The Recorded History of the Indo-European Migrations - Part 1 of 4. Who Were the Vedic Aryans?

 [This long article, divided (because it is long) into four parts, is a summarization (with many important additions and rearrangements of details, and with many data-sections copy-pasted from previous articles) for my blog of the basic details of the final evidence presented by me in my three books, and particularly the third one published in 2008. The history of the Indo-European migrations from their Original Homeland in India is recorded history. The article as a whole may appear extremely heavy, boring and tedious to many, but it is based on pure data alone and not on rhetoric or wishful thinking, and the conclusions are unchallengeable and irrefutable.  I challenge particularly those "Hindus", who have been recently shouting from the rooftops about "genetic" evidence of Indo-European (IE) language-speaking "genomes", "chromosomes" and "haplogroups" invading India, to try to disprove this very tangible, precise and complete evidence.]

There are four Great Classical Civilizations in the Old World: from the east, China, India, Mesopotamia and Egypt. Of these, it is generally known and acknowledged that the Great Civilizations of China, Mesopotamia and Egypt go back beyond 3000 BCE, since detailed records are avaiḷable about their kings and dynasties, the major political events in their ancient history, the wars fought by them, their scientific and cultural achievements and their contributions to the world  ̶  and the chronology of all these historical details is, more or less, known with reasonable accuracy. All these details are known and acknowledged about Classical Indian Civilization also in all these matters, but all of it pertains only to the period after 600 BCE or so. Of the four Great Civilizations of the Old World, the civilization of India alone stands apart in the fact that its history before 600 BCE is supposed to be a big blank in all these matters! The Great Indian civilization, whose remains were discovered by archaeologists in the early twentieth century on the banks of the Indus and the now dried-up Sarasvati, and whose beginnings (like those of the other Great Civilizations) go back well beyond 3000 BCE, is alleged to be a totally different civilization from the later Classical one, of a totally different people speaking a totally different language and having a totally different religion and culture!

  

Likewise as per the linguistic and philological consensus based on the evidence of language, the history of the different dialects of the original Aryan or Indo-European language speaking people in their (unidentified) Original Homeland also goes back to a point of time before 3000 BCE or so, and it was only around that time that they started separating, by migrations, from each other. But the details of their history in all these matters is likewise one more big blank (including even the exact geography of that Original Homeland)!

In short:

(a) their descendants, after migrating to different areas, left us detailed historical records of their independent civilizations everywhere: in India, Iran, Central Asia, Anatolia, Iraq, Greece, Rome, Scandinavia, Ireland, South Russia, the Caucasus and Balkan areas, and every corner of medieval Europe,

(b) but the history and geography of these Original IEs (Indo-Europeans) themselves, in their Original Homeland, is supposed to be a total blank, although they lived at a point of time (just before 3000 BCE) when the other Great Civilizations were leaving us detailed historical records.

In other words, we have here supposedly three "different" cultures or Civilizations:

1. The Original PIE culture in an unknown Original Homeland (pre-3000 BCE - ?).

2. The Indus-Sarasvati or Harappan Civilization in a known territory (pre-3000 BCE - 1900 BCE?).

3. The Vedic culture in the same known territory (1500 BCE? - 600 BCE) leading to the Classical Indian/Hindu Civilization (post 600 BCE).

And 3 above (which is dated by these scholars after 1500 BCE) is not connected by them with 2 above which is in the same known territory in the (allegedly) immediately preceding period, but with 1 above which is supposed to have been in an unknown area in a far earlier period!

Is this scenario supported by the recorded evidence?

