: 47; in Palestine, cf. riya-azva: bi-ir-ia-as'-s'u-va. 155 Mayrhofer 1979: 53: in-tar-u'-da, en-dar-u'-ta (Palestine, 15th cent. BC); cf. Cowgill 1986: 23. 156 Via Mitanni, perhaps also Hitt. agni (aknis', cf. Avest. dAs'tAg'ni), Mayrhofer 1979: 36, 51: a-ak-ni-is'. 157 The lineage includes bar-sa-ta-tar, saus's'attar (sa-us'-ta-a-tar, sa-us'-sa-ta (at)-tar), artad(h)Ama (ar-ta-ta-a-ma), sattarna II, artasmara (ar-ta-as'-s'u-ma-ra), tus'ratta (tu-us'-rat-ta, tu-is'-e-rat-ta, tu-us'-e-rat-ta: *tvaiSa'ratha), KUR-ti-u'-az-za, Mayrhofer 1979: 54 sqq., cf. Cowgill 1986: 23. 158 Kikkuli bapru-nnu: Ved. babhru, binkara-nnu : Ved. piGgala, baritta-nnu : Ved. palita, with Rgvedic -r- instead of later -l-, Mayrhofer 1979: 32, 52-3, cf. Cowgill 1986: 23. 159 Elst sees here, of course, a confirmation of his belief that the RV is of hoary pre-Indus vintage. Thus, he can expect post-Rgvedic prAkRt forms in 1400 BCE. While some MIA forms may be sought in the RV, their status is constantly questioned and further reduced. The latest form that has come under attack is jyotiS < *dyaut-is, see C. aan de Wiel 2000. 160 "E. Laroche, in his Glossaire de la langue hourrite, lists the word s'ittanna from the Kikkuli text and comments: "... "sept", d'apre`s l'indo-arien s'atta-wartanna. - Forme de s'inti/a??" S.v. s'inti2 he says: "Mais s'inti "sept" doit encore etre se'pare'... de s'itta." He also lists a word s'ittaa (long a) from two (Hittite?) Kizzuwadna texts." (pers. comm. by Bjarte Kaldhol, Nov. 5, 2000). 161 Incidentally, it would be eastern MIA, such as mAgadhI (which, however, does not agree with the extreme Rhotacism of Mitanni-IA but has l everywhere!), as western North India has retained v- , see Masica 1991: 99 sq. 162 Thus also Cowgill 1986: 23. Note that Ved. has eva 'only' < aiva = O.Iran. aiva 'one', and that only MIr. has Evak 'one', but this is due to the commonplace MIr. suffix -ka; Next to the usual [tri-, paJca-, *sapta-, nava-vartana]; and racing terms such as : ua-az'an-na 'race track', also with genitive in: -na-s'i-ia!, and perhaps Lu'a-as'-s'u-us'-s'a-n-ni, 'horse trainer', Diakonoff 1971: 81, Mayrhofer 1979: 52;. 163 Mayrhofer 1979: 53; cf. RV maNi, Av. maini, Elam. O.P. *bara-mani, Latin monIle, etc.; cf. also varuNa as uruna, and Ved. sthUNA, Av. stUnA/stunA, O.P. stUnA, Saka stunA. 164 Explained as sun god, "s'amas'", Mayrhofer 1979: 32; cf. also the war god maruttas' = marut-, and king abirattas' = abhiratha; for details see Balkan 1954: 8. 165 Note, however, timiras' = Ved. timira- 'dark', cf. Balkan 1954: 29, also 1954: 27 laggatakkas' = lakta? 166 Some early IA immigrants that according to Harmatta (1992: 374) seem to be recorded in a tablet of the Dynasty of Agade, at the end of the third millennium BCE, c. 2300-2100 BCE: a-ri-si( satta); anaptyxis (indra > indara); initial v > b (virya > birya), read, however, priya! -- K. Norman erroneously pointed to pt > tt (see discussion of satta), labialization of a > u after v (*as'vasani > as's'us's'anni), see however, Mayrhofer 1979: 52. 168 The much later emigration of the Gypsies and some others into Central Asia are of course excluded here. 169 With the (partial) exception of Elst (1999), and Talageri (2000) for which see above. 170 Megasthenes, the Seleucid ambassador to Candragupta (Sandrokottos) Maurya's court, at c. 300 BCE (Arrianos, Indika 9.9). -- All of this is called "entirely plausible" by Elst (1999: 192); however, there even is 6776 BCE as another starting point, according to Pliny, Naturalis Historia 6.59 and Arrianos. Elst strangely comments "even for that early pre-Vedic period, there is no hint of immigration". In short, according to Elst (and Talageri 2000) we get Indian "kings" in the Gangetic plains of the 7th millennium BCE, when this area was populated by a few hunter and gatherer tribes! These 'monarchs' would indeed be the first kings on the planet (Witzel 2001). Elst is not aware of the common (Indian, etc.) tendency to put contemporary lineages one before another when setting up long range 'historical' records (Witzel 1990). See also next note. 171 See the lists in the Torah, Homers' list of ships, Polynesian lists of chieftains, and so on. Listenwissenschaft is one of the oldest 'sciences' in the world, cf. the Babylonian evidence in Z.J. Smith (1982) and Assmann (1987). 