THE COMPLETE LINGUISTIC CASE FOR THE OUT-OF-INDIA THEORY

[This is a word-document form of the power-point presentation that I made for my talk (or series of three talks) on "The Complete Linguistic Case for the Out-of-India Theory" given and uploaded on youtube on 25-8-2021, 1-9-2021 and 8-9-2021 respectively, for the Kushal Mehra Podcast].

 

 

THE COMPLETE LINGUISTIC CASE

FOR THE OUT-OF-INDIA THEORY

(OIT)

Versus

The totally Fake and Fraudulent

Linguistic Case for the Aryan-

Invasion/Migration-Theory (AIT/AMT)

 

 

The "Aryan" Issue is purely Linguistic-1

• There was never any record or tradition or belief anywhere

in India or in the world that any race called "Aryans" ever

existed, let alone came into India from outside.

• The "Aryan" concept came into existence when European

colonial scholars in India discovered the linguistic family

relationship between North Indian, Central Asian, Iranian

and European languages after their discovery of the

Sanskrit language and grammar and initial comparison with

Greek and Latin.

• This led to the realization that these languages constituted

one family and must have had a common origin in a

common ancestral language and a common ancestral

Homeland. They initially gave the self-appellation

ārya/airya in the oldest texts, the Rigveda and Avesta, as

the name for the family (later changed to Indo-European).

 

 

The "Aryan" Issue is purely Linguistic-2

• The AIT is based on the following beliefs:

• 1. The original Proto-Indo-European language was spoken

in the Steppes of South Russia. It had twelve branches

which migrated from this homeland in due course.

• 2. The "Indo-Iranians" were one group of two branches

which migrated from South Russia to Central Asia over a

period of time where they developed a common culture

before separating in different directions.

• 3. The Indo-Aryan branch migrated into the Punjab, where

it settled down and developed the Vedic culture, and

where the Rigveda was composed, before spreading out

into the rest of North India over a period of centuries. The

Indo-Aryan languages are descended from the Vedic

language which gradually developed into Classical Sanskrit.

• 4. The original languages of India were "non-Aryan".

 

 

The "Aryan" Issue is purely Linguistic-3

• The twelve known branches of Indo-European

languages (from the west) are: Italic, Celtic, Germanic,

Baltic, Slavic, Illyrian (Albanian), Thraco-Phrygian

(Armenian), Hellenic (Greek), Anatolian (Hittite),

Iranian, Tocharian, Indo-Aryan.

• There is absolutely no archaeological identification

anywhere of the original Proto-Indo-Europeans, Indo-

Iranians, or even the Vedic Indo-Aryans in India to this

date as no suspected site has yielded readable records.

• So the AIT case is based wholly and solely on the basis

of linguistic arguments (sought to be corroborated by

textual analysis, a totally separate issue).

 

 

The Real Genuine Linguistic Case

• The entire AIT case is based on linguistic arguments,

but every single one of these arguments is either naïve

and childish or fake and fraudulent and an examination

of each argument in fact proves the OIT.

• Here we will examine and dissect all the known

linguistic AIT arguments and I challenge anyone to

disprove our case or to produce a single other new (or

old, but inadvertently missed out here) linguistic

argument which will prove the AIT case.

• The reaction is predicted here: The AIT side will simply

ignore and stonewall the whole debate, or reduce it

to a slanging match and name-calling campaign in

order to sabotage the debate itself!

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-1

• First, let us deal with certain old and very childish

arguments which are still being made!

• 1. There are non-IE languages in India. If the IE languages

originated in India, the "Aryans" would have first

"aryanized" India before spreading out.

• 2. There are more IE branches in Europe than in India.

• 3. The Homeland should be a geographically central area.

• 4. If the other IE branches emigrated from India, they

would have taken with them some purely Indian features,

which they have not, such as (a) names for purely Indian

animals and plants, and (b) the distinction between dental

(त, द, न, ल) and cerebral (ट, ड, ण, ळ) sounds.

[Incredibly, ideologically diverse "scholars" like Witzel,

Manasataramgini and Devdutt Pattanaik, among others,

make this last mentally deficient argument!].

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-2

• These arguments are not even linguistic arguments: they

are simply illogical and childish arguments, which, on

examination, even go against rather than with what does

actually occur in the world in such situations:

• 1. Languages usually leave their surrounding areas

untouched even when they spread into distant areas:

English linguistically anglicized almost the whole of

Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA, while Scots

Gaelic, Welsh and Irish still exist on the British Isles. And

Spain linguistically hispanicized the major part of Central

and South America without being able to replace the

non-IE Basque language within the borders of Spain itself.

• Any hypothetical "Homeland" in the Steppes will also have

similarly left the Caucasian, Uralic and Altaic languages

within and close to its own area "unaryanized".

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-3

• 2. (a) The Dravidian family has every single branch only in South

India (NW Brahui is also now accepted by linguists as having

migrated from South India). Yet linguists postulate or speculate that

the Dravidian family originated in West Asia where not a single

branch is historically recorded as ever having been spoken!

• (b) The Steppes have only one branch: Slavic. Europe has seven

branches. Yet the Steppes are postulated as the Homeland, not

Europe. [The NWIndia-CAsia cluster has three branches, plus

archaic Kentum Bangani and archaic Sinhalese further inside India].

• (c) The greatest diversity of Sino-Tibetan languages is in NE India.

• (d) As per Johanna Nichols' path-breaking study, "The structure of

the family tree, the accumulation of genetic diversity at the

western periphery of the range, the location of Tocharian and its

implications for early dialect geography, the early attestation of

Anatolian in Asia Minor, and the geography of the centum-satem

split all point in the same direction: a locus in western central

Asia… in the vicinity of ancient Bactria-Sogdiana".

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-4

• 3. Languages actually spread out more generally in one

direction, rather than from a central area in all directions.

As Koenraad Elst points out: "most languages that

expanded, did so from a far corner of their later expanse:

Russian from Kiev eastwards, Arabic from Arabia

northwestwards, Bantu from West Africa southeastwards.

People do not migrate symmetrically because the reasons

for migrating are not symmetrical: the appeal of one side

is different from the appeal of the other side". Or

elsewhere: "Most languages or language families that

have spread (Amerind, Austronesian, Bantu, Arabic,

Russian) have done so from a far corner of their historical

speech area (Canada, Taiwan, West Africa, Arabia,

Ukraine); a symmetrical expansion is simply unheard of,

because the reason why people or languages migrate is

rarely symmetrical."

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-5

• 4. This is the most fraudulent argument of all: Indo-Aryan

and European languages generally have common names for

plants and animals which are found in both India and

Europe, so absence of Indian names should not in itself

disprove movement from India. But the thing is:

• (a) European languages actually have preserved names for

Indian animals not found in Europe:

• ape: Skt. kapi, Greek kepos.

• leopard: Skt. pṛdāku, Greek pardos, Persian fars, Hittite

paršana.

• elephant/ivory: Skt. ibha, Greek erepa/elephas, Latin ebur,

Hittite laḫpa. (and with shift in meaning, Gothic ulbandus).

• [From root ṛabh/labh (=rbha/ḷbha) "to grasp", so same

etymology as Sanskrit hastin. India is the only IE language

speaking area which has elephants].

 

 

First: The Old Childish arguments-6

• (b) The IE languages of Europe and West Asia had left 4000-

5000 years ago after a long sojourn in the northwestern

border areas of India, where they could already have lost

the names for animals and plants of the interior areas of

India (and the distinction between dentals and cerebrals).

How does the absence of such names and features in

Europe show they did not move out from India, when the

Romany (gypsy) languages of Europe, which actually

belong to the Indo-Aryan branch, and which everyone

accepts migrated from the interior of India just over 1000

years ago, have also not preserved names for Indian plants

and animals (not even ape, leopard or elephant) or the

distinction between dental and cerebral sounds?

• What does one conclude about the level of intelligence and

honesty of "scholars" who put forward this argument?

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-1

• The oldest arguments for the AIT are based on the reconstruction

of the geographical environment of the Original Homeland on the

basis of common words found in geographically distinct and distant

branches, e.g.:

• There is the "salmon argument": salmon are found only in rivers

flowing into the Atlantic and Baltic seas, and there is a common

word for them in the IE languages.

• Also, "some clues regarding where the Proto-Indo-European

languages had been spoken: the Indo-European languages had

words for certain flora and fauna (bears and beech trees are well-

known examples). By plotting on a map the natural environment

of these diagnostic flora and fauna, philologists established that

the Indo-European Homeland was a fairly primitive place in the

temperate zone" (DYENS 1988:4).

• "Generally, the PIE plants and animals are those of the temperate

climate" (WITZEL 2005:372), and that in the Rigveda "words such

as those for 'wolf' and 'snow' rather indicate linguistic memories

of a colder climate" (WITZEL 2005:373).

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-2

• 1. Salmon: A word *lóks is reconstructed from

Germanic-Baltic-Slavic words for the salmon,

Armenian and Ossetic words for the trout, and

the Tocharian word for fish (sought to be

connected with the Sanskrit words lakṣa =lakh

and lākṣā =lac). However this weak argument is

generally rejected nowadays, and the word (in an

OIT scenario) could well be a general word for

fish developed in Central Asia among the

emigrating branches from India, later transferred

to the most prominent fishes in the subsequent

areas of the migrating branches.

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-3

• 2. Beech: Beech trees are found only in Europe, and the so-

called PIE word for the beech tree is also found only in

Europe! The cognate words for "beech", from the

reconstructed PIE form *bhaHk'o-, are found only in the

five European branches (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic,

Slavic), and even among them, the Baltic and Slavic forms

seem to be borrowed from Germanic (GAMKRELIDZE

1995:534). Greek and Albanian have different words for

"beech", and the forms which seem to be derived from

*bhaHk'o- mean "oak". The word is totally missing in all the

Asiatic branches: Anatolian, Tocharian, Armenian, Iranian

and Indo-Aryan.

• And yet, a "beech argument" is being discussed since over

a century, claiming that a common proto-form for "beech"

proves a "temperate zone" European Homeland!

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-4

• 3. Bears: a) Europe proper has only one species of bear,

ursus arctos (the old world brown bear). And ursus

maritimus (the polar bear) is restricted to the arctic areas,

though this does include Scandinavia.

• India has four species of bears, ursus arctos (the old world

brown bear), ursus thibetanus (the Himalayan black bear),

helarctos malayanus (the Malayan sun bear), and melursus

ursinus (the Indian sloth bear), and a fifth species,

ailuropoda melanoleuca (the panda bear of Tibet and

China) is found to its immediate north.

• b) The PIE root *h2ṛetk- from which the common words for

bear are derived (PIE *h2ṛtkos-, Vedic ṛkṣa-, Avestan arəšə-,

Greek arktos, Latin ursus, Old Irish art, Armenian ar, Hittite

hartagga) "is otherwise seen only in Skt. rakṣas-

'destruction, damage, night demon'" (MALLORY-ADAMS

2006:138) but nowhere in the other eleven branches!

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-5

• 4. Wolf: the wolf is as much a native of the

major part of India as of Steppe or European

areas with cold or temperate climates. When

Rudyard Kipling wrote the Jungle Book,

featuring a boy called Mowgli raised in the

jungle by wolves, he was talking about an

Indian boy raised in an Indian jungle by Indian

wolves. Although Kipling actually was from

Britain, the wolves in his story did not

represent "linguistic memories" of British

wolves.

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-6

• 5. Snow: a) "snow" is found in India as much as in the western

areas. As per the Encyclopaedia Britannica, India has "the largest

area, outside of the Polar regions, under permanent ice and

snow": the Himalayas.