Historians in history books treat the history of the Proto-Indo-Europeans in their unidentified homeland, the history of the "Harappan" people in their very well-defined territory, and (in spite of the details of names and events in the Rigveda) the history of the Vedic people in their (same) well-defined territory in the north-western parts of India, as the eventless histories of mysteriously anonymous, faceless and nameless crowds of people, with no avaiḷable historical details about their kings and dynasties and the major political events and conflicts in their ancient history. However, the fact is that these three allegedly "different" people are actually more or less (i.e. with subtle distinctions) one and the same people with a very well-recorded history, as we will see in this article which (with a few small but important additions of details) is a summarization of the evidence presented by me in my three books, and particularly the third one published in 2008. The history of the Indo-European migrations from their Original Homeland is recorded history. These proto-Indo-Europeans had names, historical personalities, historical kingdoms and historical events, recorded in the traditional texts of India.

The main question that arises is: why, if this is so, has it never been recognized by the Indologists studying these texts?

The answer is that the Indologists were looking through the lenses and blinkers of the AIT (Aryan Invasion Theory) according to which the "Aryans" (or "Indo-Aryan" or "Vedic" language speaking people, being originally a branch of the "Indo-European" language speaking people of South Russia) invaded India somewhere around 1500 BCE or so, settled down in the "Saptasindhava" region (mainly the Greater Punjab i.e. present-day northern Pakistan), and composed the Rigveda. Later they spread out eastwards and, now with their centre shifting eastwards to "Āryāvarta" or present-day Haryana-U.P., composed the Yajurveda (and finalized the Samaveda, which mainly consists of extracts from the Rigveda). Finally they spread out as far east as Bengal, and composed the Atharvaveda. As they spread out over the rest of northern India, the various other Vedic texts were given their final form.

The traditional Indian historical texts (the Puranas and Epics) speak of various conglomerates of tribes spread out all over northern India: mainly the tribal conglomerates of the "solar" tribes (the Ikṣvāku-s) and the "lunar" tribes (the Aiḷa-s i.e. the "five tribes": Druhyu-s, Anu-s, Pūru-s, Yadu-s, Turvasu-s). Obviously in the AIT paradigm, all these (and other) tribes mentioned in the Puranas automatically become descendants of the original "Aryan" invaders who composed the Rigveda - particularly since all of these are found named in the Rigveda also, which also frequently refers to the "pañcajana" or "five tribes".

The Indian writers who oppose the AIT, whether or not they also espouse the OIT (Out-of-India Theory), also accept this paradigm about the Vedic people being the progenitors of Indian culture as a whole (and in extreme cases they even insist they are the progenitors of all the cultures of the world), and therefore in their eyes also the different conglomerates of tribes named in the Puranas automatically become descendants of these "Vedic Aryans" who composed the Rigveda. This Indian obsession with wanting to place the Vedic culture on the highest pedestal only serves to blind them to the facts, data and evidence in the Rigveda, and leaves them helpless to make a convincing case against the AIT, for the following reasons:

1. Whether they like it or not (and however much they refuse to accept it), the Vedic language is not the parent of all the Indo-European languages. There are 12 linguistically well-defined branches of IE: (from the north and west) Celtic, Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Italic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian, Hittite (now extinct), Tocharian (now extinct), Iranian, and Indo-Aryan. This automatically discounts the idea that the Vedic language (the oldest recorded Indo-Aryan language) could be the parent or progenitor of the languages of the other 11 branches.

2. The oldest text, the Rigveda, has a well-defined geographical area: from Haryana (and adjacent border areas of U.P.) to Afghanistan. The Yajurveda has a geographical area further east: centered around U.P. The geographical area of the Atharvaveda extends eastwards up to Bengal. Subsequent Vedic texts represent different geographical areas in northern India.

These two circumstances (where the "Vedic Aryan" language is one of twelve branches of IE languages of which the other eleven are found outside India, and where the other linguistic and cultural descendants of the Vedic Aryans are found in "later" post-Rigvedic literature "spreading" deeper and deeper inside India)  seem to fit in with the AIT rather than with the OIT or any other anti-AIT position. Therefore, the Indian writers fall back on denial: they mainly deny the validity of the linguistic facts, and some also deny the geographical picture depicted by the study of the comparative geography of the Vedic texts. But what they (as much as the protagonists of the AIT) ignore or fail to understand is that the actual facts, data and evidence in the Rigveda show a totally different picture. We will examine this picture in four parts as follows:

Part 1. Who were the "Vedic Aryans"?