172 Where we can check such Bardic traditions with the help of historical records, e.g. in the Germanic epic, they tend to telescope, rework the historical data; for example, they confound Ermanric, the king of the Goths in the Ukraine at the time of the Huns' invasion, with his grandson Theoderic, king of the Goths in Italy. 173 The latest example is Talageri (1993, 2000) who builds a whole imaginative prehistory of S. Asia on such 'data': with an early emigration of the druhyu branch of the Aryans to Iran and Europe in the 5th millennium BCE, including such fantastic etymologies and identifications as bhalAnas = Baloch (who appear on the scene only after 1000 CE!), bhRgu = Phrygians, madra = Mede (mAda), druhyu = Druids, alIna = Hellenic people, zimyu = Sirmios (Albanians), etc. -- These are Oakish cases where even Elst (1999: 192 sq.) does not always follow him. 174 The arguments used to justify the historicity of the purANas (Elst 1999) are easily dismissed. While we can expect names of a similar sort in the older lists --some of them are also found in the Vedas (after all, names within a family often begin or end in the same way),-- they cannot be used to substantiate the actual existence of complete purANic lists during Vedic times. See 19. -- Elst's further argument that early purANic dynasties are not those of the northwest but of Bihar, Utkala etc. equally does not hold. It is clear that the beginnings of the lists, even in the Mbh and RAm., were reformulated to fit local demands: a western (bharata) one for the Mbh and an eastern (ikSvAku) one for the Kosala area. (Witzel, in prep.) Agreement between the Epics, purANas, Buddhist and Jaina texts does not vouch for a 'hoary' age of such lists, just for a common perception at the time these texts were composed, i.e. after 500 BCE. Only the Vedas are older, and they contain just small fragmentary sections of the later (enlarged, altered) purANic lists. The influence of politics of empire (Nanda, Maurya, Gupta) and of local politics (or the wish by local kings to forge such a link to a well established lineage) should not be underestimated. 175 Talageri turns things around and finds justification of the purANic data in the Vedas, and thus a spread of the Lunar dynasty from kosala (prayAga) westwards. Strangely enough, these pUru dynasties later on again spread eastwards (as is clear from the Vedas anyhow!) -- All of this is faithfully repeated by Elst (1999: 191). If this is not a post-factum justification, a retrofit as indigenist like to call such constructions, of the originally despised ikSvAku lineage (JB 1.338 = Caland 115, see a first try at amelioration in AB 7, Witzel 1989), -- then what? (Discussion already in Witzel 1995). 176 Especially clear with the introduction of the 'non-Vedic' pANDavas (Witzel, in prep.). 177 Recently, it has been tested in Papua-New Guinea what the material remains of some five different linguistic communities belonging to one particular area would look like. After a deterioration of a few years, the archaeologists dug them up, and found -- "the same (material) culture"! So much for the often used or alleged overlap of language and culture. 