• b) The word hima, in 10 verses in the Rigveda (I.34.1; 64.14; 116.8;

119.6; II.33.2; V.54.15; VI.48.8; VIII.73.3; X.37.10; 68.10), means

"winter" (also not a "linguistic memory": it is a season occuring in

every corner of India, as in, e.g., Marathi hivāḷā). Further, in 4 of the

references, the verses talk about the Indian winter offering relief

from the burning heat of the Indian summer.

• c) And hima in the meaning of "snow" is also not a "linguistic

memory": it is mentioned in the Rigveda only twice in the New

Rigveda, after the Vedic Aryans expanded westwards past the

Punjab into Afghanistan and the northwestern Himalayas from their

Haryana homeland: in X.121.4 (a reference to the snow-covered

mountains of the Himalayas or the northwest) it means snow, and

in another reference, in VIII.32.26, it could possibly refer to a

weapon made of ice.

 

 

Linguistic Paleontology-7

• So clearly, none of the words argued to indicate a non-

Indian "temperate" Homeland in the Steppes or in

Europe actually prove the AIT or disprove the OIT.

• In fact, as we saw, the common words for the ape,

leopard, and especially elephant/ivory, show that the

PIE geographical environment was Indian, and that the

migrating branches 5000 years ago had actually taken

specifically Indian words with them to the west, even

when the Indo-Aryan Romany (gypsies) undisputedly

migrating from India just 1000 or so years ago did not!

• So Linguistic Paleontology, the most important and

persistent linguistic argument of the Old School,

actually proves the OIT and disproves the AIT.

 

 

The Isoglosses-1

• Linguistic Isoglosses are linguistic (grammar, phonology, vocabulary)

features which developed in a particular geographical area. They

can influence or extend to unrelated neighboring languages

• A distinction between cerebral sounds (ṭ, ḍ, ḷ, ṇ) as opposed to

dental sounds (t, d, l, n) is primarily found only in India. Of these,

the sound "ḷ" is found only in the Dravidian languages of South India

and in neighboring languages (Konkani, Marathi, Gujarati, Oriya)

but is missing in most of North India. (Another cerebral "ḷ" sound,

commonly written as zh, is found only in the extreme south: in

Tamil and Malayalam).

• Click sounds are originally found only in the Khoisan languages of

South Africa, but in time have been borrowed by unrelated

languages in their neighborhood : some Bantu languages (Zulu,

Xhosa, Gciriku, Yei) and a Cushitic language (Dahalo).

• Absence of nasal vowels is a southern isogloss, originally confined

to the Dravidian languages, but extending to the southernmost

Indo-Aryan language Marathi (but not to Konkani which came from

the north after the isogloss had spread to Marathi)

 

 

The Isoglosses-2

• The Isoglosses shared by different branches of IE can

show the order of migration of the branches from the

Homeland:

• 1. Except Hittite, the other 11 branches share a large

number of basic linguistic features, which show that

Hittite was the first to migrate from the Homeland,

after which the other 11 branches developed those

features which are missing in the Hittite branch.

• 2. 5 branches (Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Armenian, Greek,

Albanian) share certain late features missing in the

other 7 branches, which show that these 5 branches

had remained in the Homeland and developed these

features after the migration of the other 7 branches.

 

 

The Isoglosses-3

• A study of the linguistic isoglosses shared by the different

branches can indicate not only the order of migration but

also the location of that Original Homeland.

• The AIT supporting linguist H.H.Hock admits that while any

"'Sanskrit-origin' hypothesis" (which holds Sanskrit=PIE)

"runs into insurmountable difficulties, due to the

irreversible nature of relevant linguistic changes [….but….]

the likelihood of the 'PIE-in-India' hypothesis cannot be

assessed on the basis of similar robust evidence" (HOCK

1999a:2): "The 'PIE-in-India' hypothesis is not as easily

refuted as the 'Sanskrit-origin' hypothesis, since it is not

based on 'hard-core' linguistic evidence, such as sound

changes, which can be subjected to critical and definitive

analysis. Its cogency can be assessed only in terms of

circumstantial arguments, especially arguments based on

plausibility and simplicity" (HOCK 1999a:12).

 

 

The Isoglosses-4

• In short, there is really no linguistic argument which proves

the AIT or disproves the OIT: the case can only be assessed

only on the basis of "circumstantial arguments, especially

arguments based on plausibility and simplicity".

• And the only linguistic argument he puts forward "based on

plausibility and simplicity", as clinching the AIT case and

disproving the OIT case, is the argument based on the

evidence of the Isoglosses. According to him the pattern of

the Isoglosses proves the AIT and disproves the OIT.

• However, Hock's case is made up of flawed arguments, and

an examination of the actual Evidence of the Isoglosses, in

fact, shows (see my book "The Rigveda and the Avesta –

The Final Evidence" 2008, chapter 7) that the "PIE-in-India

hypothesis" is the only hypothesis which explains all the

isoglosses and all the existing linguistic facts and evidence

in the AIT-vs.-OIT debate.

 

 

The Isoglosses-5

• Shared Isoglosses between two branches, or among

several branches, indicates proximity in the Original

Homeland: i.e. branches sharing isoglosses must have

been adjacent or geographically contiguous to each

other in the Original Homeland.

• Hock produces a map-diagram to argue that the

present-day relative geographical position of the

branches vis-à-vis each other is the same as the

original relative geographical position of the branches

in the Original Homeland vis-à-vis each other as

indicated by the Isoglosses: i.e. branches closest to

each other today, or in the same part (e.g. northwest)

of the present IE world today, were also originally

closest to each other or in the same part (northwest) of

the Original Homeland as per the Isoglosses.

 

 

The Isoglosses-6

• Hock's claim is that if the 12 branches are arranged in the

Original Homeland in a pattern similar to their historically

earliest-recorded geographical pattern (e.g. Indo-Aryan and

Iranian to the extreme southeast, Germanic and Celtic to

the northwest in their present relative geographical

positions, and so on) all the Isoglosses fit in perfectly, so

that the most likely solution is a central location for the

Original Homeland: "if we accept the view that Proto-Indo-

European was spoken somewhere within a vast area 'from

East Central Europe to Eastern Russia' (HOCK & JOSEPH

1996:523), […] all we need to assume is that the Indo-

European languages by and large maintained their relative

positions to each other as they fanned out from the

homeland. In that case, however, the speakers of Indo-

Aryan must have migrated out of an original Eurasian

homeland and into India." (HOCK 1999a:16-17).

 

 

The Isoglosses-7

• However, he claims, if the Homeland is postulated in India,

it would be impossible to explain the present relative

geographical pattern of the 12 branches:

• "What would have to be assumed is that the various Indo-

European languages moved out of India in such a manner

that they maintained their relative position to each other

during and after the migration. However, given the bottle-

neck nature of the route(s) out of India, it would be

extremely difficult to do so.

• […] Alternatively, one would have to assume that after

moving out of India, the non-Indo-Aryan speakers of Indo-

European languages realigned in a pattern that was

substantially the same as their dialectological alignment

prior to migration ― a scenario which at best is

unnecessarily complex and, at worst, unbelievable" (HOCK

1999a:16-17).

 

 

The Isoglosses-8

• Hock's case would have been unassailable, if it had been

honest:

• To give an analogy, the major Dravidian languages are

distributed within India aligned in a certain pattern: Brahui

(northwest), and Kurukh and Malto (northeast) in the

North. And in the South, the southernmost belt of Tamil

(southeast) and Malayalam (southwest). There is a Central

belt of Kannada and Tulu (in the west, with Tulu in the

southwestern corner of this belt) and Telugu (in the east).

• Now, if all these languages migrated out of India through

the northwest, and settled down in a large part of Europe

or Africa, would they settle down there "realigned in a

pattern that was substantially the same as their

dialectological alignment prior to migration" (Tamil to the

southeast, Malayalam to the southwest, and so on)?

• Obviously not!

 

 

The Isoglosses-9

• However, Hock's case is not an honest one:

• 1. He pointedly excludes from his arrangement one crucial branch,

Tocharian, on the plea that "it is difficult to find dialectal

affiliation" (HOCK 1999a:16) for it.

• Tocharian shares certain important isoglosses with Anatolian

(Hittite) and Italic. Now, Tocharian is found at the north-eastern

corner of the Indo-European world and Italic at the opposite south-

western corner. Hittite is at the south-central edge, but separated

from Italic (even if we treat the landscape as a flat piece of paper)

by Greek and Albanian (not taken in Hock's diagram).

• In no way can Hittite, Tocharian and Italic be shown to be sharing

these important isoglosses with each other in contiguous areas in

the Original Homeland and then "maintaining their relative

positions to each other as they fanned out from the [centrally

located] homeland" to their respective earliest attested areas.

• So Hock simply ignores the concerned isoglosses, and excludes

Tocharian from his arrangement, and crosses his fingers in the hope

that no-one notices

 

 

 

 

The Isoglosses-10

• 2. In fact, Hock leaves out a large number of important isoglosses in

his "dialectological arrangement" diagram of the 12 branches since

each of these isoglosses links together branches which are at

distant geographical locations and could not have been spoken in

contiguous areas in the Original Homeland. e.g. Hittite, Tocharian

and Italic are the dialects which were the first, second and third,

respectively, to migrate from the Original Homeland; and they share

a few isoglosses almost exclusively with each other.

•  Hittite was the first branch to separate completely from the rest,

and all the Other 11 branches together developed certain

fundamental features in common which are missing in Hittite (even

leading some linguists to postulate a Indo-Hittite family with two

primary groups: 1) Hittite and 2) the Other 11 Branches).

• So any isoglosses shared by Hittite with some, but not all, of these

other branches, are formed only after this initial separation, and

could therefore only have been formed outside this common exit

point in different stages when those particular branches were also

moving out of the common homeland.

 

 

The Isoglosses-11

• The logical explanation for the Isoglosses: Hittite was the first

branch to separate completely from the rest, and all the other

branches together developed certain fundamental features in

common which are missing in Hittite (even leading some linguists

to postulate a major division of IE languages into two primary

groups: Hittite, vs. the Other 11 Branches).

• So any isoglosses shared by Hittite with some, but not all, of these

other branches, are formed only after this initial separation, and

could therefore only have been formed outside this common exit

point in different stages when those particular branches were also

moving out of the common homeland.

• So the isoglosses were not formed within the Homeland with the

branches "maintaining their relative positions to each other as

they fanned out from the [centrally located] homeland" but within

the Original + Secondary Homeland due to interaction between the

dialects in an area near or after a common exit point from this

Original Homeland as they moved away from that homeland into

the Secondary Homeland.

 

 

The Isoglosses-12

• Dialects exiting from the Original Homeland clearly exited

into a neighboring area which functioned as a Secondary

Homeland outside the exit point of the Original Homeland).

• In the OIT, the area (Haryana to Afghanistan) to the south of

the great mountain complex (separating Central Asia from

South Asia) represents the Original Homeland and Central

Asia represents the Secondary Homeland.

• Indian historical tradition and the Rigveda jointly record

that (a) the Druhyus migrated westwards from the Punjab

into Afghanistan in the pre-Rigvedic period and later

migrated outwards in stages into Central Asia and beyond,

and (b) the Anus later migrated westwards from the Punjab

into Afghanistan in the Early Rigvedic period and later

spread out and migrated westwards in stages.

• [See my books and blogs for the details].