Part 2. The chronology and geography of the Rigveda.

Part 3. The Anu migrations.

Part 4. The Druhyu migrations.

This part, the first and probably the shortest part, will deal only with the historical identity of the Vedic people:, under the following heads:

Section 1: The Puranic Tribes.
Section 2. The ārya-s in the Rigveda.

Section 1: The Puranic Tribes.

The Puranas refer to the mythical Manu Vaivasvata who ruled the whole of India, and divided the land between his ten sons. However, the actual Puranic accounts describe only or mainly the history of descendants of two of these "sons": the tribal conglomerates of the "solar" tribes (the Ikṣvāku-s) and the "lunar" tribes (the Aiḷa-s i.e. the "five tribes": Druhyu-s, Anu-s, Pūru-s, Yadu-s, Turvasu-s).

The descriptions in the Puranas about the locations of the Five Aiḷa tribes in northern India clearly place the Pūru-s as the inhabitants of the Central Area (Haryana and adjacent areas of western U.P.), the Anu-s to their North (Kashmir and adjoining areas), the Druhyu-s to their West (present-day northern Pakistan), and the Yadu-s and Turvasu-s to their South-west (Rajasthan, Gujarat, western M.P.) and South-east (eastern M.P. and Chhattisgarh?) respectively. The Solar race of the Ikṣvāku-s are placed to the East (eastern U.P, northern Bihar). Later historical events described in the Puranas see the Anu-s expanding southwards and occupying the erstwhile territory of the Druhyu-s (present-day northern Pakistan) while the Druhyu-s move out into Afghanistan and then into Central Asia.  

This clearly shows that the Pūru-s were the inhabitants of the core Rigvedic area of the Oldest Books (6,3,7): Haryana and adjacent areas, and they (and, as we will see, originally their sub-tribe the Bharata-s) were the "Vedic Aryans". Their neighbouring tribes and people in all directions were the other non-Vedic (i.e. non-Pūru) but "Aryan" or Indo-European language speaking tribes. The Pūru expansions described in the Puranas explain all the known historical phenomena associated with the "Aryans": the expansion of Pūru kingdoms eastwards (Panchala, Kashi, Magadha, etc., as described in the Puranas) explains the phenomenon which Western scholars interpreted as an "Aryan expansion into India from west to east" (the area of the Rigveda extending eastwards to Haryana and westernmost U.P., the area of the Yajurveda extending further eastwards to cover the whole of U.P., and the area of the Atharvaveda extending even further eastwards up to Bengal), and their expansion westwards described in the Puranas and the Rigveda was the catalyst for the migration of Indo-European language speakers from the Anu and Druhyu tribes (whose dialects later developed into the other 11 branches of Indo-European languages) from India.

So, in short, the Pūru-s were the "Vedic Aryans" (i.e. the composers of the Rigveda and the speakers of the "Indo-Aryan" dialect, one of the 12 branch dialects of the original proto-IE language), and (among) the other tribes named in the Puranas were the speakers of the other (i.e. other than "Indo-Aryan") 11 branch dialects of the original proto-IE language.