178 Similarly early dates are inherent in Talageri (2000). When tabled, the various family books in his reconstruction turn out to be spread out over two thousand years, well before the invention of the horse-drawn chariot. In addition, the very starting point of his book, on which his 'new chronology' of the RV books rests, is clearly wrong: as has been pointed out (n. 7, 84, 87, 140, 173, 175, 216), his investigation is based on the present zAkala 'edition' and arrangement of the RV, not on the first collection ("saMhitA", of the kuru period) as established by Oldenberg (1888). How can one come even close to the period of the RV authors if one accepts any hymn inserted during the long period of orthoepic diaskeuasis, with additional, immeasurable influence by unknown teachers that existed between the first collection and the redaction by the late brAhmaNa scholar zAkalya (BAU 3). - Talageri's ecstatic summary (2000) therefore is self-defeating: "Any further research, and any new material discovered on the subject, can only confirm this description.... but there is no possible way in which the location of the Original [IE] Homeland in the interior of northern India, so faithfully recorded in the Puranas and confirmed in the Rigveda, can ever be disproved." Interestingly, he has taken his initial historiographical cues from Witzel 1995 (and even lauds the general approach) -- only to reverse himself completely as to include the usual indigenous ("purANic") agenda with chariots before their invention, IE emigration from Uttar Pradesh, etc. (Witzel 2001). 179 Summary by Skjaervo 1995:160, sq., 167 sq. 180 Elst (1999: 180) makes a lot out of this argument ex silentio but concludes "it is not as strong an argument against "Vedic Harappa" as it once seemed to be"! 181 See R. Meadow and A. Patel 1997. 182 Bokonyi 1997 finds it in Surkotada IA-B-C, (acc. to Sharma 1990: 382, from the Harappan period: 2300-1700 BCE, Joshi 1990: 17, 59 sqq.) 183 However, note that (according to Meadow/Patel 1997): ''Surkotada has dates that go into the second millennium, and the date of the ''Harappan'' layers themselves is not at all that clear." Cf. Joshi 1990. 184 The latest folly (again, one created on the internet, this time by the proponent of an Austric 'theory' of IA origins) is that of the long extinct early Indian horse, Equus sivalensis. This early horse in fact emerged c. 2.6 million years ago, overlapping, in the Siwalik Hills, for a short period with the older (three-toed pre-horse) Hipparion (MacFadden 1992: 139) that died out soon afterwards. Many internet writers now connect the Sivalensis horse with the 17-ribbed Rgvedic horse and modern S.E. Asian horses, however, without any evidence cited from archaeology, palaeontology or genetics. Fact is that horses (Equus caballus) have 18 ribs on each side but this can individually vary with 17 on just one or on both sides. Such as is the case (only 5 instead of 6 lumbar vertebrae) with some early horse finds in Egypt, from the mid-1st millennium BCE, horses that all were imported from the Near East (and ultimately from the steppe zone). Clutton-Brock (1992: 83) writes: "It is generally claimed that the Arab and the Przewalski horse [of Central Asia!] had only five lumbar vertebrae while all other horse breeds have six. In fact the number is very variable but it is true that the Arab is more likely to have only five lumbar vertebrae than other breeds of domestic horse (Stecher 1962)." Which only underlines that a domesticated, 17-ribbed horse has been brought into the subcontinent from Central Asia (Bokonyi 1997) -- just the opposite of what internet 'specialists' (and by simple extension, that excellent source of scientific information, the New Delhi party journal, "The Organiser") now claim, -- always without a single scholarly source. It should also be noted that numeral symbolism may play a role in the RV passage (1.162.18) mentioning the 17-ribbed horse, which is part of an additional hymn of a late RV book. The number of gods is given in the RV as 33 or 33+1, which would correspond to the 34 ribs of the horse (later on identified with the universe in BAU 1); note further that the horse is speculatively in brought into connection with all the gods, many of them mentioned by name (RV 1.162-3). 185 In the Indus Valley, the horse (Equus caballus L.) was first reported, of course without palaeontological checks, at Mohenjo-Daro by Sewell (1931). -- Other spurious accounts: Bh. Nath 1962, Sharma 1974, 1993; similarly alleged for late Mohenjo Daro and late Harappa, for Kalibangan and Rupar (Bhola Nath, see B.B. Lal 1997: 285); for Malvan, Gujarat (Sharma 1990: 382); for Mohenjo Daro and in small numbers in rather recent levels, for Harappa from the late phase (Bokonyi 1997). Such strong assertions of 'archaeological' nature had even convinced R. Thapar (Social Scientist, Jan.