Uralic (Finno-Ugrian) and Indo-Iranian Connections

 

Uralic (Finno-Ugrian) and Indo-Iranian Connections

 Shrikant G. Talageri

 

When two different language groups, historically located in two different geographical areas far from each other, show, by way of many significant items of common vocabulary which could only be based on actual contacts between the two groups, that there were prehistoric connections between them, it is always a subject of historical interest. The Indo-Aryan and Iranian branches of Indo-European languages, two branches having a common history even apart from the common IE origin, and located to the south of the Asiatic mountain chains, and the Uralic (mainly Finno-Ugrian) languages of Eastern Europe, are two such groups of languages which have long been under the scanner of linguistic study on account of the significant number and nature of such common items of basic vocabulary. It must be noted that the common items of vocabulary connect specifically with "Indo-Iranian" and not with Indo-European as a whole, since the other IE branches in direct contact with Uralic in historical times do not share this specific vocabulary which is common to the two groups.

This phenomenon has been regularly treated by Indo-Europeanists and linguists discussing IE history as evidence that the "Indo-Iranians", before their historical presence in the India-Iran area, must have been located somewhere closer to Eastern Europe, and that these common words are testimonial relics to that earlier location far to the west of their historical area.

That this conclusion is totally out of sync with the nature of the evidence has been demonstrated repeatedly by me in my books and articles, but it continues to be reiterated whenever the occasion arises. Whether this indicates that the academic "scholars" or non-academic writers reiterating this conclusion are extremely stupid, or whether they merely think everyone else in the world is extremely stupid, is not clear. So, the evidence will be set out again in more detailed or graphic terms in Section I of this article, followed by some additional new evidence based on two articles recently brought to my notice:

I. What the common Indo-Iranian and Uralic data shows.

II. Some common mythological words.

III. The Evidence of an Indian bird.

 

Section I. What the common Indo-Iranian and Uralic data shows

The common Indo-Iranian and Uralic data is summed up as follows:

“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).

The very first point which should have been taken into consideration by the scholars and non-scholars when drawing their conclusions is that all this evidence is one-way evidence: i.e. all the borrowings are in only one direction: from "Indo-Iranian" to Uralic, and decades of intense diligent search have failed to yield a single credible borrowing in the opposite direction: i.e. from Uralic to "Indo-Iranian".

I explained the logic of the evidence already in my third book in 2008:

 

The utter impossibility, or at least the extreme unlikelihood, of the proposition, that speakers of two languages could have been so closely in contact with each other that one of the two languages borrowed such a wide range of words from the other, but that the other did not borrow a single word from the first, should have alerted the scholars to the fact that there was something wrong with the theory that these close contacts were between the “Indo-Iranian” of the south and the Uralic speakers. Especially when the other in this case is supposed to be “Indo-Iranian”, which (or at least the Indo-Aryan half of which), according to the scholars, has been in the habit of borrowing words from every X, Y and Z of a language with which it came into contact!

 

The inevitable logical conclusion should have been that there must have been equally large numbers of Uralic words borrowed by the Indo-Aryan and Iranian speakers from whom Uralic borrowed all the above words. But no such words are found in the historical Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages of South Asia and greater Iran. Therefore, these words cannot have been borrowed by Indo-Aryans and Iranians allegedly moving from Eastern Europe to Central Asia (and later further south), but by Indo-Aryans and Iranians moving from Central Asia to Eastern Europe. The Indo-Aryan and Iranian speakers, whose speech contained all these Uralic borrowings, were emigrants moving away from the main body of Indo-Aryan and Iranian speakers in the south, never to come into contact with them again, so these Uralic words never reached the Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages of the south (South Asia and Iran). The west migrating Indo-Aryans and Iranians are, unfortunately, lost to history [as the Mitanni people were till their records were discovered and deciphered in the early twentieth century], but their existence is vouched for by the borrowed words in the Uralic languages.

