11 August 2003

In the latter issue of JIES, Kazanas wrote a 54 page ‘Final Reply’ (JIES, vol. 31, No.1-2: pp. 187-240, 2003) to all his nine reviewers. He has responded to most of Witzel’s important academic objections. My own critique here is meant to supplement Kazanas’ response to Witzel. I will not repeat what Kazanas has already included in his final reply. Nor will I indulge in a mud-slinging match with Witzel, for he is an acknowledged champion in this game. Rather, in Appendix A, I will give a few illustrative samples of Witzel’s scurrilous remarks, for the information of the reader.

In my critique below, the page numbers within (...) refer to those in Witzel ‘comment’ as published in the journal, unless a different bibliographic reference is given by me. Witzel’s actual statements from this ‘comment’ are in brown font, everything else is in black colored text.

Witzel argues (pp. 108-109) that there is nothing extra-ordinary in the thesis that migrating IA speakers could have imparted their language and culture to the non IA indigenous population of the Indian subcontinent via acculturation. He gives the examples of pastoral Gurjara into India and of Brahui speakers from Central India into Baluchistan (p. 108, fn. 4) and then states (pp. 108-109) that

‘frequently in such cases, immigration has been followed by acculturation of key parts of the pre-existing population’.

The Brahui speakers number a mere 400000, and are found only in parts of Baluchistan and southern Afghanistan. The Brahuis have got Islamized, and their customs are virtually indistinguishable from other tribes in the region. The ‘Dravidian’ content of their language is just a few hundred words. Moreover, the Brahui areas are some of the most sparsely populated regions in South Asia, and have undergone language changes several times in historical times. Contrast this with Witzel’s claim that a few IA speakers from Central Asia trickled into the Indian subcontinent and managed to Aryanize almost the entire population of an area of 3 million sq. km. without themselves getting absorbed into the native population.

Many other irrelevant examples are given by Witzel, but the above discussion should be sufficient.

Witzel alleges (page 116, fn. 19) that Kazanas has misinterpreted him in pointing out the confused nature of his elite dominance model in his 1995 papers. Any reader can verify that “elite dominance”, which is a subset of invasionist models, forms a necessary precursor to this ‘acculturation’. Witzel repeats the importance of ‘elite dominance’ in another later publication [WITZEL et al 1997:xxii, note 54], illustrating it with the example of the Norman invasion of England in 1066 AD and the ‘arrival’ (in reality, invasions) of Sakas, Hunas and Kushanas into N. W. India:-

“The immigrating group(s) may have been relatively small one(s), such as Normans who came to England in 1066 and who nearly turned England into French speaking country- while they originally had been Scandinavians, speaking N. Germanic. This may supply a model for the Indo-Aryan immigration as well...…..However, the introduction of the horse and especially of the horse-drawn chariot was a powerful weapon in the hands of the Indo-Aryans. It must have helped to secure military and political dominance even if some of the local elite were indeed quick to introduce the new cattle-based economy and the weapon, the horse drawn chariot, - just as the Near Eastern peoples did on a much larger and planned scale. If they had resided and intermarried with the local population of the northern borderlands of Iran (the so called Bactro-Margiana Archaeological complex) for some centuries, the immigrating Indo-Aryan clans and tribes may originally have looked like Bactrians, Afghanis or Kashmiris, and must have been racially submerged quickly in the population of the Punjab, just like later immigrants whose staging area was in Bactria as well: the Saka, Kusana, Huns, etc……”

Elsewhere, Witzel [1995:114] elaborates on the role played by the chariot (‘Vedic tank’) and the horse in enabling the Aryans secure elite domination over the descendants of Harappans:

“The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with a terror, similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.”

“Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the "tank" of the 2nd millennium B.C. is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya ("Tremble enemy"" in RV 4.38.8) ……..The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.”

Witzel claims (pages 119-120) that ‘“invasionist” views were first challenged by Vedic philologists such as Kuiper (1955 sqq.)….’

" A German scholar of a former generation once remarked that there can be no more important task for the Sanskrit philologist than to describe changes that have taken place, in the course of the ages, in the mentality of the inhabitants of India. What he referred to was the slow but steady cultural process of Indianization of those Aryan tribes who had once, in a prehistoric period, invaded India from Iran."

Clearly, invasions are a precursor to acculturations in Kuiper’s model. In fact, one of Kazanas critics, Stefan Zimmer himself subscribed to the Aryan Invasion theory very recently. He writes [ZIMMER 1991: 328] –

“In India, all possibly non-Aryan mythical and religious material most probably stem from contacts of the invading Indo-Aryans with local populations. These contacts cannot be dated earlier than c. 1500 BC, and have therefore nothing to do with the period discussed here. It should be mentioned here that the Indra-Vrtra myth has earlier been interpreted as a reflex of historical combats rather as a cosmogonical myth comparable to the separation of earth and water in other mythologies.”

“The role of forests in the RV might also have bearings on the studies of the pre-history of the Aryan tribes that invaded India. "

The fact that AIT is fairly mainstream in academic circles can be concluded from the fact that it is included as axiomatic truth in influential texts on Indian history (e.g. WOLPERT 2000: 24 pp.], works on Indian Philosophy [e.g., REAT 1996: 4-8], socio-cultural studies [e.g. DONIGER [1992], decipherments of Harappan script [AALTO 1984] and so on. The wide-prevalence of AIT in academic circles is precisely due to the fact that all the so-called migration and acculturation models proposed by Vedic philologists are but euphemistic versions of AIT. Witzel’s own models are but a version of the AIT, as shown above.

Witzel emphasizes that the ‘real’ Rgvedic chariot necessarily has (two) spoked wheels, is a light ‘Vedic tank’, i.e., a war machine and is always pulled by horses (page 109). Archaeological evidence from other parts of the world however shows us otherwise. A seal impression from the Late Minoan period in Crete shows a ‘real’ spoke wheeled chariot being pulled by a pair of goats [ZEUNER 1963:144]. In ancient Mesopotamia, bovids were used for pulling ‘real’ chariots as early as the Late Uruk period [ZARINS 1976:225]. Chariots in Mesopotamia were also pulled by mules [ZARINS 1976:457-461]. It is not really necessary that equid pulled chariots should always have spoked wheels. The copper models of equid drawn chariot unearthed from Diyala [ZARINS 1976:579] show solid wheels, as does the limestone plaque [op.cit., p. 583] from the same site. It is not that Witzel is unaware that other animals are also said to pull chariots in the Rgveda. However, Witzel’s insistence that the horse pulled chariot in the Rgveda must have spoked-wheels is not attested by the text itself.