-March 1996, p. 21). -- Elst 1999: 180 sqq. simply relies on these 'archaeological' data (and other writings) without questioning them on the ground of palaeontology. He even adduces the cave paintings at Bhimbetka "perhaps 30,000 years old" (Klostermaier, 1989: 35) while such paintings are extremely difficult to date so far and cannot be relied on, at present, as a major piece of evidence. In the end, while acknowledging the "paucity" (correctly: non-occurrence) of horse depictions and remains in the Indus Civilization, Elst thinks that it is an explainable paucity... "so that everything remains possible." 186 For consideration are mentioned: from the Neolithic-chalcolithic levels of Hallur (1600 BC), early Jorwe (1400-1000 BC) and Late Jorwe (1000-700 BC), from the sites of Inamgaon in Maharashtra (Thomas 1988: 878, 883, Meadow & Patel, 1997). By this time, the domesticated horse was no longer rare (Thomas 1988: 878).-- Note that Thomas' material does not have measurements of the bones. 187 For a fraudulous concoction of the picture of a horse on an Indus seal, see Rajaram and Jha (2000), exposed by Witzel and Farmer (2000). Elst (1999), as usual, swallowed Rajaram's initial, bold assertion of Harappan horses, hook and sinker -- in this case even Rajaram's artist's depiction of the half-horse (that is a bull!), referring (Elst 1999: 182) to Rajaram's hardly available book From Harappa to Ayodhya, Hyderabad 1997, see Frontline Nov. 24, 2000: 128 n.1. -- Recently, the picture of an Indus hemione (with typical short, stiff mane) was put on the internet as that of a horse, along with two already debunked horses (Frontline Oct./Nov. 2000) of the new species, to be called after its discoverer, Equus asinus(?) rajarami! 188 The skeleton has only an carbon reading of c. 3000 BC; it shows evidence of a hard bridle bit; but the horse is unlikely to have been used for draught at this early period and was probably used for riding. This date has recently been withdrawn by D. Anthony (Antiquity 2000: 75), but has been supplemented by other early evidence for riding at Botai. -- Note, for a later period, that riding is a lower class occupation even in the RV, while the nobility drives chariots, see Falk, 1995, Anthony and Brown 1991; Anthony 1991, Telegin 1995. 189 Zaibert 1993. 190 Anthony and Vinogradov 1995, Parpola 1995, Kuzmina 1994. 191 It is of course an open question whether the inhabitants of Pirak were IA or, e.g., Drav. speakers; see the discussion of 'horse' words in Witzel (1999a,b) as well as a discussion of the languages of Sindh and Baluchistan. -- The Drav. and Mundas have their own words for the horse, and we can even assume different routes of the introduction of the horse (e.g. via Tibet and the Himalayan belt). 192 Standard fare with autochthonists/Out of India advocates on the internet who continue to allege that I make "the Aryans thunder down the Khyber pass on their chariots" or, worse, their "on their Aryan panzers" (sic!), while I have not printed any such a folly anywhere. My crime was to have mentioned 'tanks' in a footnote (1995: 114 n. 74: "the thundering chariot, the tank of the 2nd millennium B.C."). --- We know that the RV clearly refers to a rathavAhana that was used to transport the quick but fragile, lightweight (c. 30 kg) chariot over difficult terrain, just as we do with modern racing cars. Note also that the wheels of such chariots would deform if left standing in assembled fashion; the chariots were disassembled and put together when needed. All of this corresponds with what we know from accounts of the avoidance by or difficulty of the use of chariots on uneven terrain from records of the ancient Near East and of Classical Antiquity. Nevertheless, the Veda