1

To sum up the linguistic arguments for the AIT: 1. The eminent linguist Hock admits that the sum total of the linguistic case for

the AIT or against the Indian homeland is “not based on ‘hard-core’ linguistic evidence such as sound changes, which can be subjected to critical and definitive analysis”, but only on “arguments based on plausibility and simplicity”.

2. But, as we saw, all the arguments in fact are actually based on naïve and simplistic notions rather than on simple logic, and examination shows that they actually go against all principles of plausibility.

3. And in examining the AIT arguments, all kinds of linguistic evidence is uncovered which in fact makes a strong case for an Indian homeland: 1. the evidence of place and river names in north India (especially in the greater Punjab region, which is the Harappan as well as Vedic region), 2. the evidence of the one-way Uralic borrowings, 3. the evidence of Indian and Central Asian animal names in the European IE languages, etc.

2

4. The linguistic case for the AIT (or against the Indian homeland hypothesis) is completely flawed and fallacious. Yet it is on the basis of this fictitious case that all modern studies of ancient Indian texts and traditions (as well as all interpretations of ancient archaeological finds in India) have been converted into an exercise in trying to find “evidence for the external origins – and likely arrival in the 2nd millennium BC – of Indo-Aryan languages” (Erdosy).

Erdosy, an AIT proponent, frankly admits: “We reiterate that there is no indication in the Rigveda of the Arya’s memory of any ancestral home, and by extension, of migrations”.

5. But the mesmerising effect of the fallacious idea that the external origin of the IE Aryans is linguistically well-established is so strong that great scholars (notably Ambedkar and Pargiter) who studied and examined these texts and traditions in detail and stated categorically that there was no evidence there at all for the external origin of the Vedic people (Pargiter even finds that the traditional evidence shows that the IEs outside India emigrated from India) have later capitulated to the idea that Aryans must have come from outside since the linguists say so. It is time to examine the texts with the knowledge that this linguistic theory is flawed and fallacious.

3

The texts and traditions do not contain anything explicit about an Aryan invasion, or about any foreign ancestral origins. And, until the AIT was formulated a little over two centuries ago, no-one had even the shadow of any suspicion that these texts could be assumed to have been written by immigrants from outside India, much less that there could be presumed to be data or clues to that effect in the texts.

Hence, the Indologists concentrate on trying to find indirect “evidence” from the texts, for the external origin of the Aryans, in the form of:

1. “Indirect references” in the form of “vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rigveda…[and] the migration of river-names…[which] retain a vague memory of the route followed” (Witzel).

2. Indirect references to non-IE natives of India, and of conflicts between the incoming Aryans and these native non-IEs.

3. Evidence from the geographical data, within the texts, showing a movement or expansion of the Vedic Aryans from the west to the east within India during the Vedic period.

However, an examination of the arguments in respect of each of these three criteria proves the exact opposite:

4

The Factual Situation: The explicit geography of the Rigveda is limited to an area from the eastern areas of

Afghanistan in the west to the western areas of the Ganga and the Yamuna in the east. In modern terms, it covers the eastern and southern areas of Afghanistan, the northern half of Pakistan (NWFP, Punjab), the Indian Punjab and Haryana, and adjoining parts of western Uttar Pradesh.

There is no reference to any area west of this, in spite of all efforts to find at least one.

AIT Argument: Witzel hopefully tries to go as far west as possible by doubtfully referring to “the rather vague

identification of Rigvedic rip- with the Rhipaean mountains, the modern Urals (Bongard-Levin 1980)”.

This poor imitation of P N Oak’s identifications can not be discussed seriously! Witzel can not name a single other “foreign locality”.

In the absence of any other western geographical name, the presence of two river-names in India, Sarasvati and Sarayu, which are also names of two other rivers found in Avestan Afghanistan, is treated as evidence of the “migration of river names” from west to east.

5

OIT Argument: The only river names common to the Rigveda and the Avesta are the Sarasvati (Avestan

Haraquaiti) and Sarayu (Avestan Haroyu). But: a) Linguistically, the words Haraquaiti and Haroyu are derived from Sarasvati and Sarayu (by change of

s>h and sv>qu) and not vice versa. b) There is no actual textual evidence to show that the Vedic Aryans ever lived in Afghanistan, but in

the early parts of the Rigveda, the Iranian tribes (Persians, Parthians, Pakhtoons and Baluchis) are named as inhabitants of the areas in the central parts of the Punjab on the banks of the Parushni (Ravi).

c) The Rigveda can be divided into old and new parts. And, as we will see, the entire Avesta is contemporaneous with the new part of the Rigveda. Further, even within the Rigveda, Sarasvati is named most frequently in the oldest parts. And even within the Avesta, the Haraquaiti is named just once in a late part, the Vendidad. So the Avestan reference is far, far posterior to the Rigvedic references.

Conclusion: All the evidence shows that the movement of the names was not from west to east, but from east to west

6

AIT Compulsion — “Old Elements” in the Rigveda: Witzel insists that “the IAs, as described in the RV, represent something definitely new

in the subcontinent”, and that the “obvious conclusion should be that these new elements somehow came from the outside” (Witzel). But these “new elements” mysteriously not only have no memories at all of any extra-Indian homeland or migration, or even of acquaintance with any extra-Indian areas, but even the local rivers already (as we saw, a circumstance unparalleled in world history) all have well- established names in the Vedic language of “these new elements” rather than in the language of the alleged “old elements” in the area.

Did these “old elements” “somehow” disappear completely into thin air (along with their river-names) the moment these “new elements” stepped into the area?