('ara', and perhaps 'shanku') in the Rigveda are found *only* in the Mandalas and upamandalas of the Late Period:

I. 32.15; 141.9; 164.48;

V. 13.6; 58.5;

VIII. 20.14; 77.3;

X. 78.4

Steve Farmer finds it necessary to infer the presence of spoked wheels on the basis of words other than the actual words for spokes: “numerous references in RV….. to parts only existing on or in conjunction with spoked chariot wheels: the metal tire/rim (pavi) …. nemi (felloe or possibly wheel/felloe combination) …. felloe/felly again (pradhi, vartani), chariot carriers … and other parts linked to spoked chariots… a mass of evidence – ‘hundreds’ of references – not a couple of random passages that you can wish away”, All these “hundreds of references”, however, refer to wheel parts which in later times were associated with spoked wheels because later wheels were spoked wheels. Inferring backwards from this that these words (nemi, pavi, pradhi, etc.) presuppose spokes runs in the face of the solid fact that spokes are emphatically not mentioned in the Early and Middle Mandalas, and equally emphatically are mentioned in the Late Mandalas (a conspiracy on the part of the composers?). On such grounds, even the bare word for “wheel” should necessarily presuppose the existence of spokes.

Let us examine the specific words cited by Farmer:

a) “vartani” almost everywhere means “pathway” or “track” and not “felly” as alleged by Farmer.

b) “pavi” simply means the rim or edge of a wheel (spoked or otherwise). In fact, of the three references in the Early Period, in the two in the oldest Mandala (VI. 8.5; 54.3), the word refers to the sharp edge of the weapons of the Gods (Indra’s thunderbolt and Pushan’s discus respectively). The third (VII.69.1) does refer to the bright rims of the wheels of the Ashwin’s chariot, but “spokes” are not even implied. The word does not occur in the Middle Mandalas IV and II; and in the other Mandalas (I, V, IX, X) it occurs 13 times; but even here once it means the sharpened point of an arrow (IX. 50.1), and once, again, the sharp edge of Indra’s bolt (X. 180.2),

c) “nemi” appears to mean “felly” in the Late Period, since 3 (I.32.15; 141.9, and V.13.6) of the 9 references here use the word in conjunction with spokes. But even here it once (VII. 34.3) refers to the rim of the stone which is used to crush Soma (so, surely, spokes are not inbuilt in the meaning of the word). The word occurs once in the last Mandala of the Early Period (VII.32.20) and once in the Middle Period (II.5.3); and in both it definitely represents the outer part of an elaborate wheel, but spokes are not mentioned: in fact, the first reference is specifically to a wheel of solid wood (which hardly indicates spokes).

d) “pradhi” first occurs in the Middle Period (IV. 30.15; II.39.4) and while it certainly represents a part of the wheel, it does not automatically imply spokes (except when one reasons backwards from the references to spokes in the Late Period).

Commenting on even a late text such as the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad I.5.15, OLIVELLE [1998: 415] shows how the word ‘pradhi’ most likely means a part of a solid wheel –

“"Wheel Plate: The meaning of Pradhi here is uncertain. It is generally translated as "rim, felly" and the grammatical subject of the final saying "pradhinagat' ("He went with the rim") is generally taken to be a man who has lost his wealth. To make any sense of this, one has to add (following the commentator Shankara, but I believe unjustifiably) the word "lost" and translate the saying as "He has come off with the loss of a felly!" (Hume 1931). I think the subject of the saying is not the man who lost the wealth but the robber who plundered it. Thus, if the robbed man is still alive, his friends might breathe a sigh of relief and say: "Thank God! The robber got away with just the wheel plate [i.e., the external things that can be replaced], but at least you [i.e., the hub] are all right." This is probably the meaning of the pithy saying. The term Pradhi, moreover, probably, means not the rim but the section from the hub (wheel head) to the rim of a wheel, that is, the wheel plate, and the wheel in question was probably solid rather than made with spokes. The solid wheel plate, moreover, was made of several sections, and it is possible that pradhi refers to these sections, especially to the half moon shaped sections at each end (see examples Sparreboom 1985). Another interpretation is offered by Joel Brereton (personal communication). If the wheel consisted of many pieces called pradhi, then the meaning could be that the person robbed escaped with just one such piece. This makes sense within the context of a race; even if the entire chariot is destroyed, a man may win the race if he just attaches a piece of the wheel to the horse or bull and crosses the finish line (see, for example, the story of Mudgala in RV 10.102). The expression then would be like our "on a wing and a prayer.””

In summary then, the mere occurrence of words such as pavi, nabhi, ani, cakra etc., do not automatically imply a spoked wheel war machine because all these terms are common to solid wheel carts and chariots as well. The specific words for spokes, and other parts of the classical chariot appear only in late books of Rgveda, in the middle books and in the latest Family book, i.e., Mandala 5 (per Talageri’s scheme, which was devised in ignorance of the chariot argument, and therefore quite innocent of it).

Witzel says (page 158) that the word for chariot in Sanskrit is derived from older IE word for “wheel” and gives some cognates. This would rather prove my point that the Vedic ratha originally meant simply a vehicle, or a cart or just a wagon. Why would someone name their innovation, the chariot, after the word for ‘wheel’?

Witzel argues (page 148) that the Cemetery H artifacts at Harappa indicate an intrusion of a new group people because ones sees a change in the burial practices which no longer involve inhumation but reburial. He also cites POSSEHL [2002:170] to the effect that a different anthropology is also indicated. However, when I examined this book, I noticed that Possehl makes no such claims that Witzel attributes to him. Finally, Witzel states that the burial urns are adorned with pictures of bird souls, which are suggestive of later Vedic ideas. KENOYER [1998:174-175] discusses Cemetery H burial artifacts in some detail, and does not see any sudden intrusion, but only a gradual transformation of culture, thus contradicting what Witzel seems to imply.

Witzel also claims that in the late Harappan period, some new ‘extraneous elements’ are seen in the northwest, but that these are evident throughout the northern part of the Indian subcontinent. As an example, he points to the spread of some Pirak/Baluchistan motives (sic!) into Uttar Pradesh (PGW pottery). However, the excavator himself, JARRIGE [1985] interprets the situation in a totally different manner –

“Another element of continuity between ceramics of the third millennium Baluchistan and those of the second millennium can be found in the decoration. While the geometric painted designs on pottery from Pirak may be quite different from those on Harappan pottery, they are very much in the older ‘Quetta-Amri’ tradition. In our report on Pirak we pointed out similarities which we feel are too close to be explained merely as a result of coincidence. We postulated that such traditional styles of decoration survived in regions which were at the periphery of the principal zone of Harappan influence…

…Should the origins for these transformations of the second millennium be sought in exogeneous events, in colonization of the area by new peoples, by a sudden influx of refugees bringing new crops and animals with them? Probably not, since the processes which I have briefly described are too complex to be attributed to the arrival of invaders who at the same time would have had to have introduced rice from the Ganges, sorghum from the Arabian Gulf, and camels and horses from Central Asia. It is also not likely that the newcomers, whether they be a ruling elite or refugees, would have had the impetus to change an agricultural system still capable of being intensified without the introduction of new crops and, for rice, new irrigation practices.”