The evidence for this lies in the Rigveda itself:

The Rigveda frequently refers to the "panchajana" or the "Five Tribes", i.e. the five Aiḷa tribes: Druhyu-s, Anu-s, Pūru-s, Yadu-s, Turvasu-s, who are named together in I.108.8. Some of the references are in the form of enumerations (as we would say: "Punjab, Sindha, Gujarat, Maratha, Dravida, Utkala, Banga…"), or directional references (as in "from Kashmir to Kanyakumari.."): I.47.7; 108.8; VI.46.8; VIII.4.1; 10.5. However, the other references make the identities very clear:

1. The word Ikṣvāku occurs only once (in X.60.4) as an epithet of the Sun.

2. The Yadu-s and Turvasu-s (Turvaṣa-s in the Rigveda) are mentioned many times (i.e. in 19 hymns). But almost every time (in as many as 15 hymns) they are mentioned together (as one groups together outsiders or distant peoples from one direction or general area: as an insular Maharashtrian in Mumbai, for example, would use phrases like "U.P.-Biharwale", "Gujarati-Marwadi", "Punjabi-Sindhi", or "Chini-Japani"; or "Madrasi" or "Kanadi" to encompass all South Indians, etc.). What is more, they are named mostly in references to two specific historical incidents which specifically describe them as living "far away" and having to cross several rivers to reach the Vedic area, and they sometimes figure as allies and sometimes as enemies.

3. The Druhyu-s are only mentioned thrice in a single hymn (VII.18), and there they are enemies of the composers of the hymn. The Anu-s are mentioned in 4 hymns: in the two more specific of them (VI.62; VII.18, both in the Old Books), they also are enemies of the composers of the hymns. In the other two more general references (V.31; VIII.74) both in the New Books, the word Anu is used as a synonym for Bhṛgu-s (who also figure as enemies in VII.18).

4. In contrast with all this, the Pūru-s are found referred to throughout the Rigveda in the first-person sense. They are the "We" of the Rigveda: in IV.38.1 and VI.20.10, the Pūru-s are directly identified with the first person plural pronoun. All the Vedic Gods are identified as the Gods of the Pūru-s: Agni is described as being like a cooling “fountain” to the Pūru-s (X.4.1), a “priest” who drives away the sins of the Pūru-s (I.129.5), the Hero who is worshipped by the Pūru-s (I.59.6), the protector of the sacrifices of the Pūru-s (V.17.1), and the destroyer of enemy castles for the Pūru-s (VII.5.3). Mitra and Varuṇa are described as affording special aid in battle and war to the Pūru-s, in the form of powerful allies and steeds (IV.38.1,3; 39.2). Indra is described as the God to whom the Pūru-s sacrifice in order to gain new favours (VI.20.10) and for whom the Pūru-s shed Soma (VIII.64.10). Indra gives freedom to the Pūru-s by slaying their enemies (IV.21.10), helps the Pūru-s in battle (VII.19.3), and breaks down enemy castles for the Pūru-s (I.63.7; 130.7; 131.4). He even addresses the Pūru-s, and asks them to sacrifice to him alone, promising in return his friendship, protection and generosity (X.48.5), in a manner reminiscent of the Biblical God’s “covenant” with the "People of the Book", the Jews. In VIII.10.5, the Aśvins are asked to leave the other four tribes (the Druhyu-s, Anu-s, Yadu-s and Turvasu-s, who are specifically named) and come to "us".

But there is much more:

a) The area of the Sarasvati river was the heartland of the Vedic Aryans. It was so important that it is the only river to have three whole hymns (apart from references in 52 other verses) in its praise: VI.61; VII.95 and 96. Sarasvati is also one of the three Great Goddesses praised in the āprī sūktas (family hymns) of all the ten families of composers of the Ṛigveda. As per the evidence of the Rigveda, the Sarasvati was a purely Pūru river, running through Pūru territory, with Pūru-s dwelling on both sides of the river: “the Pūru-s dwell, Beauteous One, on thy two grassy banks” (VII.96.2).