 

 

The Isoglosses-13 Gamkrelidze-1

• Gamkrelidze sketches out the linguistic scenario:

• He postulates "two major dialect areas: Area A,

comprising Anatolian-Tocharian-Italic-Celtic, and Area B,

comprising Indo-Iranian-Greek-Balto-Slavic-Germanic"

(Gamkrelidze 1995:346) in the Homeland area.

• These two dialect areas functioned independently:

"structural innovations appeared in Area A which united

all of its dialects in opposition to those of Area B"

(Gamkrelidze 1995:347).

• Likewise, "in Area B, we can distinguish several isoglosses

which affect almost the entire dialect area" (Gamkrelidze

1995:347). But Area B was also divided into two distinct

sub-areas of "more stable dialect groups in which Indo-

Iranian-Greek-Armenian were united as against Balto-

Slavic-Germanic. The dialect boundary is clearly reflected

in the distribution of isoglosses" (Gamkrelidze 1995:347).

 

 

The Isoglosses-14 Gamkrelidze-2

• But sometimes some isogloss which developed in, and

spread over, in Area A could also spill over into a dialect in

the adjacent part of Area B and vice versa: "A structural

trait that arose somewhere near the major dialect

boundary spread across that boundary to affect a region

at some distance on the other side […] It was still a single

linguistic system, subdivided into interacting dialect

regions" (Gamkrelidze 1995:346).

• Gamkrelidze basically sets out the general linguistic

schedule of formation of the IE isoglosses as the dialects

dispersed from the homeland, wherever that homeland be

situated.

• But, as we will see, right from the first step, of identifying

the exact geographical locales of Areas A and B, and the

two main sub-areas of Area B, only the Indian Homeland

explains all the isoglosses.

 

 

The Isoglosses-15 Gamkrelidze 3

• Gamkrelidze's Area B represents the Original

Homeland area from Haryana to Afghanistan (the two

sub-areas being Haryana-Punjab and Afghanistan

respectively), and Gamkrelidze's Area A represents

the Secondary Homeland area in Central Asia.

• Gamkrelidze's division clearly represents the stage

when (in that order) Hittite (Anatolian), Tocharian,

Italic and Celtic had already migrated into Central Asia

from Afghanistan; while the Baltic, Slavic and

Germanic branches formed the rearguard of this

Druhyu migration northwards, and were still in the

South with the 5 Last Branches.

• An examination of the different isoglosses between the

different branches presents us with the stages earlier

and later to the stage presented by Gamkrelidze.

 

 

The Isoglosses-16

• STAGE ONE:

• The Hittite (Anatolian) branch migrated northwards into Area A

(Central Asia) from Afghanistan. The other 11 branches in Area B to

the south acquired the following features in this stage:

• 1. Feminines in *ā, *ī, *ū.

• 2. Instrumental Plural masculine *-ois.

• 3. Independent deictic demonstrative pronouns *so, *sa, *tho (pl.

th)

• 4. If the laryngeal theory is right, they also lost the laryngeal

sounds.

• STAGE TWO:

• The Tocharian branch also moved northwards into Area A (Central

Asia).

• All the other historical dialects of IE, which continued to remain in

Area B to the south, developed in the course of time all the

common features of PIE mythology, religion, technology and culture

reconstructed by linguistic and cultural studies.

 

 

The Isoglosses-17

• STAGE THREE-1:

• Italic and Celtic , in that order, also exited into Area A (Central

Asia), where Anatolian was settled in the western part (western

Turkmenistan) and Tocharian in the eastern part (Kyrgyzstan).

• This is the most important stage in which the major divisions

between the different dialect groups were developed, and it is this

stage which Gamkrelidze portrays when he divides the Original

Homeland into "two major dialect areas: Area A, comprising

Anatolian-Tocharian-Italic-Celtic, and Area B, comprising Indo-

Iranian-Greek-Balto-Slavic-Germanic" (Gamkrelidze 1995:346).

• The dialects in Area A developed the following features:

• 1. The relative pronoun *khois: Anatolian, Tocharian, Italic.

• 2. The thematic genitive in -*ī: Tocharian, Italic, Celtic.

• 3. Subjunctives in *-ā, *-ē: Tocharian, Italic, Celtic.

• 4. Middles in *-r: Anatolian, Tocharian, Italic, Celtic.

• [Phrygian (Armenian) across the border in Area B also may have

acquired the last of the above isoglosses].

 

 

The Isoglosses-18

• STAGE THREE-2:

• The dialects in Area B developed the following features:

• 1. Middles in *-oi/*-moi: All the dialects.

• 2. Comparison of adjectives in *thero, *is-tho: Germanic Greek-

Iranian-Indo-Aryan.

• 3. Loss of aspiration in voiced aspirated stops: Germanic-Baltic-

Slavic, Iranian.

• 4. Instrumental singular masculine *-o: Germanic-Baltic, Iranian-

Indo-Aryan.

• All the dialects in Area B-1 (Germanic-Baltic-Slavic) developed the

following isoglosses:

• 1. Thematic genitive in *-ō: All the dialects.

• 2. Genitive-ablative merger: All the dialects.

• 3. Oblique cases in *-m-: All the dialects.

• 4. Merger of *a and *o: All the dialects.

 

 

The Isoglosses-19

• STAGE THREE-3:

• All the dialects in Area B-2 (Albanian-Armenian-Greek-Iranian-

Indo-Aryan) developed the following isoglosses:

• 1. Thematic genitive in *-(o)syo: All the dialects.

• 2. Oblique cases in *-bhi-: All the dialects.

• 3. Athematic and thematic aorists: All the dialects.

• 4. Augmented forms: All the dialects.

• 5. Reduplicated presents: All the dialects.

• 6. The prohibitive negation *mē: All the dialects.

• 7. Conversion of *s>h of *s before vowels, of intervocalic *s, of *s

before and after certain sonants, but not of *s before or after a

stop: Armenian-Greek-Iranian. [Some western dialects of Indo-

Aryan show this trait partially: some dialects of Gujarati, and

Sinhalese which migrated to the South from the northwest].

• [These 5 Last Dialects developed their most distinctive features]

 

 

The Isoglosses-20 [Stage 3 map]

 

 

 

The Isoglosses-21

• STAGE FOUR-1: Germanic also exited into Area A (Central Asia).

• The Dialects in Area A developed the following features:

• 1. The alteration of dental clusters at morpheme boundaries: *tt>

ss: Italic-Celtic-Germanic.

• The Dialects in Area B developed the following features:

• 1. The alteration of dental clusters at morpheme boundaries: *tt>

st: Baltic-Slavic, Albanian-Greek-Armenian-Iranian.

• [Indo-Aryan alone retained the original *tt].

• 2. Satem assibilation, palatals>aspirated stops (>sibilants): Baltic-

Slavic (transitional area), Armenian-Iranian-Indo-Aryan (core area).

• 3. The "Ruki" rule: Baltic-Slavic (transitional area), Armenian-

Iranian-Indo-Aryan (core area).

• 4. Merger of PIE velars and labio-velars: Baltic-Slavic, Iranian-Indo-

Aryan (core area), Armenian (transitional area).

• 5. Locative plural in *-s-u, *-s-i: Baltic-Slavic, Greek-Iranian-Indo-

Aryan.

 

 

The Isoglosses-22

• STAGE FOUR-2:

• 1. Cognate forms of certain words peculiar to the Rigveda (and the

Avesta) are found outside "Indo-Iranian" only in Slavic (krṣṇa,

śyāva, bhaga, etc.).

• 2. Also, the root -druh in Baltic and Slavic has exactly the opposite

meaning (friend) that it has in Iranian and Indo-Aryan (enemy).

• 3. Gamkrelidze also refers to "lexical evidence" for "closely

interacting areas of satem languages which coincide with the

Armenian-Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic areas" (Gamkrelidze).

• STAGE FIVE:

• Baltic exited into Area A (Central Asia). Now Slavic was the only

Druhyu branch left in Area B.

• The Dialects in Area B developed the following features:

• 1. Genitive-locative dual in *-os: Slavic, Iranian-Indo-Aryan.

• 2. First person singular nominal in *-em: Slavic, Iranian-Indo-Aryan.

 

 

The Isoglosses-23

• STAGE SIX:

• Slavic also exited into Area A (Central Asia) in the wake of the trail

of the other Druhyu dialects moving northwards through Central

Asia and then westwards on the path that would lead them to

Europe.

• In Area A, the First Dialects Hittite (Anatolian) and Tocharian still

settled there developed certain features with the rearguard of the

departing Druhyus, Baltic-Slavic:

• 1. Modal forms in *-l- : Anatolian, Tocharian, Baltic-Slavic.

• 2. Middle present participle in *-mo-: Anatolian, Baltic-Slavic.

• In Area B, the Oldest Books of the Rigveda were being composed in

this period, and the Battle of the ten kings had started the exodus

of major Anu Iranian groups from the Greater Punjab into

Afghanistan.

• The other groups among the Anu, i.e. the Śimyu (Albanian), Alina

(Greek) and Bhrgu (Armenian-Phrygian), continued expanding or

migrating westwards from a more southern (to the Druhyus) route.

 

 

The Isoglosses-24

• It will be seen that Armenian-Phrygian, belonging to Area B, is the

only dialect in Area B to be occasionally affected by isoglosses of

Area A.

• It was probably the northernmost border dialect of Area B,

somewhere to the immediate south of Tajikistan, and therefore was

affected by any "structural trait that arose somewhere near the

major dialect boundary" in Area A and "spread across that

boundary" (Gamkrelidze).

• [This middle location also explains the universal presence of the

Phryge in every IE tradition: Vedic Bhṛgu, Greek phleguai, Celtic

Brigit, Germanic Bragi].

• Likewise, within Area B, some isoglosses are found at every stage

cutting across parts of the two sub-areas since Area B "was still a

single linguistic system, subdivided into interacting dialect

regions" and "the presence of shared structural features in

dialects belonging to different dialect subgroups [i.e. sub-areas] of

Area B […] can be interpreted as reflecting geographically adjacent

positions for these dialects" (Gamkrelidze)

 

 

The Isoglosses-Hock vs. OIT-1

• It will be seen that the complex relations of the 12 branches

developing common isoglosses in adjacent areas are impossible in

Hock's scenario where all the isoglosses developed in the

Homeland and the 12 branches then "by and large maintained

their relative positions to each other as they fanned out from the

homeland".

• However:

• 1. Our OIT scenario where the isoglosses developed in stages within

the Original + Secondary Homeland due to interaction between the

dialects as they moved away from the Original Homeland into the

Secondary Homeland explains all the isoglosses effectively, and in

geographical perspective, which no other homeland theory is able

to do.

• 2. Further it is not based on conjecture but is actual recorded

history, recorded in the historical traditions of India and backed by

the textual evidence of the data in the Rigveda and the Avesta. (see

my books and blogs for the details).

 

 

The Isoglosses-Hock vs. OIT-2

• 3. Our OIT scenario also explains the complete absence of any

Isoglosses connecting the First Branches Hittite and Tocharian with

Indo-Aryan and Iranian: the First Branches had departed into Area

A (Central Asia) long before the Oldest Books of the Rigveda; and

Indo-Aryan and Iranian (unlike the 5 European branches) did not

enter Area A (Central Asia) till well after the formative period of the

Isoglosses. The 5 European Branches started out from Area B and

then moved into Area A and therefore have isoglosses with both

the 5 Last Branches as well as the 2 First Branches.

• Hock's scenario, of branches maintaining their "relative positions to

each other as they fanned out from the homeland" does not

explain how the European branches (west in his dialectological

arrangement) have so many Isoglosses with the First Branches

(south and east in his dialectological arrangement) but Indo-Aryan

and Iranian (south-east in his dialectological arrangement) have

none.