It is important to point out that this ‘evidence’ is however rejected as proof for ‘intrusive Aryan elements’ by archaeologists like CHAKRABARTI [1999:201] and Indo-Europeanists like MALLORY [1998:192] as well, although for mutually different reasons.

To account for the absence of distinctly ‘Aryan’ elements in archaeological remains, Witzel argues (pages 150-151) that the Avars (Huns) themselves have not been attested archaeologically until recent times. Therefore, it is quite possible that an Aryan migration happened even if they are not attested in archaeological record. This analogy is false. The differences between Avars and Aryans may be summarized as follows –

1. There is no literary evidence to prove that Aryans migrated into India, whereas historical sources detailing the invasions of Avars are plentiful. Their invasions of Huns were carried by armies (accounts give numbers ranging from 300000 to 700000)

2. Avar settlers in Europe lost their language and culture practically everywhere except in Hungary, where the people speak a non-IE language. In contrast, the Aryan speakers are said to have Aryanized the language, culture and religion of entire populations over 3 million sq km.

3. They withdrew rapidly and mysteriously from Europe (atttributed to the death of their king) from Europe and are known to have carried their dead back with them. They had a very poor material culture. Their invasions lasted a little over a 100 years. In contrast, the Aryan speakers are said to have just come in a one way traffic into India in several generations and via a slow process of acculuturation. Parpola also sees at least two such waves covering several centuries.

4. The homeland of PIE, i.e., the ancestors of Aryans, is unknown, and the PIE people still remain a non-proven group. In contrast, the homeland of Avars has been located with a fair certainty in eastern Siberia. While the ancestry of proto- Huns is known to 200 BCE, the Proto IE speakers are still a hypothesized group whose existence is yet unproven, although speculated at several places.

5. The Avars launched massive invasions all over Eurasia, causing a lot of bloodshed and destruction, but the IA speakers are said to have arrived largely in a peaceful manner, and achieve what Avars could not.

In any case, archaeological remains of the Avars have been unearthed by now, but such remains are absent for migrating IA speakers. Witzel appears to argue that by the time the IA speakers arrived in the Indus valley, the area was practically deserted and that they dealt mainly with a ‘remnant population’. Such a scenario would have lead to a significant change in the genetic make up of the depopulated areas, something which has not been demonstrated so far. Secondly, such new fangled ideas clearly indicate that linguists such as Witzel only pretend to take the archaeological data in their stride, but actually keep modifying their philological/linguistic theories to circumvent the new archaeological findings, instead of co-opting them. Just a few years ago, when the Harappan culture was understood to have died out by 1900 BCE, Witzel (see for instance his 1995 papers) proposed that RV should be placed sometime after that date. Subsequent excavations increasingly brought to light certain ‘Aryan’ features in Harappan sites, such as fire altars. This lead certain scholars such as Parpola suggest that the Aryans might actually have been present in the last phases of the Harappan culture. Now archaeologists inform us that the Harappan culture did not die around 1900 BCE, but lingered on for several centuries after 1900 BCE, and that the interior of the Indian subcontinent had several other contemporary or derivative chalcolithic cultures sharing some affinities and connections with the Harappan culture. These cultures (e.g. Kayatha, Jorwe) also show ‘Aryan’ characteristics such as fire altars and horse bones.

This raises great problems for invasionists. So now, the presence of Aryans in the late Harappan period (i.e., around the middle 2nd millennium BCE) must be denied or minimized, and the RV be postdated further. Therefore, attempts are being made now by Witzel et al to deny completely the existence of such ‘Aryan’ features (such as the horse, spoked wheels, fire altars etc.) at Harappan sites. Secondly, the entry of Indo-Aryan speakers into India is being post dated and it is being proposed that by the time they came to North West India, the local populations had been famished culturally to such an extent that they could be dominated very easily by the intruders.

One of the arguments made by Kazanas to suggest that Vedic texts could date to 3000 BC or earlier is that the astronomical data in these texts in indicates stellar positions from that period. In ancient times, it was almost impossible to back-calculate the positions of various constellations etc. over a period of 1000 years, and therefore, the astronomical data in these texts represents actual astronomical observations by the composers of the Vedic texts. Witzel counters this by arguing that Satapatha Brahmana belongs to a ‘full-blown Iron age’ (page 174), i.e., to a period slightly before 500 BC. This seems to be incorrect. Referring the Vaidik Padanukramakosha (Vedic Word Concordance) of Pandit Vishvabandhu, the following occurrences of words syaamam, syaamaayas etc., can be noted in the Satapatha Brahmana –

Satapatha Brahmana 5.1.3.7; 5.1.3.9; 5.2.5.8; 5.3.1.9; 5.4.1.2; 6.2.2.2; 13.2.2.6; 14.9.4.15

Let us examine the occurrences of these words in the Satapatha Brahmana –

5.1.3.7: Here, the word syaama does not refer to any metal. Rather, it refers to the color 17 victims for Prajapati, which have to have a color that is a combination of white and black, i.e., dark grey (Eggeling’s translation), or a mixture of black and white (as Sayana explains).

5.1.3.9: This passage actually explains that syaama is a combination of light color and black.

5.2.5.8: Here, syaama is the color of the bull, that is the fee for a ritual.

5.3.1.9: Here again, the word is used as a epithet for a bull.

5.4.1.2: This text states that ‘lohaayasa’ or red metal (=copper?) is neither gold nor syaamam. This text merely contrasts the red metal with a bright, and a dark metal. Again, no clear evidence that iron is meant. The contrast could very well have been with bronze and gold.

6.2.2.2: Here, the word syaama is an adjective for a goat meant for sacrifice to Prajapati. The text clearly says (Eggeling’s translation) – “It is a dark grey one; for the grey has two kinds of hair, the white and the black…..”

Witzel then counters Kazanas’ high chronology for the events of Mahabharata by arguing (page 174-175; 176-177, fn. 115) that the text itself is very late because it even mentions the Yavanas, Parthians, Shakas and the cities of Rome and Antioch (which was occupied by Romans in the 1st century BC). The argument is spurious because Kazanas never denies that the Mahabharata is a stratified text, and the verses mentioning these peoples and these cities may well be late interpolations. They do not really form an integral part of the central story in any case.

As an illustration, let us consider the case of the mention of Antioch and Rome in the Mahabharata. Obviously, Witzel has the following half-verse in mind –

antaakhiim caiva romaam ca yavanaanaam puram tathaa |

The above words occur in the Sabha Parvan of Mahabharata, which was critically edited by for Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (Pune, India) by Franklin Edgerton, a predecessor of Witzel at Harvard University.