b) The identity of the Pūru-s with the Vedic Aryans is so unmistakable, that the line between “Pūru” and “man” is almost non-existent in the Rigveda: Griffith, for example, sees fit to directly translate the word Pūru as “man” in at least five verses: I.129.5; 131.4;  IV.21.10; V.171.1 and X.4.1. In one verse (VIII.64.10), the Rigveda itself identifies the Pūru-s with “mankind”: “Pūrave […] mānave jane”. The Rigveda actually coins a word Pūru-ṣa/ Puru-ṣa (descendant of Pūru), on the analogy of the word manu-ṣa (descendant of Manu), for “man”. In his footnote to I.59.2, Griffith notes: "Pūru's sons: men in general, Pūru being regarded as their progenitor", and again, in his footnote to X.48.5, Griffith notes: "Ye Pūru-s: 'O men' - Wilson", and likewise in his footnotes to VII.5.3 and X.4.1.

c) The identity of the Pūru-s with the Vedic Aryans is impossible to miss: Prof. Michael Witzel points out that it is “the Pūru, to whom (and to ... the Bharata) the Ṛigveda really belongs” (WITZEL 2005b:313), and affirms that the Rigveda was “composed primarily by the Pūru-s and Bharatas” (WITZEL 1995b:328), and notes that the Bharata-s were “a subtribe” (WITZEL 1995b:339) of the Pūru-s. Southworth even identifies the Vedic Aryans linguistically and archaeologically with the Pūru-s.

d) The only two unfriendly references to Pūru-s, in this case clearly to sections of non-Bharata Pūru-s who entered into conflict with the Bharata clan or sub-tribe, who are the Vedic Aryans proper of the Rigveda (especially during the period of the Family Books, after which the Rigveda becomes a general Pūru text), are in VII.8.4 which talks about “Bharata’s Agni” conquering the (other) Pūru-s, and VII.18.13 which talks about conquering “in sacrifice” the scornful Pūru-s (who failed to come to the aid of the Bharatas in the Battle of the Ten Kings). The Bharatas are undoubtedly the unqualified heroes of the hymns in the Family Books 2-7 (all but one of the references to the Bharatas appear only in the Family Books: I.96.3; II.7.1,5; 36.2;  III.23.2; 33.11,12; 53.12,24;  IV.25.4;  V.11.1; 54.14;  VI.16.19,45; VII.8.4; 33.6): in many of these verses even the Gods are referred to as Bharatas: Agni in I.96.3, II.7.1,5; IV.25.4 and VI.16.19, and the Maruts in II.36.2. In other verses, Agni is described as belonging to the Bharatas: III.23.2; V.11.1; VI.16.45 and VII.8.4. There is not a single reference even faintly hostile to them.

e) Significantly: 1. Bhāratī, the deity of the Bharata subtribe of the Pūru-s is one of the three Great Goddesses (like Sarasvati) praised in the family hymns of all the ten families of composers in the Rigveda. 2. Of those ten families of composers, while nine are priestly families, the tenth is a family exclusively consisting of composers from the royal dynasty of the Bharata subtribe of the Pūru-s, whose āprī sūkta is X.70.

But most significant of all is the use of the word ārya in the Rigveda.

Section 2. The ārya-s in the Rigveda.

Most significant of all is the use of the word ārya (which everyone acknowledges as the word by which the Vedic people referred to themselves) in the Rigveda in the sense of "belonging to our community/tribe". It is used only in reference to Bharata kings like Sudās and Divodāsa, never in reference to non-Pūru kings. Non-Pūru patrons (mainly of the Atri and Kaṇva rishis) are never called ārya. Even when non-Pūru kings like Mandhāta, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu are praised to the skies (Trasadasyu is even called a "demi-god" or "ardha-deva" in IV.42.8-9), it is only because of the help rendered by them to the Pūru-s (referred to in I.63.7; IV.38.1, VI.20.10; VII.19.3), and they are never called ārya. And the Rigveda even clearly specifies that ārya means Pūru, in I.59.2 (vis-a-vis I.59.6) and VII.5.6 (vis-a-vis VII.5.3).