 

The Isoglosses-Hock vs. OIT-3

• 4. There is also a linguistic clue which surprisingly fits like a glove

into the OIT paradigm of two migrations east to west (a northern

Druhyu one and a southern Anu one) even as it disproves an

extremely flawed but long-argued AIT argument.

• As per the AIT, Proto-Indo-European in the Steppes borrowed the

word for "wine" from Proto-Semitic to its south in West Asia (via

the Caucasus).

• However the facts prove exactly the opposite:

• 1. The borrowed Semitic word for "wine" is found in all the 9

western branches (1 First Branch Hittite, the 5 European Branches,

and 3 Last Branches Albanian, Greek and Armenian), but in none

of the 3 eastern branches (1 First Branch Tocharian and 2 Last

Branches Iranian and Indo-Aryan). This proves the word was

borrowed as the 9 western branches migrated from east to west.

• 2. These 9 western branches have borrowed from different forms of

the Semitic word as per their 3 separate migrations from the east:

Hittite from *wi(o)no, the 5 European Branches from *weino, and

the 3 Last Branches from *woino.

 

 

The Evolution of Numbers in India

• 1. Onge (Andamanese): 1: yuwaiya. 2: inaga. 3: irejidda. [more than

3: ilake].

 

• 2. Turi: 1-5: miad, baria, pea, punia, miadti

• 6-10: miadti-miad, miadti-baria, miadti-pea, miadti-punia, baranti

• 11-15: baranti-miad, baranti-baria, baranti-pea, baranti-punia,

peati

• 16-19: peati-miad, peati-baria, peati-pea, peati-punia

• 20, 40, 60, 80, 100: lekacaba, bar-lekacaba, pea-lekacaba, punia-

lekacaba, miadti-lekacaba.

 

• 3. Santali: 1-10: mit', bar, pɛ, pon, mɔrɛ, turūi, ēāe, irәl, arɛ, gɛl

• tens 20-90: bar-gɛl, etc. 100: mit-sae

• Other numbers: tens+khān+unit. [khān can be dropped].

• Thus: 11: gɛl khān mit', 21: bar-gɛl khān mit', 99: arɛ-gɛl khān arɛ

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-1

• A strong proof for the OIT and Indian Homeland is the

system of numbers in the Indo-European and the Dravidian

languages.

• All the IE languages have the decimal system (although the

Celtic Irish and Welsh languages have adopted the

vigesimal system from the non-IE Basque language native

to Europe)

• There are 4 stages of the decimal system:

• 1. Stage 1: 11 words for 1-10 and 100.

• 2. Stage 2: 19 words for 1-10, 20-90 and 100.

• 3. Stage 3: 28 words for 1-20, 30-90 and 100.

• 4. Stage 4: 100 words for 1-100.

• The above indicates the number of words one has to learn

separately, along with a regular systematic way to form

other in-between numbers from these words.

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-2

• Stage 1: with 11 words for 1-10 and 100.

• This stage is not found in IE, but it may be surmised that

this stage may have existed in PIE or pre-PIE.

• It is found in many languages of the world (typically

Chinese or Tibetan).

• e.g. Santali:

• 1-10: 1-10: mit, bar, pɛ, pon, mɔrɛ, turūi, ēāe, irәl, arɛ, gɛl.

• Tens 20-90: bar-gɛl, etc. 100: mit-sae.

• Other numbers regularly formed: tens+khān+unit.

• Thus: 11: gɛl khān mit, 21: bar-gɛl khān mit, 99: arɛ-gɛl

khān arɛ.

• [If English were in Stage 1: 11 would be "ten-one", 20

would be "two-ten", 21 would be "two-ten-one", etc.]

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-3

• Stage 2: with 19 words for 1-10, 20-90 and 100.

• Found in the earliest languages Tocharian, spoken

Sinhalese, Sanskrit. [PIE, Hittite systems unrecorded].

• It is found in many languages of the world (typically

Turkish).

• (a) Tocharian:

• 1-10: se, wi, trai, śtwer, piś, ska, sukt, okt, ñu, śak.

• Tens 20-90: 20=ikäm [other tens numbers not

recorded, but on the basis of 20, presumably they had

separate words].

• 11-19: 11: śak-se [12-19 not recorded, but on the basis

of 11, presumably they were simply juxtaposed].

• 100: [not recorded].

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-4

• Stage 2: with 19 words for 1-10, 20-90 and 100 (contd.).

• (b) Spoken Sinhalese:

• 1-9: eka, deka, tuna, hatara, pasa, haya, hata, aṭa,

navaya.

• Tens 10-100: dahaya, vissa, tisa, hatalisa, panasa,

hɛṭa, hɛttɛɛva, asūva, anūva, siyaya.

• Tens-stems 10-100: daha-, visi-, tis-, hatalis-, panas-,

hɛṭa-, hɛttɛɛ-, asū-, anū-, siya-.

• Other numbers regularly formed tens-stem + unit.

• Thus: 11: daha-eka, 21: visi-eka, 99: anū-navaya.

• [The only dilution is the existence of separate stems].

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-5

• Stage 2: with 19 words for 1-10, 20-90 and 100 (contd.).

• (c) Sanskrit:

• 1-9: eka, dvi, tri, catur, pañca, ṣaṭ, sapta, aṣṭa, nava.

• tens 10-100: daśa, viṁśati, triṁśat, catvāriṁśat, pañcāśat,

ṣaṣṭi, saptati, aśīti, navati, śatam.

• Other numbers: units-form+tens.

• [The tens do not undergo any change in combination, with

the sole exception of the word for 16, where -daśa

becomes -ḍaśa in combination with ṣaḍ-. And by the

regular Sanskrit phonetic rules of sandhi or word-

combination, in the unit-form+tens combinations for 80-, a-

+-a becomes ā, and i-+-a becomes ya, so 81: ekāśīti, 82:

dvyaśīti, etc.

• The only dilution is because of the highly inflectional nature

of Sanskrit].

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-6

• Stage 2: with 19 words for 1-10, 20-90 and 100 (contd.).

• Nevertheless Sanskrit is Stage 2 in spite of the inflection:

thus 11= eka + daśa= ekā-daśa, 12= dva + daśa= dvā-daśa.

21= eka + viṁśati = eka-viṁśati, 22= dva + viṁśati= dvā-

viṁśati.

• Compare English words for Stage 3 forms: 11= ten + one=

eleven vs. 21 (etc.) twenty + one (etc.) = twenty-one (etc.).

• Stage 2 differs from Stage 3 in that 1-19 in Stage 3 either

has independent words, or else 1-19 are formed in a

different way from 21-29, 31-39, etc.

• Note that Stage 2 is found in IE languages only in the

oldest stages of IE: Tocharian, Sanskrit, (PIE and Hittite

could be Stage 1 or 2) and Spoken Sinhalese (archaic, as

repeatedly illustrated by words like watura for water].

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-7

• Stage 3: 28 words for 1-20, 30-90 and 100.

• This is found in all the other 9 living branches of IE outside

India as well as in the one Indo-Aryan language outside

North India, Literary Sinhalese. And also in the Dravidian

languages. Except for stray other languages, no other

entire language family in the world is in stage three.

• e.g. English:

• 1-10: one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine,

ten.

• 11-19: eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen,

seventeen, eighteen, nineteen.

• Tens 20-100: twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, sixty, seventy,

eighty, ninety, hundred.

• Other numbers regularly formed tens + unit:

• Thus: 21: twenty-one, 99: ninety-nine.

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-8

• Stage 4: 100 words for 1-100.

• The modern Indo-Aryan languages of North India are the

only languages in the world belonging to Stage 4.

• In this stage, not only are there separate words for 1-19,

the tens 20-90 and 100, but each and every one of the

other numbers in between also have to be separately learnt

since the tens and units words are all fused together

arbitrarily and irregularly.

• Different changes take place in the tens forms and units

form in the numbers 21-99 e.g. Marathi:

• 1-9: ek, don, tīn, cār, pāç, sahā, sāt, āṭh, naū.

• 11-19: akrā, bārā, terā, çaudā, pandhrā, soḷā, satrā, aṭhrā,

ekoṇīs.

• tens 10-100: dahā, vīs, tīs, cāḷīs, pannās, sāṭh, sattar, aĩśī,

navvad, śambhar.

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-9

• Stage 4: 100 words for 1-100 (contd).

• Marathi Tens forms:

• 20 vīs: -vīs(21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28).

• 30 tīs: -tīs(29,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38).

• 40 cāḷīs: -cāḷīs(39,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48).

• 50 pannās: -pannās(49), -vanna(51,52,55,57,58),

• -panna (53,54,56).

• 60 sāṭh: - sāṭh(59), -saṣṭa(61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68).

• 70 sattar: -sattar(69), -hattar (71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78).

• 80 aĩśī: -aĩśī(79,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88).

• 90 navvad: -navvad(89),

• -ṇṇav (91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99).

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-10

• Stage 4: 100 words for 1-100 (contd).

• Marathi Units forms:

• 1 ek: ek- (21,31,61), ekke- (41), ekkyā- (81,91), ekkā- (51,71).

• 2 don: bā- (22,52,62,72), bat- (32), be- (42), byā- (82,92).

• 3 tīn: te- (23), teha- (33), tre- (43,53,63), tryā- (73,83,93).

• 4 cār: co- (24), çau- (34,54,64), çavve- (44), çauryā- (74,84,94).

• 5 pāç: pañc- (25), pas- (35), pañce- (45), pañçā- (55), pā- (65),

pañcyā (75,85,95).

• 6 sahā: sav- (26), chat- (36), sehe- (46), chap- (56), sahā- (66),

śahā- (76,86,96).

• 7 sāt: sattā- (27,57), sada- (37), satte- (47), sadu- (67), sattyā-

(77,87,97).

• 8 āṭh: aṭṭhā- (28,58), aḍ- (38), aṭṭhe- (48), aḍu- (68), aṭṭhyā-

(78,88,98).

• 9 naū: ekoṇ- (29,39,49,59,69,79,89), navvyā- (99).

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-11

• The same irregularity or inflectional complexity can be seen

in the formation of the numbers between 21 and 99 in all

the Indo-Aryan languages of North India (right up to

Kashmiri in the extreme north, and going so far westwards

as to influence the Pashto language in the northwest

which, although it belongs to the Iranian branch, has also

been influenced by the Indo-Aryan cerebral sounds), but is

found nowhere else outside the sphere of North India (not

even in Spoken or Literary Sinhalese to the South).

• This is in sharp contrast with all the other languages in the

world other than the Indo-Aryan languages of North India.

In all the other languages, it is necessary to learn by heart

at the most the numbers from 1-10, or from 1-19, and the

tens forms (20,30,40,50,60,70,80,90). All the other

numbers between 21 and 99 are formed from these

numbers by some sort of regular process.

 

 

]The Evidence of the IE Numbers-12

• 1. The second stage is found in the oldest Indo-European

branches: probably in Hittite, but certainly in Tocharian,

and in the oldest Indo-Aryan languages Sanskrit and

archaic (Spoken) Sinhalese.

• 2. The third stage is found in all the other 10 Indo-

European branches in India as well as in Dravidian. The

other 9 branches (and Indo-Aryan Sinhalese) migrated out

of North India in this stage: Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Baltic,

Slavic, Albanian, Greek, Armenian and Iranian.

• 3. The fourth stage developed in the Indo-Aryan languages

remaining in North India, but left the Dravidian languages

of South India unaffected.

• SUMMARY: 1.The first stage is unrecorded. 2. The second

stage is found only in and to the north and south of India.