In recent decades, archaeologists in India and Pakistan have discovered more than a 1000 sites along the dried up Ghaggar-Hakra plains. Literary data from the Vedas indicates that the Ghaggar – Hakra river system is indifferent from the Sarasvati river extolled so highly in the texts. Since the earliest sites of IVC were discovered along the Indus river and its tributaries, the civilization was named thus. However, the current situation is that fewer than 25% of the sites lie along the Indus river and its tributaries, more than 50% along the Ghaggar-Hakra system, and the rest are scattered in Gujarat, Ganga-Yamuna doab and other regions. Witzel laments (page 165) –

“There is a move by some Indian archaeologists and indigenists to call the Harappan civilization, against common archaeological convention,… the “Indus-Sarasvati Civilization.”

Witzel then postulates a reason for this ‘move’ (page 165, fn. 89) –

“Note that nearly all sites of the Harappan Civilization, found early on, are situated in the Indus area. Hence the popular designation as “Indus Civilization”. That means they are now in Pakistan; the Sarasvati area came to the rescue of those who wanted to see the Harappan Civilization represented inside India, in the mythical heartland of Kurukshetra…”

The insinuation is that those who want to rename the IVC as Indus-Sarasvati Civilization are either Right Wing Hindu, indigenist, or Indian nationalists. However, archaeologist Jane McIntosh, who is neither of these, also recognizes the importance of Sarasvati sites in the entire IVC area [MCINTOSH 2002:24]-

“…Suddenly it became apparent that the “Indus” Civilization was a misnomer – although the Indus had played a major role in the development of the civilization, the “lost Saraswati” River, judging by the density of settlement along its banks, had contributed an equal or greater part to its prosperity. Many people today refer to this early state as the “Indus-Sarswati Civilization” and continuing references to the “Indus Civilization” should be seen as an abbreviation in which the “Saraswati” is implied.”

She further adds [2002:28] –

“The now-dry Hakra River forms part of this river system. Surveys along its dry bed revealed that this was one of the most densely populated areas of the 3rd millennium, the agricultural heartland of the civilization, although it is now virtually desert.”

In short, there are purely academic reasons to suggest a change in nomenclature, and one should not see political ideologies or religious motivations in this ‘move’.

Witzel criticizes (page 164, fn. 87) Kazanas for allegedly misrepresenting his views –

“Kazanas criticizes Witzel for having “explain[ed] why the Sarasvati is not really the Sarasvati but some river….in Afghanistan….or Milky Way”..But, Witzel has even printed a map of the Sarasvati of Haryana/Panjab…”

In fact, it is Witzel who has misrepresented Kazanas’ intentions. Kazanas was merely referring to Witzel’s critique of TALAGERI [2000] in which the latter has demonstrated that all the rivers in Mandala 6, the oldest book of the Rgveda, are eastern rivers (Ganga,Yamuna, Sarasvati). WITZEL [2001: §7] however argued that there is no reason to believe that this Sarasvati in book 6 of Rgveda is in Punjab, and said that it could be a woman, or an Afghani river (modern Helmand) or even a river in the Milky Way. His actual words are-

“The River Sarasvati found in book 6 (T. p.102) may be discarded just like T.’s Gangetic Jahnavi … in 6.49.7 the Sarasvati is a woman and in 50.12 a deity, not necessarily the river (Witzel 1984) (At 52.6, however, it is a river, and in 61.1-7 both a river and a deity – which can be located anywhere from the Arachosian Sarasvati to the Night time sky, with no clear localization)” (§7).

Witzel (pages 164-165) states –

“The river [Sarasvati] has been mentioned frequently in the RV and subsequent texts and survives as a small river, the Sarsuti-Ghaggar-Hakra in Haryana, that quickly disappears in the desert, as the Brahmana texts already tell us.”

It must be emphasized here that nowhere does the Rgveda say or even hint that the Sarasvati river ends up in a desert at a place named Vinasana or Adarsana. Such a notion starts appearing only in Brahmana texts, and is absent in all the extant Samhitas of Vedas.

Rgveda 7.95.2 says that the Sarasvati flows from the mountains to ‘samudra’. Witzel suggests (pages 168-171) that in this verse, samudra could merely mean the playa near Fort Derawar in Bahawalpur (Pakistan). Relying on some papers by the Konrad Klaus written between 1986-1989, Witzel says that oceanic imagery and realia are absent in the Rigveda, the text speaks only of small river boats, and there is no mention of tides therein. Witzel also claims that Klaus is the last person to study the manifold meanings of ‘samudra’.

The second argument that Witzel advances to prove that the Sarasvati did not reach the ocean in Rgvedic times is that Rgveda 3.33.1-2 which clearly indicates a confluence of Satlaj with Beas. Witzel therefore argues that by the time this early book was compiled, Satlaj had already been captured by Beas and therefore could not have fed the Sarasvati. Although Witzel shows acquaintance with the works of various archaeologists and other scholars who have written on Sarasvati, his argument is too simplistic to be compelling. As early as 1886, OLDHAM has suggested that that Sutudri was initially the name of a tributary of Beas which eventually captured (by headwater erosion) the trans-Himalayan river (now called Satlaj) as it emerged from the hills near Rupar in Punjab. The Satlaj, in ancient times, flowed straight south beyond Rupar, to meet Ghaggar (Sarasvati) near Shatrana. Even after it took a right angle turn at Rupar to meet Beas, Oldham argued that this does not mean Satlaj abandoned its old channel permanently. He suggested that even if Rgveda 3.33 meant a confluence of the two rivers (as suggested also by the Brhaddevata and Sarvanukramani), there is no guarantee that the Satlaj did not revert to its old course again to reinforce Sarasvati again.

Witzel’s fears of a ‘depleted Sarasvati’ seem to be influenced by the current location of channels of Beas and Satlaj, and their confluence at Harike (near Jallandhar) in Punjab. In reality, this course was adopted by the two rivers only around 1796 AD. The three eastern tributaries (Beas, Satlaj and Ravi) of the Indus have frequently changed their courses. Before 1796, Beas and Satlaj met beyond Fazilka and split into 4 channels (which united again) before meeting the Chenab.