 

The fact that the words were borrowed by Uralic speakers from Indo-Aryans and Iranians moving from Central Asia to East Europe is also corroborated by the nature of the words borrowed. It is, to begin with, unlikely, even from the point of view of the AIT, that the language of the “Indo-Iranians”, when still allegedly on their way towards Central Asia from the west, could have been so culturally rich as to possess such a rich stock of words pertaining to so many different spheres. But what sets the seal on the direction of movement is the fact that the borrowed words include words for peculiarly Central Asian things like Bactrian camels: “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).

 

Lubotsky also raises this problem, and is obviously not able to answer it from the point of view of the AIT: “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). The answer is: these words were acquired from Indo-Aryan and Iranian groups moving out from Central Asia to Eastern Europe. [Incidentally, another aspect of the Indo-Aryan words in Uralic is that many of them are late words which appear only in the Late Books of the Rigveda or only in later Vedic texts].

It is a sad commentary on the fossilized state of Indo-European studies, and the politicized and fraudulent nature of the AIT-vs.-OIT debate, that it still becomes necessary to explain the evidence in more graphic terms even fourteen years after spelling it out above, and it will still be ignored and stonewalled. But that (explaining more graphically in algebraic jargon) is what I will be doing here before pointing out some more new evidence presented in two separate more recent articles.

 

To begin with: when two groups of  languages historically known from two distant geographical areas, say Language(s) "A" in Area "X", and Language(s) "B" in Area "Y", have many common words which could only have been borrowed in prehistoric times, there can only be one of three ways in which such borrowings could have taken place:

1. Both the Languages "A" and "B" were originally located in or around Area "X".

2. Both the Languages "A" and "B" were originally located in or around Area "Y".

3. Both the Languages "A" and "B" were originally located in a totally different third Area "Z" most probably located somewhere between Areas "X" and "Y".

However, in all the three situations, the borrowings would have been in both directions: from Language "A" to Language "B" as well as from Language "B" to Language "A". This is the situation in every known example of such prehistoric contacts from anywhere in the world. So clearly the common Indo-Iranian and Uralic data does not indicate any scenario where Indo-Iranian and Uralic were both originally located together in either Area "X" (Eastern Europe), Area "Y" (the "Indo-Iranian" area to the South of the Asiatic mountain chains) or Area "Z" (any area in between the two).

 

What it does indicate is a situation found everywhere all over the world: a sub-group of speakers of Language "B", which we will designate as Language "b", migrated from Area "Y" (Indo-Iran) to, or nearby to, Area "X" (Eastern Europe). Both the Languages, "A" and "b", borrowed from each other, but in the course of time the speakers of the immigrant Language "b" merged into the far more numerous speakers of the local Language "A", and Language "b" became extinct. So finally the only language (of the above two) remaining in Area "X" is the original Language "A" but  containing borrowed vocabulary from Language "b" (i.e. the migrated form of Language "B"), while Area "Y" still contains only Language "B" with no borrowings from Language "A" with which it never came into contact in prehistoric times.The evidence therefore clearly indicates that the "Indo-Iranian" words in Uralic are the result of   groups of speakers of "Indo-Iranian" languages migrating westwards into Eastern Europe in prehistoric times, who left their lasting linguistic imprint on the Uralic languages. At the same time, there never was at any point of time any contact of the Uralic languages with the "Indo-Iranian" languages back home in the Southeast, and so Uralic words are not found in Indo-Aryan and Iranian languages.

This situation is reflected throughout history  in examples from all over the world: To take the two most prominent cases:

a) People who spoke Sanskrit or had it as their literary language were migrating into Southeast Asia since the last 2000 years, and the southeast Asian languages have borrowed heavily from Sanskrit. The Sanskrit spoken by the emigrants from India in Southeast Asia also obviously borrowed words from all the local languages, but this Sanskrit became extinct in the course of time, and the Southeast Asian words did not penetrate back into the Sanskrit spoken in India.

b) People who spoke Arabic or had it as their literary language were migrating into (or invading) India since the last 1400 years, and the Indian languages have borrowed heavily from Arabic. The Arabic spoken by the emigrants from West Asia in India also obviously borrowed words from all the local languages, but this Arabic became extinct in the course of time, and the Indian words did not penetrate back into the Arabic spoken in West Asia.