also knows of a vipatha '[chariot used for] pathless [land]', attested in AV. Apparently, the autochthonists have not considered at all the role of horse-drawn chariots in sport and warfare of the Ancient Near East. Even a trip to the movies might help! 193 Elst 1999: 178 concludes his somewhat superficial discussion of the Indo-Europeans and the horse, surprisingly, with an Out of India scenario: the Aryan 'emigrants' to Central Asia would have learned of the horse (he does not discuss the chariot, a clear indicator of time and location at c. 2000 BCE). They would then have transmitted this knowledge, and the actual animals, back home to India (while the RV supposedly does not know of Central Asia at all!) Occam's Razor applies. -- Again, I do not maintain, as some allege, that the Indo-Europeans were the 'sole masters' of horse riding and chariot driving. They were one of the several peoples from the Ukraine to Mongolia that made use of the new technology. The exact source and spread of this phenomenon is still under investigation by archaeologists. New technologies usually are taken over by neighboring peoples within a short time span: note the case of the Lakota (Sioux) who took over --from the Spanish-- the use of the horse and the rifle, a few hundred years ago, but remained Sioux in language and religion. But, just like the late-comer in their new hunting culture, the bison (they had been agriculturalists before the Little Ice Age) the horse, too, made it into their mythology! 194 The spoked chariot wheels that Sethna wants to find on the Indus seals turn out to be, in most cases, oblong -- resulting in singularly bad transport for Indus merchants! 195 The question of post-Indus settlements that exceed the size of mere villages in Bahawalpur and the Panjab (Shaffer 1999) is in need of further attention: why is the RV silent about them? If iron is a late as it is said now (Possehl 1999), is the RV, too, so late as not to know these settlers any more, except for vague references such as those to the non-pastoral kIkaTa (RV 3.53)? Similar questions have to be asked about the overlap between the iorn age PGW and the early YV texts (Witzel 1989). 196 Gupta never translates the RV passages he quotes so that we can read into them whatever we want: a RV fort (pur) can be a modern town or a village (pur), etc. Frawley translates, but in the manner criticized here (n. 38, 204). He believes that his RV translations prove international trans-oceanic trade, but he never investigates what samudra or nau actually mean in the Veda (for which see Klaus 1986, 1989, 1989a). 197 See Falk 1981 and place names such as PB 25.10.18 sthUlArmaka 'the large ruin' in kurukSetra; however, hariyupIyA is a river, not Harappa as has been maintained by some historians for decades (it would have become something like *harovI, *haroI in modern Panjabi). 198 For the ultimate origin of the word, note also Bur. pl. guriG/gureG < *g'orum (Berger 1959: 43), gurga'n 'winter wheat', and the connection with Basque gari 'wheat' < Proto-East Caucasian *gOle 'wheat', etc., Witzel 1999b. Harmatta (EWA II 499) thinks of an Anatolian *ghond[U~], but cf. Klimov's Caucasian (Proto-Kartvelian) *ghomu. 199 Avest. yauua, N.Pers. jav, cf. Osset. jew, yau 'millet'; for their Indo-European predecessors, note Hom. Greek zea', Lith. jawai 'grain'; the word clearly is derived from *yu 'to graze', see now EWA s.v. 200 Bh. Singh 1995; especially 'detailed' in this respect, Malati Shendge 1977 (e.g., with the "Indus official" Rudra in charge of mountain troops and house numbers!). 201 Yash Pal 1984, now Radhakrishnan and Merh 1999. 202 Elst (1999:137) makes this into "great catastrophe in about 2000 BC, when the Sarasvati river dried up and many of the Harappan cities were abandoned... " [While the correct date(s) of the drying up of much of the "sarasvatI" has not yet been determined!] "This catastrophe triggered migrations in all directions, to the Malabar coast, to India's interior, and east, to West Asia by sea (the Kassite dynasty in Babylon in c. 1600 BCE venerated some of the Vedic gods), and to Central Asia". I wonder where the evidence for such (e)migrations is to be found. The only archaeologically attested one is the move, by the Indus people, eastwards into Haryana/Delhi area, by c. 1400 BCE, see Shaffer and Lichtenstein 1995, Shaffer 1999, see also 22. 