3. All the other 10 branches (and Dravidian in India) are in

the third stage. 4. The fourth stage is found only in North India.

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-13

• Miscellaneous: The number "one":

• Incidentally, perhaps the words for "one" in the various IE branches

offers one more clue to the location of the Homeland:

• 1. There is a major division in the words for "one" between two

reconstructed proto-Indo-European words: *oi-no and *oi-ko,

which are prominent in 8 non-Indo-Iranian branches (Hittite ant-,

German eins, Latin unus, Old Irish oen, Latvian viens, Old Church

Slavic inu, Greek hena, Albanian një) and the 2 Indo-Iranian

branches (Sanskrit eka, Kashmiri akh, Modern Persian yak)

respectively.

• But note an "oino-oiko divide" in two other language families :

• a) Burushaski spoken in the heart of the Original Homeland area in

our OIT scenario. Burushaski "one"= hin / hik.

• b) Dravidian on- (Tamil onṛu, Malayalam onnu, Kannada ondu,

Tulu onji) and ok- (Telugu oka-, Parji okko, Naiki ok).

 

 

The Evidence of the IE Numbers-14

• Miscellaneous: The number "one" (contd.):

• 2. Two other words which seem to have served as, or

replaced, the word for "one" in some languages are the

words *sem ("same") and *oiwo ("only" or emphatic):

Hittite siy-, Tocharian sas/säm/se, Greek heis (masculine),

Avestan aēva, Pashto yaw, Bashgali yev. (Both the words

are found in Sanskrit: sama, eva).

• 3. That leaves the Greek mía (neuter) and the Armenian mi.

Compare the Austric (Kol-Munda) words for "one": Santali

mit, Mundari mií, Korku mīa, Kharia moi, Savara mi, Juang

min, Gadaba muirō. (Vietnamese môt, Khmer muǝy).

• All these words certainly seem to point towards India as the

Original Homeland.

 

 

Some non-linguistic evidence-1

• There is also plenty of other linguistic evidence for our OIT

case. But first some non-linguistic evidence for the 2 First

Branches:

• 1. Recorded evidence: Indian historical tradition

remembers two tribes or kingdoms in Central Asia exactly

located in the Tocharian and Hittite areas as per our case:

the Uttara-Kuru and Uttara-Madra respectively. Of these

the eastern Uttara-Kuru are clearly the Tocharians,

(Twghry in an Uighur text, and Tou-ch'u-lo or Tu-huo-lo in

ancient Chinese Buddhist texts). Uttara-Kuru is an obvious

Sanskritization of the native appellation of the Tocharians,

preserving, as closely as possible, what Henning calls "the

consonantal skeleton (dental + velar + r) and the old u-

sonant [which] appears in every specimen of the name"

(HENNING 1978:225).

 

 

Some non-linguistic evidence-2

• 2. Evidence of comparative Mythology: Indra (from the

word "indu" or "drop" of rain) is a peculiarly Vedic-Pūru

name for the thunder-god, with no cognates in (nine) other

branches. The name has been converted into the name of a

demon (again emphasizing his Vedic-Pūru identity) in the

Anu Iranian Avesta. However, the name is found in the

Hittite mythology as Inar/Inara.

• Hittite remembers the name in a garbled manner. Indra's

main feat is the killing of the Great Serpent who prevents

rainfall. Inar/Inara's main feat is the killing of the Great

Serpent who interferes with the activities of the weather-

god.

• The name is not a pan-IE name but a purely Vedic-Pūru

one. It could only have been borrowed by Hittite from

Indo-Aryan in a primeval period when Hittite (in Central

Asia) was close to the cultural sphere of the Vedic area.

 

 

Some non-linguistic evidence-3

• 3. Racial evidence: Hittite provides us with the only real case of

"racial" evidence in the entire IE debate: shortly after the discovery

of the IE identity of the Hittites in the early 20th century, a paper in

the Journal of the American Oriental Society makes the following

incidental observations: "While the reading of the inscriptions by

Hrozny and other scholars has almost conclusively shown that

they spoke an Indo-European language, their physical type is

clearly Mongoloid, as is shown by their representations both on

their own sculptures and on Egyptian monuments. They had high

cheek-bones and retreating foreheads." (CARNOY 1919:117).

• According to jewishencyclopedia.com, "The Hittites as shown both

on their own and on Egyptian monuments were clearly Mongoloid

in type. They were short and stout, prognathous, and had rather

receding foreheads. The cheek-bones were high, the nose was

large and straight, forming almost a line with the forehead, and

the upper lip protruded. They were yellow in color, with black hair

and eyes, and beardless, while according to the Egyptian paintings

they wore their hair in pigtails".

 

 

Linguistic Evidence: Loanwords-1

• 1. Johanna Nichols after a very detailed study summarizes:

• "Several kinds of evidence for the PIE locus have been presented

here. Ancient loanwords point to a locus along the desert

trajectory, not particularly close to Mesopotamia and probably far

out in the eastern hinterlands. The structure of the family tree,

the accumulation of genetic diversity at the western periphery of

the range, the location of Tocharian and its implications for early

dialect geography, the early attestation of Anatolian in Asia Minor,

and the geography of the centum-satem split all point in the same

direction [….] the long-standing westward trajectories of

languages point to an eastward locus, and the spread of IE along

all three trajectories points to a locus well to the east of the

Caspian Sea. The satem shift also spread from a locus to the

south-east of the Caspian, with satem languages showing up as

later entrants along all three trajectory terminals. (The satem shift

is a post-PIE but very early IE development). The locus of the IE

spread was therefore somewhere in the vicinity of ancient

Bactria-Sogdiana." (NICHOLS 1997:137).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence: Loanwords-2

• Nichols examines Semitic loanwords which entered the European

Branches of IE through the Caucasus, along with a large number of

linguistic criteria, and locates the "locus of the Indo-European

spread" in Central Asia. This is supported by other linguistic studies:

• 2. Chinese influence on the European Branches is dealt with by a

Chinese scholar: "Indo-Europeans had coexisted for thousands of

years in Central Asia [….] (before) they emigrated into Europe"

(CHANG 1988:33).

• 3. Gamkrelidze and Ivanov also deal with this point at length in

section 12.7 in their book, entitled "The separation of the Ancient

European dialects from Proto-Indo-European and the migration of

Indo-European tribes across Central Asia" (GAMKRELIDZE

1995:831-847), with borrowings from the Yeneseian and Altaic

languages into the European Branches and vice versa.

• Gamkrelidze and Ivanov are proponents of a Homeland in Anatolia,

but the linguistic evidence compels them to postulate a hypothetical

movement of the European Branches eastwards into Central Asia

before they moved out westwards towards Europe.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-1

• The geographical location of the Original Homeland is

also sought to be located with reference to features or

words found in Proto-Indo-European as well as in some

other Proto-language or Family, indicating proximity or

mutual influence in the earliest formative proto-stages

or in periods close to those earliest formative proto-

stages.

• The only Families which merit serious examination are:

• 1. Dravidian.

• 2. Semitic.

• 3. Austronesian.

4. Uralic.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-2

• 1. Dravidian:

• We already saw the evidence showing that after the exit of

the 2 Early Branches (Hittite and Tocharian), all the other

10 branches of Indo-European and the Dravidian

languages were jointly in the third stage of decimal

numbers, after which one Indo-Aryan language (Sinhalese)

and the 9 other branches migrated out of North India.

Except for stray other languages, no other entire language

family in the world is in stage three, so this development

could only have taken place in India.

• However, the Dravidian languages developed south of the

Vindhyas and the Indo-European languages north of the

Vindhyas, and there was little other active interaction

among the people till the period of the New Rigveda (the

Mature Harappan period).

• Nevertheless one feature must be noted.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-3

• 1. Dravidian (contd.):

• This feature is something no linguist has been able to

satisfactorily explain, and is therefore generally hushed up

in AIT analyses: the reflexive personal pronoun ("self")

*tan- found in Dravidian as well as in Sanskrit and Avestan.

• The word is clearly a Dravidian word: it is found in every

single Dravidian language, and even rhymes with other

pronouns, e.g. Tamil tān with nān.

• But tanū is found not only throughout the Rigveda, but also

in the Avesta (which fact has no explanation in any AIT

scenario except by a totally undocumented and unprovable

claim that Dravidian must have been spoken right up to

Afghanistan and Central Asia! But this still does not explain

why this is the only Dravidian word borrowed in Iranian).

• Any logical explanation can only be part of an OIT scenario.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-4

• 2. Semitic:

• Proto-Indo-European-Semitic connections in the Early

formative stages has been a popular AIT cottage industry.

• Gamkrelidze and Ivanov, in their bid to claim proto-Semitic

influence on PIE in its early stages, list seventeen potential

"loanwords" from Semitic. Mallory and Adams (pointing

out the limited dialectal distribution of many of these words

in the IE branches) reduce the list to four: "The more

significant Semitic-Indo-European comparisons are Proto-

Indo-European *medhu- 'honey': Proto-Semitic *mVtk-

'sweet'; Proto-Indo-European *tauros 'wild bull, aurochs':

Proto-Semitic *ṯawr 'bull, ox'; Proto-Indo-European

*septṁ 'seven': Proto-Semitic *sab'atum; and Proto-Indo-

European *wóinom 'wine: Proto-Semitic *wayn 'wine'"

(MALLORY-ADAMS 2006:82-83):

• One: We have already examined the word for "wine".

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-5

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Two: The word for "wild bull/aurochs":

• The Proto-Semitic word *ṯawr 'bull, ox' is found in all the major

Semitic languages: Akkadian šȗru, Ugaritic ṯr, Hebrew šȏr, Syriac

tawrā, Arabic ṯawr, South Arabic ṯwr.

• In Indo-European, it is found in Italic (Latin taurus), Celtic (Irish

tarb), Germanic (Old Icelandic ƥjórr), Baltic (Lithuanian taũras),

Slavic (Old Slavic turǔ), Albanian (tarok) and Greek (taȗros). The

Hittite word for "bull" is not known(GAMKRELIDZE 1995:483), and

Armenian has borrowed a Caucasian form (tsul) for bull.

• As in the case of "wine" this Semitic loan for "bull" or "aurochs" is

completely missing in the three eastern branches Indo-Aryan,

Iranian and Tocharian. Again it illustrates the phenomenon of

migration of IE branches from east to west.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-6

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey":

• Claiming a Semitic origin for the PIE word *medhu- 'honey'

is an act of fervent faith rather than of logic:

• To begin with, Semitic has a different word for "honey" and

Indo-European has a different word for "sweet": PIE *swāt-

, Sanskrit svādu-, Greek hēdu-, English sweet, Tocharian

swār-, so this speculative claim assumes that PIE reached

across the Caucasus, borrowed the Semitic word for

"sweet" rather than the word for "honey", but used it

instead for "honey".

• Actually, a word meaning "sweet" is usually derived from

the word for "honey" and not vice versa: Sanskrit madhu-

ra from madhu, Hittite milittus from milit, Old Irish milis

from mil, etc. (or even Old English milisc from milith).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-7

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• IE languages have two words for "honey": from *medhu and

*meli(th). The AIT proponents call *medhu a "Semitic loan"

but *meli(th) "the native Indo-European word"

(GAMKRELIDZE 1995:771).

• However, the word *medhu is totally missing in 4 of the 5

branches which are actually inside the sphere of the Semitic

languages: Hittite, Armenian, Albanian and Italic (Latin), and

the fifth, Greek, (like 2 more branches Germanic and Celtic to

the northwest) also has *meli(th) for "honey" while *medhu

is retained for "mead" (the drink derived from honey).