The situation in these two cases was that the migrants (or invaders) into new lands settled down there and did not continue to be administratively linked to the original mother area of the language and so did not carry words back into the mother language as spoken in the mother area.

[Similar situations arise as a result of the spread of cultural items, like plants, games, etc. from one culture to another. While these items take their original names with them, there is no accompanying return-gift of names from the opposite directions. Thus almost all the words for tea in all the languages of the world are derivations of Chinese words].

Later in the era of European Imperialism and Colonialism, there was a slight difference, particularly in the case of the British Empire. The distant areas continued to be controlled for a long time by the British rulers in Britain, and there was two-way traffic in the movements of people from the mother country to the colonies and back again. In these cases, we see a significant influx of words from all the distant colonially occupied areas into the English language back home especially through the literary works of colonial writers (e.g. Rudyard Kipling). So while the Indian languages borrowed heavily from English, English also received a significant number of Indian words (along with words from other colonial lands all over the world).

In the case of "Indo-Aryan" migrants from India in ancient times (e.g. the Mitanni in West Asia), while the Indo-Aryan speech of the early Mitanni rulers must have been heavily suffused with West Asian words, these words did not make their way back into the Indo-Aryan languages spoken back in India (or even Central Asia, if the AIT version of the Mitanni migrations is to be considered) since there was no two-way traffic in the movements of people. In the course of time, the Mitanni Indo-Aryan speech became extinct. The same is the case with the Indo-Aryan and Iranian migrants from the South into Eastern Europe in ancient prehistoric times: their Indo-Aryan speech also died out, but left a significant number of important Indo-Aryan words in the Uralic languages.

 

What is more amazing, or rather more telling a commentary on western academics, is the fact that not only do these western academics persist in treating the one-way borrowing of words from Indo-Iranian to Uralic as evidence of a west-to-east movement of the main body of Indo-Iranians rather than as an east-to-west movement of a group among them, in spite of having the illogical nature of this conclusion repeatedly pointed out to them; but they even cite more concrete geographical (rather than simply linguistic) evidence of an east-to-west movement and pass it over with a puzzled shrug and a refusal to understand the meaning of it. As we saw above, Kuzmina tells us "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), and Lubotsky notes about all such evidence showing a movement of words from Central Asia to Eastern Europe rather than vice versa: "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); but their conclusions about the direction of migrations remain unshaken!

All this has already been dealt with in my earlier books and articles. but now for some new evidence detailed in two new articles, one by Vaclav Blažek, and another by Peter Z. Revesz.

 

II. Some common mythological words

An article by Vaclav Blažek, "Indo-Iranian elements in Fenno-Ugric mythological lexicon", seeks to concentrate on more specific elements of the borrowed words, as indicated by the title. Under different sections (titled "Gods, Supernatural Beings and their Epithets", "Astronomical Terms", "Mythological Geography" and "Mythological Animals"), he presents us with a series of words borrowed by Uralic languages from Indo-Iranian.

 

Before examining the more serious of the words listed by him, a look at two dubious aspects of this analysis will be instructive:

1. Two of the words cited by him are particularly intended to show an Indo-Iranian geographical acquaintance with Eastern Europe. And an examination of those two words helps us to understand the frivolity and casualness of the western AIT analysis, and the extent of absurdity to which these academics can go in order to manufacture "evidence" for the movement of Indo-Iranians from Eastern Europe. In both these cases, Blažek purports to  show that the Indo-Aryan languages in India retain memories of the Ural mountains in the form of two distinct words, and he also hints that these are probably "Ob-Ugric" (Uralic) words borrowed into Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan:

a) He derives Rigvedic word "IA: Vedic ríp-/rúp- “earth" from "Ob-Ugric: Khanty *räp- ~ *rɔp- 'hill, steep shore' ~ IA: Vedic ríp- 'earth' or 'mountain'?" (BLAŽEK 2005:174), apparently indicating a memory of the Ural mountains also known as (or doubtfully alleged by some scholars to be known as) the Riphaean mountains.