203 Allchin et al. 1995: 37, with a typical development at Bhagawanpura, Haryana, that might reflect Indus/IA/PGW type populations: many-roomed houses of brick of the post-urban period, then single-roomed circular huts of timber and thatch, then many-roomed brick/pressed earth houses; the last two stages with increasing PGW. 204 The meaning of samudra must be established well; see, however, Klaus 1986. Note that RV 6.72.3 speaks even of the (three or more!) samudras of the rivers, samudrANi nadInAm. Note also that the AV 11.5.6 has an uttara 'northern/upper' ocean (Witzel 1984). Finally, compare also Avest. Y. 65 where the Iranian counterpart of the sarasvatI, ar@duuI, flows, somewhat similar to the sarasvatI and the later Epic gaGgA, from a mountain, hukairiia, to the "Lake" vourukaS~a, which indicates the Milky Way (Witzel 1984), (and then further down to earth). 205 Possehl 1993: 85-94. 206 In the new autochthonous version of RV history (Talageri 2000) this is the oldest book of the RV, -- which would make the sarasvatI, very much against the wishes of the indigenists, a small river in the early RV period! As usual, Occam's Razor applies. 207 Differently from the map in Kenoyer (1995: 245) where the Sutlej, sarasvatI and Ur-Jumna still form one river which indeed flows from the Himalayas to the ocean (called Nara in Sindh). 208 While in the still later hymn, RV 10.75, the vipAz (Beas) is altogether missing and might have been substituted by the zutudrI (Satlej), i.e. the joint vipAz-zutudrI (unless the Beas, unlikely, is called marudvRdhA here). 209 For a full list of settlements see now Possehl (1999) and note the theory of a handful of separate Indus 'domains'. 210 Thus Jamison and Witzel, (written in 1992 but still in press; however, see soon: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/vedichinduism.htm), and similarly now R. S. Sharma 1995. 211 Shaffer and Kenoyer argue for a continual, 'organic' archaeological evolution reflecting indigenous cultural development from pre- to proto-historic periods without intrusions in the archaeological record from the northwest (or anywhere else). However, recent excavations seem to indicate, for example, a strong BMAC influence in late-Harappan (including several statues such as the so-called Priest-King), before its decay at 1900 BCE. 212 For a survey see Possehl 1996; for the discussion of a recent, particularly blunt and fraudulous attempt (Rajaram and Jha 2000) see Witzel and Farmer in the Indian news journal, Frontline, Oct. 13, 2000 and discussion in subsequent issues. 213 I leave aside the question of decipherment. There is a new attempt about once per month now, increasingly claiming that the texts are in early Sanskrit. Non-Sanskritic ones include, e.g., R. Mathivanan 1995, Arun Pathak and N.K. Verma 1993; both find continued use of the (unchanged!) Indus script, after a lapse of evidence spanning some 4000 years, but exemplified by photos, on the house walls of the Austro-Asiatic Santals in S. Bihar. 214 Coningham 1995 maintains an early --improbable--date for Brahmi at c. 500 BCE for Sri Lanka. This single, early date probably is due to unclear stratigraphy; the singular find of inscribed materials is situated barely below a much later level. 215 Cf. also the discussion by Elst 1999: 96 sqq. 216 Which greatly irks Talageri (2000) who simply relies on the superficial outward appearance of the present (zAkala) RV; he is simply ignorant of the history of Rgvedic philology of the past 150 years and relies just on Griffith's outdated and similar uncritical English translation of the late 19th century and on some Skt. word indexes of the RV (for details, Witzel 2001). 