• The 3 branches to the east (Tocharian, Iranian, Indo-Aryan)

only have *medhu for "honey" (as well as for "mead") while

the word *meli(th) is totally missing. So also Baltic and Slavic

which were the eastern rearguard of the European branches

well to the north away from the Semitic area.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-8

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• Linguistically, all the evidence shows that the word *medhu is totally

unconnected with Semitic. So what is the point sought to be made?

• The facts: a) "It is in the Mediterranean area that the transition from

primitive beekeeping to more evolved types first takes place. Here we

find the second stage, sylvestrian beekeeping, where bees are kept in

the forest, in specially carved hollows in trees or in hollow logs set up in

forest apiaries; we also find the third stage, domestic apiculture, where

domestic bees are kept in manufactured hives near the homeland"

(GAMKRELIDZE 1995:522).

• b) The common apiculture honey-bee "Apis mellifera is native to the region

comprising Africa, Arabia and the Near East up to Iran, and Europe up to

the Urals in the east and to southern Sweden and Estonia in the north…

its spread to the east was limited by mountains, deserts and other

barriers. […] The distribution of Apis mellifera was confined to this area

until c. AD 1600" (PARPOLA 2005:112).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-9

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• The assumption: "There can be no doubt that beekeeping and the

word for 'bee' are Proto-Indo-European, in view of the word for

'honey' in Indo-European, the developed beekeeping economy

among the Indo-Europeans, and the religious significance of the

bee in all the ancient Indo-European traditions", so they must have

got it from the Mediterranean area.

• The AIT conclusion: "The word [*medhu] entered East Asia

together with honey and beekeeping, brought in by Indo-

European tribes who migrated eastwards" (GAMKRELIDZE

1995:524).

• The AIT conclusion is not drawn from the facts but from the

assumption that there was a "developed beekeeping economy

[domestic apiculture] among the Indo-Europeans" which could

only have come from the Mediterranean area. All the underlying

assumptions are completely baseless as we will see:

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-10

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• 1. The form of PIE beekeeping testified to by the IE words is

definitely not that of a "developed beekeeping economy ",

but primitive beekeeping of the first stage: While there is a

common PIE word for "honey", there is no common PIE word

for "bee", "bee-hive", "beeswax" or for any aspect of

"beekeeping/apiculture", all of which would have been

expected in a culture which practiced evolved domestic

apiculture, even if a borrowed one.

• This is also the case regarding the evidence from the Rigveda,

which is the oldest IE language record in existence: honey

(madhu-, sāragha-) is very important right from the Oldest

Books of the Rigveda. But the Rigveda has only a few

references to bees (called makṣ/makṣikā), and none

whatsoever to bee-hives, beeswax or anything which would

indicate the existence of any evolved forms of

beekeeping/apiculture.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-11

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• 2. There is absolutely no evidence that the honey central to

early PIE culture, or Vedic culture, was the honey from Apis

mellifera. After telling us all about the history of

Mediterranean beekeeping, Parpola discreetly tells us:

"Another species of cavity-nesting honey bee, Apis

cerana, is native to Asia east and south of Pakistan,

Afghanistan, China, Korea and Japan" (PARPOLA

2005:123). The largest honey bees in the world are the

species of Apis dorsata found in India and further east.

• 3. These eastern honey bees have been a source of honey

in India from ancient times, and honey gathering is an

ancient traditional occupation even in the remotest tribal

and hill areas in the interior of the country:

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-12

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Three: The word for "honey" (contd.):

• Ancient Mesolithic rock paintings dated 8000-6000 BCE in

Bhimbetka and Pachmarhi in Madhya Pradesh depict honey

gathering of the primitive beekeeping type: "The collection of

honey is depicted in three paintings at Pachmarhi and one at

Bhimbetka. A painting in the Jambudwip shelter at Pachmarhi

shows a man driving out bees and a woman approaching the

beehive with a pot. Both are standing on ladders. In a second

Pachmarhi painting at Imlikhoh shelter a woman is driving away

the bees. In a third painting at Sonbhadra shelter two men

climbing a scaffold are surrounded by bees. The painting at

Bhimbetka shows a man touching a beehive with a round-ended

stick. The man holds a basket on his back and appears to be

suspended by a rope. There are three men below him, including

one standing on the shoulders of another man" (MATHPAL

1985:182). These rock-paintings represent the oldest depiction of

honey gathering in the whole of Asia.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-13

• 2. Semitic (contd.):

• Four: The word for the number "seven":

• Here we have an example of classic special pleading. A seeming

resemblance between "Proto-Indo-European *septṁ 'seven'" and "Proto-

Semitic *sab'atum" is interpreted to mean that for some unknown reason,

PIE reached across the Caucasus mountains and borrowed (among a

handful of words) a word for one stray numeral ("seven") from Semitic!

• This is too pedestrian to be discussed, but the above "scholarly" pleading

should be compared and contrasted with the uncompromisingly firm way

in which all the entrenched scholars refuse to even consider the possibility

that there were contacts between PIE and Proto-Austronesian in spite of

the clear resemblance between the very first four numerals in both these

proto-languages.

• Note what an eminent and staunchly AIT supporting scholar had written:

"the Austric speech […] in its original form (as the ultimate source of

both the Austro-Asiatic and Austronesian branches) […] could very well

have been characterized within India" (CHATTERJI 1951/1996:150).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-14

• 3. Austronesian:

• Isidore Dyen, in a paper presented in 1966 and published in 1970,

makes out a case showing the similarities between many basic

words reconstructed in the proto-Indo-European and proto-

Austronesian languages, including such basic words as the first four

numerals, many of the personal pronouns, and the words for

"water" and "land". And Dyen points out that "the number of

comparisons could be increased at least slightly, perhaps even

substantially, without a severe loss of quality" (DYEN 1970:439).

• But Dyen is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an OIT writer,

and an Indian homeland theory does not even remotely strike him

even after he notes these similarities: "The hypothesis to be dealt

with is not favoured by considerations of the distribution of the

two families […] The probable homelands of the respective

families appear to be very distant; that of the Indo-European is

probably in Europe.[ …] The hypothesis suggested by linguistic

evidence is not thus facilitated by a single homeland hypothesis"

(DYEN 1970:431).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-15

• 3. Austronesian (contd.):

• Nevertheless, he does present what he correctly calls the

"linguistic evidence", and the only Homeland Theory it

supports is the Indian Homeland (OIT):

• a) The very first four numerals: Proto-Indo-European

(*sem, *dwōu/*dwai, *tri, *qwetwor) and Proto-

Austronesian (*esa, *dewha, *telu, *pati/*epati).

• Compare Tocharian sas/se 'one', Romanian patru 'four',

Welsh pedwar 'four' and Malay sa/satu 'one', epat 'four'.

[Malay dua 'two' and tiga 'three' require no comparison].

• b) Personal Pronouns: I, we, you, he/she/it, (demonstr.)

this/he: PIE *eĝh, *ṅsme, *yu, *eyo/*eya, *to/*eno. PA

*aku, Tagalog ka-mi, Tagalog ka-yo, PA *ia, *itu/inu.

• c) "Land" and "water": PIE *wer, *ters. PA *wair and

*darat (Sanskrit vāri and dharā).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-16

• 4. Uralic:

• "The earliest layer of Indo-Iranian borrowing consists of common Indo-

Iranian, Proto-Indo-Aryan and Proto-Iranian words relating to three

cultural spheres: economic production, social relations and religious

beliefs. Economic terms comprise words for domestic animals (sheep,

ram, Bactrian camel, stallion, colt, piglet, calf), pastoral processes and

products (udder, skin, wool, cloth, spinner), farming (grain, awn, beer,

sickle), tools (awl, whip, horn, hammer or mace), metal (ore) and,

probably, ladder (or bridge). A large group of loanwords reflects social

relations (man, sister, orphan, name) and includes such important Indo-

Iranian terms like dāsa 'non-Aryan, alien, slave' and asura 'god, master,

hero'. Finally a considerable number of the borrowed words reflect

religious beliefs and practices: heaven, below (the nether world),

god/happiness, vajra/'Indra's weapon', dead/mortal, kidney (organ of

the body used in the Aryan burial ceremony). There are also terms

related to ecstatic drinks used by Indo-Iranian priests as well as Finno-

Ugric shamans: honey, hemp and fly-agaric" (KUZMINA 2001:290-291).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-17

• 4. Uralic (contd.):

• The early and very close relations between Uralic (Finno-Ugric) and "Indo-

Iranian" are beyond dispute. But the funny part is when it is sought to be

interpreted as evidence that the "Indo-Iranians" were in contact with the

Finno-Ugric people in eastern Europe before "migrating" into their

historical habits to the south of Central Asia:

• 1. All these massive and basic borrowings are in only one direction: every

single one is from "Indo-Iranian" to Uralic. There is not a single accepted

example of a borrowing in the opposite direction.

• In every single historical case, one-way borrowing only takes place when a

group of people speaking Language A emigrate to and settle down in the

area of Language B. Both languages in area B borrow words from each

other, but the Language A spoken in its original area A does not borrow

words from Language B. Thus SEA languages have borrowed Sanskrit

words, but Sanskrit does not have SEA words, Indian languages have

borrowed Arabic-Persian words, but Arabic-Persian have not borrowed

Indian words.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- Other Families-18

• 4. Uralic (contd.):

• 2. The direction of migration was obviously westwards from

South Asia through Central Asia into eastern Europe:

• a) "The name and cult of the Bactrian camel were borrowed

by the Finno-Ugric speakers from the Indo-Iranians in

ancient times (Kuzmina 1963)" (KUZMINA 2001:296).

• b) "Another problem is how to account for Indo-Iranian

isolates which have been borrowed into Uralic […which form

part of…] the new vocabulary, which most probably was

acquired by the Indo-Iranians in Central Asia" (LUBOTSKY

2001:309).

• So the early Finno-Ugric evidence only proves the migration

of a group of "Indo-Iranians" from India to eastern Europe,

with the migrants later merging into the local population.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-1

• A favorite argument of AIT proponents is the "substrate" argument:

that the Rigveda contains "substrate" words from non-IE languages

which occupied the Vedic areas before the "arrival" of the "Aryan

immigrants/invaders".

• Hence finding "non-Aryan" words in the Rigveda and other Vedic

texts has become the favorite cottage-to-heavy industry for many

scholars: some prominent examples of a scholar literally going

berserk in paroxysms of substrate-mania are the following

articles/papers by Michael Witzel entitled:

• 1. "Substrate Languages in Old Indo-Aryan (Ṛgvedic, Middle and

Late Vedic)".

• 2. "Aryan and non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the

linguistic situation, c.1900-500 B.C.".

• 3. "The Languages of Harappa".

• 4. "Early 'Aryans' and their neighbors outside and inside India".

• 5. "Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages".

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-2

• In these papers, Witzel insists on the existence of a "Para-Munda"

language (apart from an unknown, unrecorded and unrelated

"Language X") in the Harappan areas right up to Afghanistan even

when he has to go against the conclusions of all the Munda experts

who insist that Munda (Austric) languages were always spoken only

in eastern and central India and never in northern and

northwestern India. And then he literally goes berserk sweeping

large chunks of Vedic vocabulary into the "Para-Munda" basket.

• [It may be noted in passing that Witzel also alleges the existence of

a "BMAC substrate" in both Vedic and Iranian which represents the

earliest borrowings in Central Asia. I have dealt with this ridiculous

BMAC list in my books and articles and shown that far from being

"pre-Rigvedic" almost all these alleged "BMAC" words are found

only in the New Rigveda or even only in post-Rigvedic texts!]