b) To buttress this further, he derives "Epic Sanskrit Meru- 'fabulous mountain' (Mahabharata III, 163; VI, 7; XII, 122, 283), Sumeru- (Ramayana), Pali Neru- & Sineru- id.; Dardic: Khowar mer 'mountain'" from "Fenno-Ugric *närɜ - 'mountain, hill' or pKhanty ńār 'stone, rock; Ural mountains' > IA *nairu- 'mythical mountains'", again apparently indicating a memory of those same Ural mountains or "the southern part of the Ural mountains" (BLAŽEK 2005:171).

It may be noted in the case of the first word that "Vedic ríp-/rúp- 'earth'", cited by Blažek, is indeed a word which appears thrice in the Rigveda, and all the three references (III.5.5;  IV.5.8;  X.79.3) are cited by him with the single meaning "earth". How this automatically means "mountain", and then turns out to be a reference to the Ural mountains, and then further turns out to be a borrowing from "Ob-Ugric" is a mystery. The "Riphaean mountains" in ancient western records are generally accepted as mythical, and their identification with the Urals is speculative.

The case of the second word is even funnier. As Blažek himself points out, "meru" or "sumeru" is not even a Vedic word: it is the name of a mythical mountain found in the Epics and Puranas, supposed to be at the center of the earth, and often speculatively identified by with the Pamirs in Central Asia or even with Sumer!

And Blažek connects it to a reconstructed Uralic word for mountain (Fenno-Ugric *närɜ - 'mountain, hill') through a Pali word for meru/sumeru which has "n" instead of "m": i.e. "Pali Neru- & Sineru". He admits that for this identification to be valid, the Pali form has to be the original older form leading later to the Puranic-Epic form (which is universally found elsewhere), but identifies it nevertheless, and even accounts for the change from an alleged initial "n" to "m" as due to "Dravidian influence" (BLAŽEK 2005:171).

If any Indian scholar or writer had derived "evidence" of this kind to show that the IE branches had migrated from India, by, for example, citing the Germanic words for "sky, heaven", German Himmel, Old Norse himinn, Old Swedish himil, Old Danish himæl, Dutch hemel, etc. as indicating a memory of the Himalayan mountains, one can only imagine the amount of scorn that would have been poured on his head by these same academic scholars. And yet, they have no scruples in deriving equally (or more) silly and ultra-fanciful meanings from stray unrelated words and their "scholarly" derivations are then seriously cited and re-cited by other academic scholars.

2. In general, the glib conclusion that these Indo-Iranian words in Uralic languages were borrowed from "Indo-Iranian" when the Indo-Iranians were still in or around Eastern Europe and had not yet even migrated eastwards to Central Asia, shows a very ambiguous attitude towards the whole issue and puts all kinds of question-marks on the hitherto-assumed nature of the AIT. It seems to assume that the specifically "Indo-Iranian" culture depicted in the Rigveda and the Avesta in eastern geographical settings (where the settled composers show not even a shadow of any memory of any earlier sojourn in the Steppes) had already developed long before the "Indo-Iranians" had even stepped out of the assumed IE Homeland in the Steppes.

Thus, for example, when we are told above that the borrowed words included "such important Indo-Iranian terms like dāsa 'non-Aryan, alien, slave'" (KUZMINA 2001:290-291), or that the Finnish word orja (slave, servant) shows that the word ārya was a word for their enemy people (just as dāsa in the Rigveda was a word for the enemies of the composers), does this mean that features such as the whole paradigm of ārya-vs.-dāsa opposition, which is usually interpreted as an AIT situation involving "Aryan invaders vs. non-Aryan natives" within India, was already an established paradigm going all the way back even beyond Central Asia to the "Steppe Homeland", across thousands of miles and years? Clearly, swallowing this requires a high degree of credulity, and proposing it a high degree of brazenness.