217 Note that similar claims have been made for the Bible and other ancient texts. As it has been said: select some significant numbers relating, e.g. to the (19th c.) Washington monument, add some astronomical facts and --lo, behold-- unforeseen relations of the monument with the earth, space and time emerge! 218 See the long list of late 19th and early 20th cent. discussions in L. Renou, Bibliographie ve'dique, Paris 1931, 158-163: Weber 1860, Thibaut, IA 1885, p. 85 sqq., Oldenberg, ZDMG 48, 629 sqq, Jacobi 1893, 1894, ZDMG 49, 218 sqq., Oldenberg, ZDMG 49, 470 sqq., Jacobi, ZDMG 50, 69-83, Tilak 1893, 1903, Whitney 1894, JAOS 6, 413 sqq.; JAOS 8, 85 sqq, etc. Cf. Elst 1999: 96 sqq. 219 Pingree does not find basic astronomical skills among the early Indo-Aryan because the texts do not specifically outline such skills. 220 Autochthonists now date the Buddha to 1700 BCE or even 3139/8 BCE, and Candragupta Maurya (of c. 300 BCE) is replaced by Candragupta, the Gupta king; these and similarly absurd dates are found in Elst 1999: 97. 221 Note that ZB has the alternative dates rohiNI, mRgazIrSa, phalgunI, hasta, citrA, and BZS also has "at the appearance" of zravaNa, citrA/svatI, all indicating various ritual concerns, see Witzel 1999c. 222 The same applies, mutatis mutandis, to the Vedic references of a magha solstice, see Elst 1999: 100, which, in his view, would allow to place the [iron age] brAhmaNa and sUtra literature at 2300 BCE [long before the introduction of iron]. Other alleged astronomical evidence such as the svarbhAnu myth in RV 5.40.5-9 (a late appendix to RV, see Oldenberg 1888!), has been discussed already in the 19th century. Such references are much too vague to be used for dating (nevertheless see Elst 1999: 107). The same applies to the appendix hymn RV 8.93 which Elst (1999: 111 sqq.) wants to turn into a reference to the heliacal rising of the sun in vRSabha. The bull here is, as so often, just indra. Further, RV 3.39.3 (Elst 1999: 113) refers to the mArtANDa/vivasvant myth, not to astronomy; RV 5.83.3 is a poetical image comparing thunder to lion's roar, and not the siMha zodiacal sign. Apart from the fact that Elst has to demonstrate the use of the zodiac for the RV, this is poetry, not astronomy. "It could not be clearer" (as Elst says -- but about the zodiac!) Again, RV 6.49.7 describes young women who are 'bright' (citra) not the asterism Spica in Virgo (cf. now also Hock, forthc.) Just as in the gItA, the one who looks for Krishna everywhere will find him, in casu early astronomy in the RV; the same applies to S. Kak (1994). Elst's bold summary (1999: 117) is based on such shaky data: "the Rg-Veda was composed in the 4th millennium as... the Brahmanas and Sutras are products of the High Harappan period towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC." That this "has been a growing challenge to the AIT defenders for two centuries" is easily lead ad absurdum. -- The same fundamental mistake is committed by Klostermaier (1998): "Texts like the Rigveda, the Shatapathabrahmana and others contain references to eclipses as well as to sidereal markers of the beginning of seasons, which allow us by backward calculation, to determine the time of their composition." For all such monolateral assertions, see discussion below, 32 . 223 Seidenberg insisted that the geometry of the zulba sUtras must have been the origin of the Babylonian system and, accordingly, he would date it no later than 1700 BCE. He neglects other possibilities such as a common origin or a common origin in another area (see Staal 1999). 224 Incidentally, autochthonists always insist on the lack of archaeological, palaeontological etc. evidence or the IA "invasion" (or immigration/trickling in) theory. However, it may be pointed out that none the Out of India theories are substantiated by archaeology etc. either. The matter has not been raised yet, but it must be pointed out that just as there is clear linguistic, textual and now genetic evidence but "no Aryan archaeology, no Aryan bones", there also is no archaeological proof, but only historical, clear linguistic and now also genetic evidence for the one clear emigration of an Indian population westwards in historical times -- that of the Gypsies (Roma, Sinti etc.; there are one or two similar cases, attested in later times, but on a much more limited scale, see Hock 1999). 