The Satlaj itself has alternately merged with Beas and Ghaggar even in the last two millennia, and has often drained into Ghaggar or the Nara, instead of uniting with the Beas and the Indus system of rivers. At other times, the Satlaj united with Beas and the combined flow fell into the Ghaggar channel, a little beyond Fazilka. [vide the ‘Imperial Gazetteer of India’]. Consequently, the confluence of Beas and Sutlej does not necessary imply a ‘depleted’ Sarasvati because the united stream of the two Punjab rivers could yet have met the Sarasvati further downstream (while the upper course of Sarasvati was still fed by the Drishdvati and Apaya). Moreover, no amount of linguistic exercise can show how the name ‘Shutudri’ (=‘swiftly flowing’) in the Rigveda changed to ‘Shatadru’ and ‘Shatadhara’ (both meaning ‘a hundred flows/channels’ – a meaning also attested texts like the Mahabharata) in later times, unless we assume that before the Satlaj first took a right turn at Rupar, it split into numerous channels some of which still drained into the Sarasvati at various locations, one by one. This possibility is confirmed by the presence of numerous palaeo-channels spreading out like a fan from the spot where the Satlaj emerges from the mountains close to Ropar. Many of these channels do extend all the way to Ghaggar.

Witzel emphasizes (page 170-171) that the Sarasvati never flowed to the sea because the link between Hakra in Bahawalpur and Nara in Sindh through the sand-dunes has never been established. VALDIYA [2002: 27-32] however shows otherwise [pace POSSEHL 2002: 239-240]. It may be noted that the Nara is still called the Sarasvati by rural Sindhis and its dried up delta in Kutch is still regarded as that of Sarasvati by the locals.

Rgveda hymn 10.75 extols the Indus river, and in the process, it enumerates several rivers verse 5 onwards. In verse 5, the rivers are enumerated from east to west, starting with Ganga. Surprisingly, Beas is not mentioned even though Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi and Satlaj are.

Witzel proposes an ingenious reason for the exclusion of the name for Beas in Rgveda 10.75.5. He says (page 171, fn. 103) –

“…normally the name of the bigger stream is used for the united one. When the great, glacier fed Sutlej joined the Beas, it would become the Sutlej, as is indeed seen in 10.75”.

This explanation is incorrect for several reasons. First, Beas is as much ‘glacier fed’ as is Satlaj. Second, the Vedic Rishi would not have known that the Satlaj is longer than the Beas and rises from southern Tibet, whereas Beas rises from the Himachal ranges. Tibet and Himachal would have been terra incognita for the Rishi, in all probability, and both the rivers would seem to appear from the Himalayas. Third, Satlaj does not carry significantly more water than the Beas. Both carry practically the same volume of water in modern times and the situation may be assumed to have been the same in olden days as well [MISRA 1970]. Fourth, historically, the combined channel of Beas and Sutlej has historically been called Beas, as pointed out by numerous scholars such as Aurel Stein.

There is a simpler explanation for the omission of Beas that is consistent with the references cited by Witzel, and also with the viewpoint of Kazanas. The hymn, which seeks to glorify Indus as the greatest of all rivers, enumerates two types of rivers –

First, those which flow into the Indus, directly or through a tributary

Second, those which do not flow into the Indus and reach the ocean or a desert lake independently.

Witzel (pages 152-153) is very hopeful that genetic studies will eventually unveil the genetic tracks of Aryan immigrants to India. He cites several recent articles, notes that they do suffer from some deficiencies, but concludes nevertheless that –

“Recent work by Bamshad, Majumder, Underhill, Sells, and many others has uncovered preliminary evidence that not only points to prehistorical movements into India from Africa and the Middle East, but movements in later periods as well from Central and even East Asia.”

1. The sample size is very small, and restricted to one district in coastal south India, to where migration of upper-castes from North India is attested even by Vedic texts (for instance the legend in Aitareya Brahmana mentioning that descendants of Visvamitras moved east and south to become Pundras, Sabaras, Andhras and so on). No statistical justification is given by the authors for what is prima-facie an insufficient sample size.

2. The authors do not take into account the mobility of caste and sub-caste groups in social hierarchy. They just assume that present day Ksatriyas were Ksatriyas in 1500 BCE as well.

4. The genetic distance tables actually show that the ‘genetic distance’ between Indians as a group, and East Europeans is LESS than that between East Europeans and South Europeans. This puts a question mark on the very basis of the ‘genetic’ category ‘European’ employed by Bamshad et al.

5. The paper is silent on when these ‘Eurogenes’ entered the various castes of India. These genes could have well come during Shaka, Greek and Persian invasions and thus have nothing to do with the Aryans at all. The authors of the paper however assume that these genes were brought in by Aryans around 1500 BC.

In short, the study has several fundamental flaws and cannot be accepted as ‘proof’ of an Aryan invasion or immigration around 1500 BCE. In short, the authors have forcibly retrofitted their skimpy data into the invasionist hypothesis that ‘European’ Aryans invaded India around 1500 BC and formed the upper castes because of which these castes will have greater affinity to Europeans than lower-caste Indians. When a request was sent to the authors to clarify the term ‘European’, they responded by saying that the term merely meant populations west of Indus!

Witzel speculates that Daimabad could have been a Dravidian settlement (page 132, fn. 40). He does not explain why. The site is typically linked to Late Harappan culture, and if Harappan culture was Para-Munda (as suggested by Witzel’s 1999 article in Mother Tongue), then Daimabad should also have been para-Munda and not Dravidian.

In his initial article, KAZANAS [2002: 310, fn. 19] had pointed out –

“In yet another misrepresentation Witzel writes: “The spoked wheels that Sethna wants to find on the Indus seals turn out to be in most cases oblong – resulting in singularly bad transport for Indus merchants” (2001:n.194). However, K. D. Sethna makes it quite explicit (1992: 50-51) that these indentifications were first made by Parpola and other Finnish scholars; he merely followed! Parpola is an invasionist and co-editor of Witzel’s EJVS!”

What Kazanas is clearly hinting at is Witzel’s double standards in ridiculing the views of an Indian scholar but refraining from making any negative remarks against Parpola even though it is Parpola who is the source of Sethna’s views. However, Witzel now feigns innocence, and in his comment (page 123, fn. 3), he claims that –

“…merely mentioned Sethna’s oblong chariot wheels in the context of Sethna’s fantasies of a late Vedic, Sutra style Indus language.”

Witzel himself uses ‘battle of ten kings’ for dasarajna in WITZEL 1995a. So it is ridiculous of him to criticize Kazanas for using words like ‘king’ when referring to Vedic chieftains (page 124, fn. 4). In fact, even Geldner frequently uses ‘könig’ for ‘rajan’ in his translation of Rgveda.

Witzel also alleges (page 146-147) that both Kazanas and Talageri have misrepresented him in attributing to him the antiquity of RV 6.45. He claims (page 147) –

“What Witzel 1995 in fact said was that Book 6 “once mentions even the Ganga in an unsuspicious hymn (though in a trca section).” [6.45.31].