 

But, coming back to the mythological lexical terms listed by Blažek, we are again inevitably brought up against what I have repeatedly called the Kumbhakarṇa syndrome: the tendency to reach out into later and later textual references to force out "evidence" for the AIT and to recreate features supposed to pertain to extremely pre-Rigvedic times in geographically distant Homelands.

[For those who came in late, Lokmanya Tilak, in his book "Arctic Home in the Vedas" had deduced that the story in the Ramayana about Kumbhakarṇa, who slept for six months and remained awake for six months, represented a "memory" of the previous stay of the earliest ancestors of the composers of the Rigveda in the region of the North Pole!].

Thus while the words given by Blažek in his categories of "Gods, Supernatural Beings and their Epithets" and "Mythical Geography" (which, as we saw, includes ridiculous suggestions like ríp-/rúp- and meru, sought to be projected as possible opposite borrowings from "Ob-Ugric" to Indo-Aryan) are general words which could have been borrowed by the Uralic languages from the Indo-Aryan languages at any point of time, the words in his categories of "Astronomical Terms" and "Mythical Animals" are more specific: the first category has three words, guṅgū, rākā and tiṣya, and the second category has two words, śarabha and gandharva (a third word kara for "fish" is not found in Indo-Aryan).

All these words are New Words in the Rigveda, and cannot under any circumstance be extremely pre-Rigvedic words carried over from any assumed Homeland in the Steppes:

 

guṇgū:

Redacted Hymns: II.32.8.

New Rigveda: X.48.8.

 

rākā:

Redacted Hymns: II.32.4,8.

New Rigveda: V.42.12.

 

tiṣya:

New Rigveda: V.54.13;  X.64.8.

 

śarabha:

New Rigveda: VIII.100.17.

 

gandharva:

Redacted Hymns: III.38.6.

New Rigveda: I.22.14;  163.2;  VIII.1.11;  77.5;  IX.83.4;  85.12;  86.36;  113.3;  X.10.4;  11.2;  85.40,41;  123.4,7;  136.6;  139.4,5,6;  177.2.

 

Even among the five words included by Blažek in his category of "Mythical Geography" (two of which are ríp-/rúp- and meru), Rasā is not a mythical river in the Rigveda: it is an actual river of the northwest, which comes into the horizon of the Vedic Aryans (Bharatas) only after they expanded westwards from the east beyond the Indus, and its first reference is along with the Indus in IV.43.6. After that, it is also found only in the New Rigveda: V.41.15;  53.9;  I.112.12;  VIII.72.13;  IX.41.6;  X.75.6;  108.1,2;  121.4. Its conversion into a mythical river in later texts, and in the Avesta, and the borrowing of the word by a few of the Uralic languages and its application to the Volga by them are therefore clearly later developments.

Similarly, the "Mythical Geography" category word dānu by itself as a noun, and specifically as a word for "drop, river", is also a New Word:

Redacted Hymns: VI.50.13;  II.41.6.

New Rigveda: V.31.6;  59.8;  68.5;  I.51.4;  54.7;  136.3;  174.7;  VIII.8.16;  25.6;  IX.97.23;  X.43.7.

 

So the idea that the Indo-Aryan words were borrowed by the Uralic languages in some remote pre-Rigvedic past in Eastern Europe clearly falls flat on both counts: the logic of one-way borrowing as well as the logic of the antiquity of the words within the Rigveda. It therefore constitutes strong evidence that the Uralic languages borrowed all these words from a group of "Indo-Iranians" who had migrated into Eastern Europe from the Indo-Iranian areas of India and its northwest in a late Rigvedic period. If that late date, on the basis of comparative Uralic studies, goes back beyond 2000 BCE, that only again confirms the early chronology of the Rigveda.