The word ārya is found in 34 hymns, of which 28 are composed by composers belong to the Bharata family and the two families directly affiliated to them, the Angiras-es and Vasiṣṭha-s, and 2 more by the Viśvamitra-s who were also affiliated to the Bharata king Sudās before being supplanted by the Vasiṣṭha-s. One more within the Family Books is by the Gṛtsamada-s (note that the Gṛtsamada-s are descended from an Angiras rishi). Only 3 hymns are by rishis not affiliated to the Bharata-s, and the references to āryas in those three hymns are interesting as they show the neutrality of the composers vis-à-vis the Bharata Pūru-s:

One hymn (IX.63) is by a composer from the most neutral and apolitical family of rishis in the Rigveda, the Kaśyapa-s, and the word ārya is used twice in the hymn in the only case in the whole of the Rigveda where the word has a purely abstract rather than personal or tribal meaning. The other two hymns are by Kaṇva-s, who (alongwith the Atri-s) are politically active rishis not affiliated solely to the Vedic Aryans (Bharata-s and Pūru-s) but closely associated with other tribes as well. In one (VIII.51.9), the composer expresses (his) neutrality between ārya-s and dāsa-s, and in the other (even) this unaffiliated composer uses the word ārya only in reference to the Bharata king Divodāsa.

Most interesting of all:
i) Nine (IV.30, VI.22,33,60, VII.83, X.38,69,83,102)  of the above 34 hymns refer to ārya-s as enemies (8 of them jointly to ārya and dāsa enemies)! All the nine hymns are by Bharata-s or the two families of rishis closely affiliated to them, the Angiras-es and Vasiṣṭha-s.
ii) Further, 7 more hymns (I.100,111, IV.4, VI.19,25,44, X.69) refer to jāmi (kinsmen) and ajāmi (non-kinsmen) enemies, all 7 being composed by Bharata-s and Angiras-es.
iii) And one more (X.133), by a Bharata composer, refers to sanābhi (kinsmen) and niṣṭya (non-kinsmen) enemies. In addition, one more (VI.75), by an Angiras, likewise refers to sva araṇa (hostile kinsmen) and niṣṭya (non-kinsmen) enemies.

This has no logical explanation in AIT interpretation except to say that the Aryans must "also have fought amongst themselves". But the pattern of references makes the actual explanation clear: it is Bharata Pūru-s as the Vedic āryas fighting against non-Bharata Pūru-s as the enemy āryas. Finally, the Rigveda itself makes this clear when it tells us in the Viśvamitra hymn III.53 (which records the aśvamedha performed by Sudās on the eastern banks of the Sarasvati, after which he is described as expanding his kingdom in all directions) that the Bharata-s, when they set out to do battle, do not differentiate between those who are close to them (i.e. kinsmen) and those who are distant from them (non-kinsmen).


Note: There are only 19 hymns in the Rigveda (out of a total of 1028 hymns) composed by composers from the Bharata family. But 3 out of 34 hymns in the Rigveda which use the word ārya, 2 out of 9 hymns in the Rigveda which refer to "both ārya and dāsa enemies", 1 out of 7 hymns in the Rigveda which refer to "jāmi and ajāmi enemies", and the only hymn which refers to "sanābhi and niṣṭya enemies", are by Bharata composers.

The evidence is very clear: The Pūru-s  ̶  and only the Pūru-s  ̶  and particularly the Bharata Pūru-s from among them, are the "Vedic Aryans", composers of the Rigveda and speakers of the Vedic dialect (the "Indo-Aryan" of the linguists). And the other tribes named in the Puranas are logically not "Vedic Aryans". The other tribes find mention in the Pūru Rigveda only in the same way as outsiders like the non-Jewish tribes of Palestine and the Egyptians, Hittites, Babylonians and Persians are mentioned in the Jewish Tanakh (Old Testament). They can logically include (if evidence to this effect can be found in the Rigveda) the speakers of the other IE dialects (which later became the other 11 branches of IE languages). And, as we will see, the Rigveda and traditional history actually provide recorded evidence to this effect.