• I have dealt in detail with this "substrate"-mongering (starting with

the malicious misuse of the word "substrate" for "adstrate") in my

books and articles: TALAGERI 1993:196-215, TALAGERI 2000:293-

308. Here we will look at the disease from a different angle:

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-3

• 1. The Mitanni data (which no-one dares to challenge) shows

that the beginnings of the New Rigveda (Books 5,1,8-10) go

back to at least 2500 BCE and the Old Rigveda goes back

much further. Even in that period (beyond 3000 BCE), the Old

Rigveda has no memories of external lands or of having come

from outside, there are no "non-Aryan" enemies native to the

area, and the local animals and rivers have Indo-Aryan names.

[Witzel tries to show some of the river-names to be "non-

Aryan", but Blažek (in his paper "Hydronymia Ṛgvedica")

shows that out of 29 river-names, 22 have purely Indo-Aryan

names, and the rest have suggested Indo-Aryan as well as

suggested non-Indo-Aryan alternative etymologies].

• In effect, Witzel shows the Indo-Aryan presence in India even

in 3000 BCE to be so old that already the Rigveda has masses

of Munda words from far in the eastern interior of India.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-4

• 2. Witzel strives hard to establish, for example, that (among

various other things) all Vedic words beginning with ki-, ku-,

etc. are of "Para-Munda" origin.

• If this is so, then Kikkuli, the Mitanni writer of the treatise on

horse-racing in West Asia, also has a name with "Para-

Munda" elements in it. This again confirms that the Mitanni

departed (well before at least 2000 BCE) from a part of India

which was already, long before their departure, inundated

with "Para-Munda" elements (from eastern India) which were

already an integral part of Vedic culture.

• All this only confirms that the Original Homeland, where the

12 branches of IE shared a contiguous space around 3000 BCE

or so, was located in India.

• Nevertheless two main arguments are made to try to show

that "substrate" words prove the AIT or disprove the OIT:

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-5

• 1. The first argument is that if PIE were in India, the

migrating IE branches would also have had Indian features

like cerebral sounds and Dravidian/Munda words.

• But, as already pointed out, the Romany (gypsy) language,

an Indo-Aryan language migrating from the interior of

North India just 1000 years ago does not have cerebral

sounds and Dravidian/Munda words. So obviously, if the 11

non-Indo-Aryan branches migrating from northwestern

India, to the west of the Vedic area, 5000-4000 years ago,

also do not have cerebral sounds and Dravidian/Munda

words, it proves nothing.

• 2. The second argument is that the Indo-Aryan languages

have borrowed non-Indo-Aryan names for Indian animals

and plants because they did not have Indo-Aryan names for

them since they themselves came from outside India and

were unacquainted with Indian flora and fauna.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-6

• As we saw, the Vedic rivers have purely Indo-Aryan names.

Here is a small list of the Indo-Aryan animal and plant

names in the Vedic Samhitas alone, demonstrating the

untenability of the argument:

• Rigveda: ibha-/vāraṇa/hastin (elephant), gaura (Indian

bison), mayūra (peacock ), mahiṣa/anūpa (buffalo), pṛṣatī

(chital), siṁha (lion), śiṁśumāra (Gangetic or river

dolphin), sālāvṛka (hyaena), kusumbhaka (scorpion),

cakravāka (brahminy duck), ulūka (owl), kapota (pigeon),

cāṣa (wagtail), śyena/suparṇa (eagle), gṛdhra (vulture),

śiṁśapa (shisham tree), kiṁṣuka/parṇa (flame-of-the

forest tree) khadira (heartwood tree), śalmalī/śimbala

(silk-cotton tree), vibhīdaka (belleric myrobalan or behra),

araṭva (arjuna tree), aśvattha/pippala (the sacred fig tree),

urvāruka (cucumber), vetasa (rattan/cane), darbha, muñja,

śarya, sairya, kuśara and vairiṇa (6 sacred Indian grasses).

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-7

• Yajurveda and Atharvaveda: kaśyapa/ kūrma (tortoise),

kapi (monkey), vyāghra (tiger), pṛdāku (leopard), śārdūla

(tiger), khaḍga (rhinoceros), ajagara (python), nākra

(crocodile), kṛkalāsa (chameleon), nakula (mongoose),

jahakā (hedgehog), śalyaka (porcupine), jatū (bat),

anyavāpa (cuckoo), kṛkavāku (cock), kapiñjala/tittiri

(partridge); kalaviṅka (sparrow), kaṅka/krauñca (crane),

śuka (parrot), ikṣu (sugarcane), bilva (bael plant),

nyagrodha (banyan tree), śamī (shami tree), plakṣa (white

fig tree), and pippalī (long pepper), and in the Atharvaveda,

countless other Indian medicinal plants.

• At the same time, it may be noted that the Dravidian

languages have borrowed Indo-Aryan words for

northwestern animals (siṁha lion, uṣṭra camel, khaḍga

rhinoceros) and not vice versa. This would not have been

the case if Indo-Aryans had intruded into a Dravidian NW.

 

 

Linguistic Evidence- "Substrates"-8

• In general, it is not at all unusual or unnatural for languages

to borrow words from other unrelated languages even

when they have their own words for the same thing. Thus

Sanskrit neer (water) and meen (fish) are borrowed from

Dravidian not because Sanskrit did not have words for

them or Sanskrit speakers were unacquainted with water

and fishes.

• In most cases, the particular animal/plant or particular use

of the animal/plant may come from a particular area along

with the name from the local language: thus the Sanskrit

words elā (cardamom) and marica (pepper) are definitely

derived, like the plants themselves, from Dravidian.

• In short, there is nothing in the study of real or alleged

non-Indo-Aryan words in Vedic or Sanskrit or modern

Indo-Aryan which should suggest the AIT or rule out the

OIT.

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-1

• One very early argument used to try and fix the geographical

location of the Original Homeland was by seeing which language

seemed most archaic in form and vocabulary. So long as it was

believed that Vedic/Sanskrit was the most archaic IE language,

India was believed by the western scholars to be the Homeland.

When deeper linguistic studies demonstrated that both archaisms

and innovations are found in different respects and degrees in all

the different branches, this belief was not only abandoned but a

reaction set in which automatically rejected an Indian Homeland,

and many of the extremely weak and flawed arguments we have

already examined in this presentation were concocted and

emphasized in order to bolster this rejection.

• Basically it is not necessary that the most archaic language should

be found in the Original area, any more than it is necessary that the

descendant most closely resembling a very early ancestor should be

found living in the early ancestral village and home.

• Nevertheless the following points show that Vedic/Sanskrit

definitely presents the earliest picture of the PIE ethos:

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-2

• Griffith puts it in a nutshell as follows in the preface to the

first edition of his translation of the Rigveda: "The great

interest of the Ṛgveda is, in fact, historical rather than

poetical. As in its original language we see the roots and

shoots of the languages of Greek and Latin, of Kelt, Teuton

and Slavonian, so the deities, the myths, and the religious

beliefs and practices of the Veda throw a flood of light

upon the religions of all European countries before the

introduction of Christianity."

• Therefore the Vedic language and mythology both reflect a

situation closest, among all the branches, to the "roots and

shoots" of any reconstructed or reconstructable PIE

language and mythology.

• A look at a few fundamental aspects of language and

mythology will make this very clear:

• [All the scholars quoted are pro-AIT and totally non-OIT]

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-3

• Language:

• 1. Consonants: According to Lockwood, PIE had 4 series of occlusive

consonants: unvoiced unaspirated (p,t,k), voiced unaspirated

(b,d,g), unvoiced aspirated (ph,th,kh) and voiced aspirated

(bh,dh,gh). Vedic/Sanskrit is the only language which preserves all

four original series (LOCKWOOD 1969:86-87). The Greek branch, for

example, preserves only two, and Germanic none.

• 2. Tones: PIE had 3 free pitch accents: acute, grave and circumflex.

Only three branches preserved these: Vedic, ancient Greek and

Lithuanian. Vedic is the only language to preserve all three as free

pitch accents.,

• 3. Grammar: Vedic (and Avestan) had "three genders, three

numbers and eight cases, the fullest representation of the Indo-

European system" (LOCKWOOD 1972:215). PIE: 3-3-8; Vedic: 3-3-8;

Avestan: 3-3-8; Hittite: 2-2-8; Greek: 3-3-5; Italic Latin: 3-2-6;

Celtic: 3-3-5; Germanic Gothic: 3-2-4; Old Church Slavic: 3-3-7; Old

Armenian: 0-2-7; Albanian Illyrian: 3-2-6; Tocharian: 3-3-4.

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-4

• Language (contd.):

• 4. Inflection: "The morphology of Vedic […] retains

most faithfully the inflections of primitive Indo-

European" (CHATTERJI 1926/1970:38).

• "Greek and Sanskrit […] there are so few completely

regular verbs in these languages. It is the irregular

and defective verb which best reflects the prehistoric

background" (LOCKWOOD 1972:109).

• "Sanskrit, the faithful guardian of old Indo-European

forms, exhibits these remarkable [PIE inflection]

properties better than any other member of the

Aryan line of speech" (MONIER-WILLIAMS

1899:Intro.xiii, after discussing the kind of inflection in

the morphology of PIE).

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-5

• Language (contd.):

• 5. Vocabulary: Childe gives a list of 72 cognate PIE words as

follows: Sanskrit 70, Greek 48, Germanic 46, Italic 40,

Baltic 39, Celtic 25, Slavic 16, Armenian 15, Tocharian 8

(CHILDE 1926:91-93).

• In 1993, I already pointed out that "A study of the Sanskrit

lexicon shows that it contains the largest number of

proto-Indo-European roots and words, in their primary

sense as well as in the form of secondary derivatives. And

an overwhelmingly greater number of words, in various

Indo-European languages belonging to different branches,

have cognates in Sanskrit roots and words than in the

roots and words of any other branch—often the

etymology of words in different languages can be derived

only from a consideration of Sanskrit roots and words."

(TALAGERI 1993:114).

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-6

• Language (contd.):

• Now Nicholas Kazanas and Koenraad Elst have shown in detail that

Vedic/Sanskrit is the only language, among all the IE branch

languages, which has organic coherence in the formation of words,

in the form of an enormous number of basic and productive verbal

roots or dhātus (about 700 dhātus, of which more than 200 are

very productive roots) each producing a rich family of lexemes (i.e.

distinct verbs, nouns, adjectives, all derived from the same root)

while other languages only have isolated words without discernible

roots (except through Sanskrit dhātus) or lexemes.

• We already saw Mallory pointing out that the common PIE word for

the bear comes from a PIE root *h 2 ṛetk- which is not found in any

other IE language (in all of which the word for the bear is an

isolated word with no discernible root or lexemes) while the

Sanskrit root ṛkṣ- produces many nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc.

Kazanas shows that Sanskrit alone has the roots and lexemes for

many very common PIE words such as foot, name, father, son,

daughter, etc., etc. (including the name Sarasvati from √sṛ).

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-7

• Mythology and Religion:

• I have dealt with this in detail in my earlier books

(TALAGERI 1993:377-399; TALAGERI 2000:477-495) and in

my blogs. Later Kazanas has also taken up the issue and

gone into more details.

• 1. The mythology of the Rigveda represents the most

primitive and primeval form of Indo-European mythology:

as Macdonell puts it, for example, the Vedic gods "are

nearer to the physical phenomena which they represent,

than the gods of any other Indo-European mythology"

(MACDONELL 1963:15). In fact, in the majority of cases, the

original nature myths, in which the mythological entities

and the mythological events are rooted, can be identified

or traced only through the form in which the myths are

represented in the Rigveda.