The comment on the trca status of 6.45.31, whose sense would be recognized by any competent RV scholar, was lost on Talageri and Kazanas….Oldenberg also distinguished other hymns which were in part compiled out of independnt trcas (and pragathas); the trcas out of which these hymns are compiled were of varying age. 6.45.31-33 is one such Trca addition, tacked onto 6.45, as the reader is again alerted in Witzel 1995.’”

So we see that WITZEL [1995a] contradicts WITZEL [1997a], which contradicts WITZEL [2000], which in turn contradicts WITZEL [2001] and now all of this contradicts WITZEL [2003]! Clearly, Witzel’s own take on the issue depends on who his audience is, and whether some opponent needs to be ‘decimated’ (see section g below) or not. Witzel’s frequent somersaults in discussing the same issue with different scholars are reminiscent of his behavior when the errors in his translation of Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44 were pointed out [AGARWAL 2001].

f) shatrunaashaka Oldenbergaastra:

Witzel considers an knowledge of OLDENBERG [1888] as a pre-requisite for any ‘revolutionizing’ research on the RV, but elsewhere [WITZEL 1995:311] he refers to Oldenberg’s principles as being based on “formal characteristics”, and, on the very next page, he writes:

“To begin with, it is surprising how scholars have persisted with formal characteristics which cannot be independently evaluated – unless we already know the distribution and mutual influence of Rgvedic dialects and poetic diction per book, clan and poet. This, however, remains to be done.” [WITZEL 1995a: 312]

In other words, Witzel has himself suggested the limited utility of Oldenberg’s principles in his earlier publication, but now argues that their knowledge is indispensable. Why? Because it suits his immediate purpose of dealing with Kazanas. It may be noted that other than this casual name-dropping exercise, Witzel has not really shown how Oldenberg’s work invalidates Kazanas’ thesis.

Witzel boasts that his teacher F. B. J. Kuiper has ‘decimated’ R. P. Das’ objections (page 131, fn. 38). In another earlier publication [WITZEL 1999a, fn. 2], Witzel similarly calls Kuiper’s response to Das ‘rather scathing’ and ‘well deserved’. I find this manner of defense of Kuiper rather childish, and any reader can refer to the respective articles of KUIPER [1995] and DAS [1995] to see who is being dogmatic. In fact, DAS [2000: n. 2] responds to these attacks in the following words -

“Cf. DAS (1995) and the response by KUIPER (1995), which WITZEL (1999: n. 2) polemically calls not only ‘rather scathing’ but also ‘well deserved’, without giving any further reasons. In fact, KUIPER’s response is dogmatic in that it refuses to consider anything except a linear evolution from Indo-European to Vedic by means of mostly clear-cut phonetic and morphological developments, so that what does not conform to such transparent developments cannot but be ‘foreign’. My contention was that it is much more probably that we are dealing with a multi-linguistic reality with different synchronic and diachronic developmental forms of Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan spoken side by side, as well as at different times, most probably with interferences and alterations due to varying languages not only of redactors, but also of recitors (especially before any final redaction), so that before labeling anything ‘foreign’ it is imperative that one examines all such factors in detail. Since much in this realm can only be conjectured upon, this clearly may result in a situation in which one simply cannot reach any satisfactory conclusion. Of course, one can brush aside all such considerations as nonsense and insist that the tradition view is the only one permissible, but that will not make the problem go away. WITZEL’s own sophisticated study is heavily influenced by his teacher KUIPER’s axioms, and is as such in the final analysis probably going to convince only those already convinced and leave the skeptics as skeptical as they were.”

Anyone who disagrees with Witzel becomes a target of his barrage of abuses, sarcasms, and cheap remarks, and is thereby ‘decimated’!

Do I like what I have written in this section? No. I merely wanted to demonstrate that before blaming and insulting others, Witzel should look at his own actions. Readers are not fools, and by indulging in such desperate attempts to pronounce someone guilty by association, Witzel is merely ruining his own credibility.

Practically everything is possible on this earth. It is even possible that human beings are descendant from extra-terrestrial aliens. But how probable is it that this did really happen? Almost zero. My point is that a mere demonstration that the occurrence of a historical is possible is not a sufficient proof that it did occur. One also needs to demonstrate that the probability of that possibility having become a reality is high. In short, to establish a case, one must make it likely, not simply ‘not impossible’.

The conventional Aryan Invasion/Migration Theories and their new Siamese twins that are delivered each passing day imagine a unique situation in South Asia around 1500 BCE. It is a situation that is a simultaneous combination of several independent and improbable factors or events. Statistically speaking, such a resultant situation is even more unlikely to have happened than the individual events could have occurred individually. These theories basically advocate that –

1. The IA speakers preserved their voluminous literature, heritage and religion despite being on the move, even when passing through vast inhabited territories, something that is contrary to norm (with a few exceptions such as that of Polynesians).

2. The IA speakers managed to Aryanize the culture, religion, language of the indigenous population of an area of 3 million sq km., without leaving any literary, archaeological, genetic, anthropological evidence. This is against the norm and very few exceptions exist.

3. The process is said to have been achieved without much violence or use of force. The ‘acculterated’ or ‘conquered’ peoples have no memory of this having happened. This is again against the norm.

4. A culturally inferior people are said to have overwhelmed a more advanced civilization. This is again against the norm.

5. Evidence from Geology and Archaeoastronomy contradicts the soft linguistic evidence.

6. South Asian cattle (zebu) appear around the same time in the Middle East that Aryans supposedly enter South Asia – movements in opposite directions.

Many other reasons could be cited to argue why the Aryanization of much of the Indian subcontinent around 1500 BC is a highly implausible scenario. At least, the existing body of evidence from various fields does not compel us at all to accept such a thing. This does not mean of course that the Indo-European speakers were indigenous to the Indian subcontinent and that this area is the original homeland of IE languages. Again, the existing body of evidence does not compel us to accept such a possibility being real. One rather needs to examine the data afresh, with an open mind, as Kazanas urges, and determine if the coming of IA languages into the Indian subcontinent could have happened much earlier than when Indo-Europeanists and Indologists believe this had really happened.

With these comments, I end my critique.

The following is only a brief sample of the irrelevant and inappropriate remarks that permeate Witzel’s ‘comment’ to KAZANAS [2002]. I am not offering any commentary, because it is not worth the effort, and because I consider the reader to be wise enough to be able to see through them.

Page. 107, fn. 2: “Or, as Kazanas suggests – since he seems secretly proud of the “revisionist” label….”

Page 108: “Hardly by coincidence, this makes the RV the oldest text in the world – a doctrine routinely expressed in Hindu fundamentalist circles, but not one accepted by any serious scholar. Kazanas is hardly the first (or best-known) “revisionist” in recent decades to revive these views of Indo-European and South Asian history, which can be found with trivial modifications in the works of Elst, Danino, Frawley, Kak, Klostermaier, S. S. Misra, Rajaram, Sethna, and so on. Kazanas’ arguments are even less sublte than those of most of his predecessors….”