225 Except, of course, if the aim is some 'superior', religious or political motive. 226 Such as Kak's ''astronomical code'' that is based on a combination of Rgvedic brick pilings of the still non-existent Agnicayana and the structure of the still non-existent complete RV collection. Note, that it is not questioned but favored by Klostermaier (1998), Elst (1999) and other revisionists/indigenists. 227 Even that of Mitanni-IA, see above; excluding, of course, that of the comparatively late IA emigrants, the Gypsies. 228 The most blatant rewriting of 19th century (European) intellectual history (and much else!) has been carried out by the mathematician (Ph.D. 1976) and electrical engineer (B.A. 1965) N.S. Rajaram (1993, 1995, etc.) who sees missionary and colonialist designs all over Indology. Unfortunately, he had to rely on English summaries (of summaries) of 19th cent. sources written in various European languages -- hardly a good starting point to write history. Even a cursory reading of his many, repetitive books will indicate just one thing: a lot of fantasy. These books are nothing but a new mythology of the 19th century, written for and now increasingly accepted by (expatriate) Indians of the 21st century to shore up their claims to a largely imagined, glorious but lost distant past. 229 It is usually not mentioned that W. Jones' formulation does include not only the languages belonging to the IE family, such as Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin but also unrelated ones such Malay. 230 For example, the first translation and dictionary (1873) of the RV by the well-known German mathematician Grassmann analyses anAs-, (which occurs only once in the RV, at 5.29.10!), as 'ohne Mund, Antlitz' (without mouth, face, an-As); however, the word was taken by later 19th century writers as an indication of a racial characteristic, 'noseless' (a-nAs), while the passage in question clearly indicates the 'speechlessness' and unusual speech of the dasyu. 231 I have pointed to this (1995), when I discussed the various forms of argumentation that have to be avoided in writing ancient Indian history; however, this point has largely been misunderstood or blatantly disregarded by adherents of autochthonous or Out of India theories: in many web sites (and in Talageri 2000), these writers excoriate me for my critique of present revisionist/autochthonous writings, but they do not even mention my criticism of past western or of certain present archaeological and historical writings (often produced by "westerners"). 232 Witzel 1995, 1999d. 233 See caraka 3.83, nyAyasUtra 4.2.50, the method is used in mahAbhASya, and still earlier in some brahmodyas (Witzel 1987a, and forthc.) 234 Such as N.S. Rajaram's (2000) case of fraud and fantasy in 'deciphering' the Indus seals, see Witzel & Farmer 2000. 235 If this is not believed, after the evidence presented throughout this paper, I may add a very recent experience: a visit from a "type 3" (see above, n. 73) graduate in mechanical engineering who firmly held that the Vedas are 2 billion years old, are Izvara's revelation, can only be understood after initiation (upanayana), are the sources all languages in the world and of all sciences, etc., -- all of this internalized and integrated, without any problem, with his studies in the hard sciences. 236 A sign of hope is that recent interviews with Indian College students from all over the country seem to indicate that they have no interest at all in this kind of debate. They are more more practically minded. ("The New Republic", Times of India, Jan. 26., 2001) (continues with section 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/