 

III. The Evidence of an Indian bird

Finally, we come to this paper by a western academic scholar, Peter Z. Revesz, of the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA, titled "Peacock Motifs in Rig Vedic Hymns and Hungarian Folksongs". As the title makes clear, he finds an Indian (Indo-Aryan or even Rigvedic) connection in these Hungarian (Magyar) folk-songs which, according to him, represents an ancient element, attributed by him to an influx of Indo-Aryan speaking people from India into the area of ancient Hungarian. The following quotations from this short article make the position clear: "The peacock is a native to India, which seems to be the source of most peacock motifs [….] The name mayura may have some connection with magyar, which is the self-name of the Hungarians [….] Some Indian song was the likely common origin of both folksong 95 and folksong D because of the Hindu mythological elements found in the latter two. In particular, a possible origin may be the Vedic hymn of the Vena bird (Rig Veda book 10, hymn 123) [….] Uralic linguistics identified a set of words that reflect borrowings [….] The people who brought these words with them and merged with the Proto-Hungarians at some point in history also may have brought with them the peacock motifs and part of the Rig Vedic oral tradition" (REVESZ 2019)

This is reminiscent of the much earlier article by B Brentjes, "The Mitannians and the Peacock", in which he pointed out to the important new motif of the peacock introduced by the Mitanni people who had already established "a Mitanni state circa 1650 BCE", and rejects the possibility that these Mitanni people had come from the Andronovo region, since "there is not a single cultural element of Central Asian, Eastern European or Caucasian origin in the archaeological culture of the Mittanian area [….] The veneration of the peacock could not have been brought by the Mittanians from Central Asia or South-Eastern Europe; they must have taken it from the East, as peacocks are the type-bird of India" (BRENTJES 1981:146). Brentjes, while being faithful to the data and its logical interpretation, is not a supporter of the OIT (which was not even articulated at the time he wrote his article, in 1981), and is not in any way motivated to challenge the then sole theory of a Steppe Homeland. Hence he does try to suggest a way in which the movement of the peacock-carrying Mitanni to West Asia could be explained without contradicting or posing a challenge to the Steppe theory: he suggests that the Indo-Aryans must have already come into "Eastern Iran" (i.e. Afghanistan) from the Steppes long before the generally assumed date (and long before their presence in West Asia before 1650 BCE), and in Afghanistan they must have been "under the Indian influence for such a long period that they could have taken over the peacock veneration" (BRENTJES 1981:147) which they later took with them into West Asia.

After my analysis of the chronological gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda (and the evidence of the Mitanni having emigrated during the period of composition of the latter, or even after the composition of the major part of the latter), and of the geography of the Rigveda showing an earlier movement of the Vedic people from areas further to the east within North India, there is no need for such compromise solutions. It is clear that the peacock motif was taken to both West Asia and Hungary by emigrants from Vedic India in ancient times.

In conclusion, I need hardly point out what all this evidence says about the level of "scholarship" of the western academic scholars (and even more so, of the Indian monkeys who jump up and down clapping their hands and cheering them on) who regularly cite the Indo-Iranian words in Uralic as "evidence" that the Indo-Iranians migrated eastwards from the Steppes near Eastern Europe!

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

BLAŽEK 2005: Indo-Iranian Elements in Fenno-Ugric Mythological Lexicon. Blažek, Vaclav. Indogermanische Forschungen, 110:162-185, 2005.

BRENTJES 1981: The Mittanians and the Peacock. Brentjes, Burchard, in "Ethnic Problem of the History of Central Asia in the Early Period", ed. M.S.Asimov, B.A.Litvinsky, L.I.Miroshnikov, D.S.Rayevsky, Nauka, Moscow, 1981.

KUZMINA 2001: Contacts Between Finno-Ugric and Indo-Iranian Speakers in the light of Archaeological, Linguistic and Mythological Data. Kuzmina E. E. in “Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic and Archaeological Considerations”. Ed. Carpelan, Parpola, Koskikallio. Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Helsinki, 2001.

LUBOTSKY 2001: The Indo-Iranian Substratum. Lubotsky, Alexander, in “Early Contacts between Uralic and Indo-European: Linguistic & Archaeological Considerations”, Suomalais-Ugrilainen Seura, Univ. of Helsinki, Helsinki, 2001.

REVESZ 2019: Peacock Motifs in Rig Vedic Hymns and Hungarian Folksongs. Revesz, Peter Z. in University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Journal of the Computer Science and Engineering Department, 2019.