Page 109: “Kazanas’ claim about a fourth millennium (or earlier!) Rgveda, which is again repeated in Indian fundamentalist circles…

Page 109, fn. 5: “In the fundamentalist/nationalistic circles from, which Kazanas draws support – despite his pretense of political naivete….

Page 110, fn. 7: “…thus copied with the consistent misspelling introduced by another “specialist” of Ancient India, the former Manila ADB Bank employee S. Kalyanaraman.”

Page 111: “The spiritual center, Omilos Meleton, that Kazanas runs in Athens derives its inspiration “from numerous spiritual traditions of mankind – Indian, ancient Greek, Buddhist, Christian Gnostic, and so on” – all dumped in one New Age basket. Views like this put Kazanas in the same class as his better known confrère David Frawley (aka Pandit Vamadeva Shastri), whose Vedic Institute in New Mexico offers correspondence courses in Vedic Astrology..”

Page 112: “All this is the mark of a zealous neo-convert clinging to firmly held beliefs – which, despite his claims, can be connected both to fundamentalist Hindu views and associated political movements in India.”

Page 115: “But resources like this which are indispensable in Vedic scholarship, are not part of Kazanas’ repertoire…Again we find that Kazanas is guided by the methodology of the courtroom lawyer or scholastic disputant...”

Page 117: “But these are, of course, mere empirical data, which cannot stand against Kazanas’ neo-convert’s faith.”

Page 120: “Maybe Kazanas has an English debating club or an assembly of medieval disputers in mind. But in this case at hand, one would hope that a verdict would rest on more than the horse sense of an English gentleman or the disputational skills of a medieval pandit.”

Page 122: “Kazanas’ other uses of “historical records” are no less absurd. Manifold contradictions show up in his paper, adopted wholesale from earlier mythologizers of Indian history..The theater of the absurd of Kazanas and his forerunners could be best dismissed with laughter, if it were not for the serious damage that accompanies these black comedies…”

“It is not necessary to dwell on Kazanas’ motives in producing his work, beyond pointing to his obvious affinities to other South Asian and Western writers linked to Indian fundamentalist movements.”

Page 126: “Other writers in Kazanas’ class, including D. Frawley, K. Elst, and N. S. Rajaram, have already caused significant damage to linguistics, philology, Indology, archaeology, and history. This damage is especially evident in Indian universities, where researchers are increasingly being pushed to embrace mythological approaches to writing Indian history.”

Page 127: “The only lasting value in Kazanas’ work is in the material that his work and that of his colleagues will provide future Ph.D. students interested in the ties between so-called “revisionist” history and fundamentalist/political movements in twenty-first century India.”

Page 134: “If Kazanas had done some comparative research…”

Page 147: “Talageri is a bank employee and may be excused; the Sanskritist Kazanas cannot.”

Page 152: “…his fellow “revisionist” K. Elst…”

Page 163: “This inventive proposal, too, is derived from a literally asinine Internet proposal first made by another indigenist (the retired bank official S. Kalyanaraman)…”

Page 169: “He [Kazanas] is truly a Xenos in the RV”.

Page 174: “Kazanas, still, in typical revisionist fashion….”

Page 175, fn. 112: “Instead, Kazanas’ idea of copper as the “swarthy metal” is copied, like so many of his “new” ideas, from the Hindutva Internet lists.

Page 177, fn. 115: “As always, Kazanas’ view is one of blissful monolateralism.”

AALTO, Pentti. 1984. The Indus Script and Dravidian. In Studia Orientalia- Edited by the Finnish Oriental Society, vol. 55.22. Helsinki

AGARWAL, Vishal. 2001. The Aryan Migration Theory – Fabricating Literary Evidence. Available online at http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/AMT.html

________. 2001a. What is the Aryan Migration Theory? Available online at http://vishalagarwal.bharatvani.org/What_is_AMT.html

AGRAWAL, D. P. 2000. Ancient Metal Technology and Archaeology of South Asia, A Pan-Asian Perspective. New Delhi: Aryan Books International.

BAMSHAD, Michael et al/ 2001. Genetic Evidence on the Origins of Indian Caste Populations. In Genome Research, vol. 11, pages 994-1004

BHARGAVA, Manohar Lal. 1964. The Geography of Rigvedic India. Lucknow: Upper India Publishing House

BROCKINGTON, John. 1998. The Sanskrit Epics. Leiden/Boston/Koln: Brill

CHAKRABARTI, D. K. 1999. India- An Archaeological History, Paleolithic Beginnings to Early Historic Foundations. New Delhi : Oxford University Press

DAS, Rahul Peter. 2000. Indra and Siva/Rudra. In Studia Indologiczne, Vol. 7 (2000); pp. 105-125

______. 1995. The Hunt for Foreign Words in the Rgveda, IIJ 38 (1995), 207-238

DONIGER, Wendy. 1992. The Deconstruction of Vedic Horselore in Indian Folklore; pg. 76-99 in “Ritual, State and History in South Asia- Essays in Honor of J. C. Heesterman; Ed. by M. S. Oort and A. W. van den Hoek, Memoirs of the Kern Institute no. 5. New York/Leiden : E. J. Brill

ELIZARENKOVA, T. Y. 1995. "Words and Things in the Rigveda"; Pube: Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute

ERDOSY, George (ed.). 1995. The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter

FRAWLEY, David. 2002. Witzel’s Vanishing Ocean – How to read the Vedic Texts any way you like. Available on-line at http://www.bharatvani.org/davidfrawley/ReplytoWitzel.html

GONDA, Jan. 1991. The Functions and Significance of Gold in the Veda. Leiden/New York: E. J. Brill

The Imperial Gazetteer of India (New Edition). 1908. Volume XXIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press

JARRIGE, Jean-Francois. 1985. ‘Continuity and Change in the North Kachi Plain (Baluchistan, Pakistan) at the Beginning of the Second Millennium BC. Pages. 42-60 in J. Schotsmans and M. Taddei (eds.), South Asian Archeology, 1983. Naples: Instituto Universatirio Orientale

KAZANAS, N. 2002. ‘Indigenous Indo-Aryans and the Rigveda’. Pages 275-334 in JIES, vol. 30, Nos. 3&4

_________. 2002a. Rgvedic Town and Ocean, Witzel Vs. Frawley. Available online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bharatvani/files/pursarasvati.pdf

_________. 2003. Final Reply. Pages 187-240 in JIES, vol. 31, No.1&2

KENOYER, Jonathan Mark. 1998. Ancient Cities of the Indus Valley Civilization. Karachi: OUP

KUIPER, F. B. J. 1967. ‘The Genesis of a Linguistic Area’. IIJ, vol. 10, pages. 81-102