As we will see, the expansion of the Pūru-s westwards led to migrations of the two conglomerates of tribes to their west, the Anu-s and the Druhyu-s, out of India. But before that, let us arrive at the chronology of these events by examining, in part 2 of this article, the chronology and  the geography of the Rigveda.

Bibliography (of the 4 Parts)

GRIFFITH: The Hymns of the Rigveda. Griffith, Ralph T.H. (Complete translation of the Rigveda), 1889.

HOPKINS 1896a: Prāgāthikāni. Hopkins, Edward W. pp. 23-92 in JAOS (Journal of the American Oriental Society), Vol.17, 1896.

HOPKINS 1896b: Numerical Formulae in the Veda. Hopkins, Edward W. in JAOS (Journal of the American Oriental Society), Vol.16, 1896.

KUZ'MINA 2007: The Origin of the Indo-Iranians. Kuz'mina, Elena. ed. J.P.Mallory. Leiden Indo-European Etymological Dictionary Series. ed. A.Lubotsky. Brill, Leiden-Boston, 2007.

PROFERES 1999: The Formation of Vedic Liturgies. Proferes, Theodore. Harvard Thesis, April 1999.

TALAGERI 2000: The Rigveda – A Historical Analysis. Talageri S.G. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000.

TALAGERI 2008: The Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence. Talageri S.G., Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008.

WITZEL 1986: Tracing the Vedic Dialects. Witzel, Michael. in “Dialectes dans les Litteratures Indo-Aryennes”, Paris (Fondation Hugot), 16-18 Septembre, 1986.

WITZEL 1987: On the Localization of Vedic Texts and Schools. Witzel, Michael. in “India and the Ancient World –History Trade and Culture Before AD 650” ed. by Gilbert Pollet, Orientalia  Lovaniensia Analecta, vol. 25, Departement Orientalistiek, Leuven.

WITZEL 1991: Notes on Vedic Dialects. Witzel, Michael.  in ZINBUN, Annals of the Institute for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University, 67(1991).

WITZEL 1995a: Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters. Witzel. Michael.  pp. 85-125 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin, 1995.

WITZEL 1995b: Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics. Witzel, Michael. pp. 307-352 in “The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia”, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin.

WITZEL 1997a: Sarama and the Panis – Origins of Prosimetric Exchange in Archaic India. Witzel, Michael. pp. 397-409 in Joseph Harris and Karl Reichl (eds.), “Prosimetrum: Crosscultural perspectives in Narrative Prose and Verse”. D. S. Brewer. Cambridge.

WITZEL 1997b: The Development of the Vedic Canon and Its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu. Witzel, Michael. in “Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts”, ed. by M.Witzel, Cambridge 1997 (being the proceedings of the International Vedic Workshop, Harvard univ., June 1989).

WITZEL 1999: Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan. EJVS 5-1, 1999.

WITZEL 2000a: The Languages of Harappa. Witzel, Michael. Feb. 17, 2000.

WITZEL 2000b: The Home of the Aryans. Witzel, Michael. in “Anusantyai, Fest schrift fur Johanna Norten zum” 70, Geburtstag. Ed. Almut Hintze, Eva Tichy, JH Roll, 2000.

WITZEL 2001a: Autochthonous Aryans: The Evidence from Old Indian and Iranian Texts. Witzel, Michael. (EJVS)7-3(2001)

WITZEL 2001b: WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri, at http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0702/ejvs0702a.txt

WITZEL 2005: Indocentrism: autochthonous visions of ancient India. Witzel, Michael. pp.341-404, in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy — Evidence and Inference in Indian history”, ed.Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L. Patton, Routledge, London & New York, 2005.

WITZEL 2006: Central Asian Roots and Acculturation in South Asia: Linguistic and Archaelogical Evidence from Western Central Asia, the Hindukush and Northwestern South Asia for Early Indo-Aryan Language and Religion. in “Indus Civilization: Text and Context”, edited by Toshiki Osada, Manohar Publications, New Delhi, 2006.