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-8

• Mythology and Religion (contd.):

• 2. If we take a list of common deities found in more than

one IE mythologies, all the other Indo-European

mythologies, individually, have numerous mythological

elements in common with Vedic mythology, but very few

with each other; and even these few (except those

borrowed from each other by neighboring languages in

ancient but historical times, such as the Greek god Apollo,

borrowed by the Romans) are usually ones which are also

found in Vedic mythology.

• In a list of 19 common deities in my article "The Full Out-of-

India Case in Short": Vedic (19), Greek (9), Avestan (7),

Germanic (7), Roman (4), Baltic (4) Slavic (3), Celtic (2),

Hittite (1), Albanian (1). Any other representative list (see

also Kazanas) will show a very similar picture.

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-9

• Mythology and Religion (contd.):

• 3. Not only are Vedic deities the only ones to have clear

cognates in all the other branches, but in many cases, it is

almost impossible to recognize the connections between

related mythological entities and events in two separate Indo-

European mythologies without a comparison of the two with

the related Vedic versions.

• For example, the Teutonic (Germanic) Vanir are connected

with the Greek Hermes and Pan, but it is impossible to

connect the two except through the Vedic Saramā and Paṇi

(see TALAGERI 2000:477-495 for details). The Teutonic and

Greek versions bear absolutely no similarities with each

other, but are both, individually, clearly recognizable as

developments of the original Vedic Saramā-Paṇi myth.

 

 

The "PIE" arguments-10

• Mythology and Religion (contd.):

• 4. Iranian mythology, which should share to some

extent at least the same character as Vedic mythology

(since it is held that it was the undivided Indo-Iranians,

and not the Indo-Aryans alone, who separated from

the other Indo-European groups in South Russia and

migrated to Central Asia where they shared a common

culture and religion), on the contrary, has no elements

in common with other Indo-European mythologies

(other than with Vedic mythology itself). The Avestan

mythology stands aloof from all other Indo-European

mythologies and is connected only to Vedic mythology.

• All these factors show that the IE "roots and shoots"

are present only in Indo-Aryan, which is clearly the

only branch rooted in the Original (Indian) Homeland.

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-1

• The AIT paradigm is fundamentally based on the belief that pre-

Rigvedic Indo-Aryan history lies to the west of the Rigvedic area

(i.e. of Haryana to Afghanistan):

• a) That the earlier "Indo-Iranian" phase is to the northwest, in

Central Asia.

• b) That the even earlier pre-"Indo-Iranian" stage is further west, in

the Steppes.

• But do the linguistic facts and data indicate or support this

scenario? On the contrary:

• a) The Indo-Iranian stage (during which the Avestan Iranians and

the Mitanni Indo-Aryans migrated westwards) was not in Central

Asia but in the New Rigvedic area (Haryana to Afghanistan). And in

the older period of the Old Rigveda, all the Iranian and other Last

Branch speakers were in the Punjab.

• b) And as we will see, linguistic evidence shows the pre-"Indo-

Iranian" stage lies further east: not just in the Haryana-to-

Afghanistan area but eastwards over most of North India.

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-2

• When scholars try to show linguistic evidence that "Indo-Iranian"

history lay to the west of the Rigvedic area, they always fail badly:

Witzel claims that the Iranian and Indo-Aryan branches, before

they entered their earliest known historical territories, borrowed

certain words from the BMAC language in Central Asia (pre-

Rigveda), and brought them into Afghanistan-Iran and India

respectively: he lists 18 such "BMAC" words (WITZEL 1999:54-55).

• However, while all these are very common words in later texts,

seven (iṣṭi, godhūma, ṣaṇa, sasarpa, khaḍga, vīṇā and khara) of

these eighteen words are post-Rigvedic words, not found in the

Rigveda at all (and the same is the case with another word, liṅga,

named by him in another article). Another ten (uṣṭra, kadrū,

kapota, kaśyapa, parṣa, prdāku, bīja, bhaṅga, yavya and sthūṇā)

are found only in the New Rigveda.

• The only word in his list, which does occasionally occur in the earlier

Books, is the word bhiṣaj, found 40 times in the New Rigveda, and 4

times in the Old Rigveda, in hymns which could well be classified as

late or late redacted hymns within those Books.

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-3

• The r and l divide:

• In the case of pre-"Indo-Iranian" history, there is a very

solid piece of linguistic evidence showing that history to be

in the east of the "Indo-Iranian" area rather than in the

west: the r and l divide.

• According to linguistic analysis, two different sounds in PIE,

r and l, merged into a single sound r in "Indo-Iranian".

• MM Deshpande (a co-editor of Witzel's journal EJVS) notes

that "all three groups ― the Proto-Iranians, the Western

branch of the Proto-Indo-Aryans and the Eastern branch

of the Proto-Indo-Aryans ― represent the r-only dialects

of common Indo-Iranian heritage" (DESHPANDE 1995:71):

i.e. the Proto-Iranians, the Mitanni (the Western branch of

the Proto-Indo-Aryans) and the Vedic Aryans (the Eastern

branch of the Proto-Indo-Aryans), all three of them, were

"r-only dialects".

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-4

• The r and l divide (contd.):

• But the Rigvedic language has both r as well as a (highly

reduced) l. Why is this so?

• This is because "the dialect of the redactors of the Vedas

was an r-and-l dialect, where the original Indo-European

*r and *l were retained; the redactors of the Vedic texts

have put this l back into some of the Vedic words, where

the original Vedic dialect had an r". But the northwestern

dialects were "almost devoid of l". Deshpande, therefore,

sees the need to "explore the difference between the r-

only dialect and the r-and-l dialect (and possibly an l-only

dialect)" (DESHPANDE 1995:70-71).

• Then who were the speakers of these l-and-r and l-only

dialects in the east within India who very clearly fall

outside the common Indo-Iranian heritage, where r and l,

merged into a single sound r in or west of Central Asia?

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-5

• The r and l divide (contd.):

• Deshpande also asks this question: "Where did they come

from? […] Were the speakers of the r-and-l dialect of pre-

Vedic Indo-Aryan a totally different branch from the Indo-

Iranian? These are difficult questions. […] Anyway, one

would still have to assume the entry of r-and-l dialects of

Indo-Aryan into India before the arrival of the Ṛgvedic

Aryans to account for the fact that r-and-l dialects in India

were more easterly in relation to the Ṛgvedic dialect"

(DESHPANDE 1995:71-72).

• When the entire weight of the AIT linguistic arguments is

geared to try and prove (a total failure, as we have been

seeing) the entry into India in 1500 BCE of a section (the

Vedic Indo-Aryans) of the "Indo-Iranian branch" from the

Steppes to Central Asia and then southwards, who can

explain these earlier eastern pre-Indo-Iranian "Aryans"?

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-6

• The Eastern "Aryans":

• It is not only Deshpande and the r and l divide.

• From day one of Indological linguistic studies, linguists have

been finding evidence of totally different IE speaking

dialects, different from the "Indo-Iranian" (Vedic-Avestan)

grouping, to the east of the Vedic territory deeper within

India.

• Although these inconvenient easterners are generally swept

under the carpet in standard AIT/AMT expositions and

discussions, many linguistic studies have uncovered clues to

the existence of these ancient eastern "other Aryans", and

in fact a theory of "two waves of Aryan immigrants" is a

regular discreet corollary to the standard AIT/AMT, in

which the Vedic Aryans (along with their Iranian brethren

to the west) are very clearly designated and classified as

immigrants of the "second wave"(TALAGERI 1993:231-235).

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-7

• The Eastern "Aryans" (contd.):

• Thus, K.R. Norman, in his study of the variations between the OIA

(Old Indo-Aryan: Vedic and Classical Sanskrit) and MIA (Middle

Indo-Aryan: Prakrits), finds MIA dialects contain many forms "which

are clearly of IA, or even IE, origin, but have no attested Skt

equivalent, e.g. suffixes not, or only rarely, found in Skt, or those

words which show a different grade of root from that found in Skt,

but can be shown not to be MIA innovations, because the

formation could only have evolved in a pre-MIA phonetic form, or

because a direct equivalent is found in an IE language other than

Skt", and he notes that "the forms in that category go back to 'lost'

OIA dialects" (NORMAN 1995:282).

• He adds: "I know of no attempt to make a complete and

comprehensive collection of the evidence for this interesting

category of forms in MIA, and it remains scattered through the

pages of Indological writings. I believe that, until such a collection

is made, the amount of material available will be

underestimated." (NORMAN 1995:283).

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-8

• The Eastern "Aryans" (contd.):

• The AIT/AMT has absolutely no explanation for these older

and eastern "lost" Indo-European ("Indo-Aryan") dialects

within India. But the OIT does:

• The PIE language is reconstructed not from all the original

dialects in the Original Homeland but only from the records of

the 12 surviving branches of IE languages, descended from

the emigrant Anu and Druhyu dialects and from the Pūru

dialects (as represented in the Rigveda and other Vedic texts).

• There were other eastern IE dialects in India to the east and

south of the Pūru dialects: the dialects of the Yadus, Turvasus

and Ikṣvākus (including the ancestral forms of Sinhalese,

Bangani, etc.) that remained unrecorded, but left clues in

Sanskrit, and in the Prakrits and modern Indo-Aryan

languages.

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-9

• The Eastern "Aryans" (contd.):

• I had described this in my very first book (TALAGERI

1993:229-231) where I pointed out that "The

confusion arises because people insist on presuming

that the Vedic language was the earliest form of Indo-

Aryan, that Classical Sanskrit developed from Vedic,

that the Prakrits (Middle Indo-Aryan) developed from

Sanskrit and that the modern Indo-Aryan languages

(New Indo-Aryan) developed from these Prakrits".

• I postulated instead that "The earliest form of Indo-

European speech (proto-proto-Indo-European) was

spoken in the interior of india, and in late prehistoric

times it spread out as far north and west as Kashmir

and Afghanistan" (TALAGERI 1993:229).

 

 

Pre-"Indo-Iranian" Linguistics-10

• The Eastern "Aryans" (contd.):

• The original language developed into various proto-

languages. I put it as follows: "The modern Indo-Aryan

languages, therefore, are not descendants of the Rigvedic

dialects, but of other dialects which were

contemporaneous with the Rigvedic dialects, but which

belonged to a different section of Indo-European speech

(the Inner-Indo-European section) […] Finally the Inner

dialects came into their own in the form of the 'New indo-

Aryan' languages, as heavily Sanskritized as the Dravidian

languages". All these "dialects and languages influenced

each other in innumerable ways, too complicated to be

analyzed here […] and today we find Inner Indo-European

languages, heavily Sanskritized, spoken all over North

India" (TALAGERI 1993:230-231).

• All this obviously requires deeper study.

 

 

Conclusion and Footnote

• Conclusion:

• The Indian Homeland and Out-of-India case explains all the

recorded data and linguistic facts and phenomena, while

the AIT/AMT completely falls apart on examination. It is

time for Indians at least to open their eyes and examine the

case without any bias.

• Footnote:

• Just for the record: "The Vedic dialects died away in the

course of time […] But long before they died away, the

Vedic dialects had set in motion a powerful wave of a cult

movement which covered the entire nation in its sweep.

This Vedic cult also finally gave way to the local pan-Indian

religions of the Inner-Indo-Europeans and Dravidian-

language speakers, but continued to remain in force as the

elite layer of this pan-Indian religion" (TALAGERI 1993:230).