_________. 1995. ‘On a Hunt for “Possible Objections”, and ‘Foreign Words in the Rigveda.’ IIJ 38(1995), pages 239-247 and 261

LAL, B. B. 1998. ‘Rigvedic Aryans: The Debate Must Go On’. In East and West, Vol. 48, 1998, pp. 439-449

LEACH, Edmund. 1990. ‘Aryan Invasions Over Four Millennia’. In E. Ohnuki-Tierney (ed.), Culture Through Time, Anthropological Approaches. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

MALLORY, J. P. 1998; ‘A European Perspective on Indo-Europeans in Asia’. pg. 175-201 in The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age Peoples of Eastern Central Asia, vol. I (ed. By Victor Mair). The Institute for the Study of Man, Washington D.C. (in collaboration with the University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications, Philadelphia); Journal of the Indo-European Studies Monograph No. 26

McINTOSH, Jane R. 2002. A Peaceful Realm- The Rise and Fall of the Indus Civilization. Boulder (Colorado): Westview Press

MISRA, S. D. 1970. Rivers of India. National Book Trust: New Delhi

OLDENBERG. Hermann. 1888. Die Hymnen des Rigveda, Band I. Metrische und textgeschichtliche Prolegomena. Berlin: William Hertz

OLDHAM, R. D. 1886. ‘On the Probable changes in the geography of the Panjab and its Rivers, An Historical geographical study’. In Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. 55, pages 322-343

OLIVELLE, Patrick. 1998. The Early Upanisads. New York: OUP

POSSEHL, Gregory. 2002. The Indus Civilization. Walnut Creek (California): Alta Mira Press

RANADE, G. C. 1998. Latyayana-Srautasutram (3 vols.). New Delhi: IGNCA/Motilal Banarsidass.

RAU, Willhelm. 1974. Metalle und Metallgeraete im vedischen Indien. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mainz, Abhandlungen der Geistes-u. sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse 1973, No. 8. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, pages 649-682

REAT, Noble Ross. 1996. “The Historical Buddha and His Teachings” in Potter, Karl H.; Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies, Vol. VII (Abhidharma Buddhism to 150 AD). New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Private Limited. (pages 3-58)

SETHNA, K. D. 1992. The Problem of Aryan Origins. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan

SHRAVA, Satya. 1981. The Sakas in India. New Delhi: Pranava Prakashan

SURYAVANSHI, Bhagwan Singh. 1986. Geography of the Mahabharata. New Delhi: Ramanand Vidya Bhawan

TALAGERI. Shrilant. 2000. Rgveda, a Historical Analysis. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan

_________. 2001. Michael Witzel – An Examination of his Review of my Book. Available online at http://www.bharatvani.org/general_inbox/talageri/ejvs/cover.html

TRIPATHI, Vibha. 2001. The Age of Iron in South Asia : legacy and tradition. New Delhi : Aryan Books International

VALDIYA, K. S. 2002. Saraswati, the River that Disappeared. Bangalore: ISRO

WILHELMY, H. 1969. ‘Das Urstromtal zam Ostrand der Induse bene und das Saraswati Problem’. In Zeitschrift fuer Geomorphologie, NF Supplement, Vol. 8, pages 76-93

WITZEL, Michael. 1995. ‘Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters’. in George Erdosy (ed.), The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, pp. 85-125. Walter de Gryuter: Berlin

______. 1995a. ‘Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics’. in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, ed. by George Erdosy. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin

________. 1997a. ‘The Development of the Vedic Canon and its Schools: The Social and Political Milieu’. Pages. 257-345 in Inside the Texts, Beyond the Texts, ed.by Michael Witzel, Cambridge

________. 1999. ‘Aryan and Non-Aryan Names in Vedic India. Data for the linguistic situation, c. 1900-500 B.C.’, in Bronkhorst, Johannes and Madhav Deshpande (eds.), Aryans and Non-Aryans, Evidence, Interpretation and Ideology. (HOS, Opera Minora 3). Cambridge, pp. 337-404

________. 1999a. ‘Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages’. In Mother Tongue, October 1999 (special issue), pages 1-76. Available online at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MT-Substrates.pdf

________. 2000. Early linguistic data and the Indus civilization. In: J. Kenoyer (ed.) Proceedings of the conference on the Indus civilization, Madison 1998 . Available online with the title Languages of Harappa at http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/IndusLang.pdf

________. 2000a. ‘The Home of Aryans’. Pp. 283- 338 in Anusantatyai, ed. by Eva Tichy and Almut Hintze. J. H. Roll: Germany

________.2001. “WESTWARD HO! The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S. Talageri” in EJVS 7.2, available online at http://northshore.shore.net/%7Eindia/ejvs/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf

________. 2003. ‘Ein Fremdling im Rgveda’. JIES vol. 31, No. 1&2 (2003), pages 107-185

WITZEL, Michael; Alexander Lubotsky; M. S. Oort (eds.). 1997. F. B. J. Kuiper- Selected Writings on Indian Linguistics and Philology. Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi (Note: The introduction to the text, which alone is cited in this webpage, has Witzel as the sole author).

WOLPERT, Stanley. 2000. A New History of India. New York : Oxford University Press;

ZARINS, Juris. 1976. The Domestication of Equidae in Third Millennium B.C. Mesopotamia. A Ph. D. thesis submitted to the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, University of Chicago: Chicago

ZEUNER, Frederick, E. 1963. A History of Domesticated Animals. New York and Evanston: Harper & Row, Publishers.

ZIMMER, Stefan. 1991. ‘The Investigation of Proto-Indo-European History: Methods, Problems, Limitations’. Pages. 311-344 in MARKEY T. L. & GREPPEIN John A. C. (eds.), When Worlds Collide – Indo-Europeans and Pre-Indo-Europeans. Linguistica Extranea, Studia 19. Ann Arbor: Karoma Publishers

“DNA does tell tales, according to researchers who studied from the genetic data of 250 unrelated men from the eight social castes of southern India. Y-chromosome analysis, which identifies the genetic material passed along the paternal line, reveals that members of the upper castes are more genetically similar to Europeans, while lower caste members share more genetic similarities with Asians. The study, by researchers from the University of Utah, Louisiana State University, and Andhra University, India, confirms literary and archaeological evidence for a Vedic invasion of the subcontinent from the northwest between 3,5000 and 3,000 years ago. This “new” population is generally considered to have occupied higher positions within India’s caste system.”

Next to the news item is an uncharacteristically fierce looking, semi-naked Brahmin with a very ferocious look in his eyes. The caption next to the picture reads – “The blood of this Brahmin priest may hold evidence of a Vedic invasion”. (!)

Revision A: 11 August 2003 (Add reference to WITZEL 2000)

Copyright: Vishal Agarwal