Even so, some clue to their existence should necessarily be found in the records of the “new elements”:

a total absence of non-IE “old elements” in the Rigveda would be one more piece of evidence sufficient in itself to disprove the AIT.

So hunting out references to non-IE “old elements”, and to conflicts between “old” and “new” elements, in the Rigveda is a matter of life and death for the AIT!

7

Facts: The Rigveda does not contain a single reference to any person or tribe

whose name can be identified as Dravidian or Austric, the two main non-IE families of languages in India (and the two main “old element” suspects in Indological speculations). Nor any other specific language family found in India or found or recorded anywhere in the world. Over two centuries of frenzied efforts in this direction have drawn a complete blank.

Except for a handful of vague, subjective and non-specific suggestions: Macdonell suggests that two of the names of the demons of darkness, Srbinda and

Ilibisha, have “an un-Aryan appearance”. Kosambi suggests that the word Pani “does not seem to be Aryan”. Rahurkar suggests that some of the names of rishis of the Kanva family (including Ashva-

suktin & Go-suktin!) are “strange” and show “non-Aryan influence”. Witzel even finds “‘Aryan’ kings with non-Aryan names”, Brbu and Balbutha.

8

AIT Arguments: In over two centuries of speculations, different scholars have discovered

“non-Aryans” in every category of names. The words most consistently identified as referring to the non-Aryan “old elements” are

dasa, dasyu, asura and pani. Next in line are all names of demons destroyed by Indra (Vrtra, Shushna, Shambara, Vala,

Pipru, Namuchi, Cumuri, Dhuni, Varcin, Ahishuva, Arbuda, etc., etc.) followed by all classes of supernatural beings other than devas (danavas, daityas, rakshasas,

yakshas, gandharvas, kinnaras, pishachas, etc.). Finally, on the criterion that all “conflicts” in the Rigveda point to non-

Aryans, scholars have discovered non-Aryans even among The Vedic tribes (including Ikshvakus, Purus, Anus, Druhyus, Yadus and Turvashas), The Vedic gods (including Varuna, Mitra, Rudra, Ushas, Surya, Pushan, Savitr, Vishnu, even

Indra from the paternal side!), The Vedic rishis (Kanvas, Agastyas, Vasishthas, Bhrgus, even “all rishis except the

Vishvamitras”)

9

Flaws: This desperate non-Aryan-hunting, besides producing absurd results, is

also a clear admission of total failure to locate any genuine non-IEs in the Rigveda:

a) “Non-Aryan” can only and only refer to non-IE in the linguistic sense, but, except for a handful of names cited, which do not have clear IE or Sanskrit etymologies (but no known non-IE ones either), all the names identified as non-Aryan have clear and indisputable IE etymologies.

b) Most of the names identified as non-Aryans encountered by the Aryans inside India, are found in the languages and myths of Iran and Europe: to note just the four main ones, dasa, dasyu and asura in Iranian (dasa and asura in the Uralic languages as well), asura and pani in Germanic, and pani in Greek.

c) All the “conflicts” in the Rigveda, which have been identified as conflicts between Aryans and non-Aryans, are nothing but nature myths pertaining to mythical conflicts between the forces of nature, mainly the thunder god versus the demons who prevent rainfall or the demons who hide the rays of the dawn; and these myths are found in the IE mythologies outside India with related names and similar mythological details.

10

AIT Argument: The geographical area of the Rigveda extends from eastern Afghanistan in the west,

to western Uttar Pradesh in the east. Within this area, the geographical data in the Rigveda, as per the AIT, shows that

the Aryan expansion was from west to east: first the Aryans entered India from the northwest, then they settled down in the Saptasindhu region (the land of the seven rivers: the Indus in the west, the Sarasvati in the east, and the five rivers of Punjab in the middle) where they composed the Rigveda, and then later they expanded eastwards.

The logic behind postulating a west to east movement within the geographical area of the Rigveda is that the Rigveda shows close familiarity with the western areas, referring frequently to many small rivers of Afghanistan which flow into the Indus from the west; but in the east, it only refers once or twice to the two westernmost rivers of interior India, the Ganga and Yamuna.

Is this logic right? Or rather, is this the correct interpretation of the data?

11

Geographical divisions of the Rigveda: To examine the direction of expansion, it is necessary to first understand the

three regions into which the Rigvedic area can be divided from west to east: 1. The western region: the areas to the west of the Indus (i.e. NWFP, and eastern Afghanistan). 2. The central region: the areas between the Indus and the Sarasvati (i.e. the greater Punjab). 3. The eastern region: the areas to the east of the Sarasvati (i.e. Haryana, western Uttar

Pradesh). The western and eastern rivers in the Rigveda:

Western rivers: Trshtama, Susartu, Anitabha, Rasa, Shvetya, Kubha, Krumu, Gomati, Sarayu, Mehatnu,

Shvetyavari, Suvastu, Gauri, Sindhu (Indus), Sushoma, Arjikiya.Eastern rivers: Sarasvati, Drshadvati/Hariyupiya/Yavyavati, Apaya, Ashmanvati, Amshumati, Yamuna, Ganga,

Jahnavi.

12

It is also necessary to understand the internal chronology of the Rigveda (i.e. which parts of the text are old and which are new):

Chronological Divisions of the Rigveda: The Rigveda itself consists of ten books (mandalas) composed at various times. On the basis of stage of language and

principles of arrangement of the hymns, the western scholars have classified them chronologically as follows: “The Rigveda was composed and assembled in the following stages, beginning ‘at the centre’ with books 2-7” (Witzel).

These are called the “family books”. “At a later stage, Books 1 and 8 were added…[then] book 9 was added…Lastly the heterogenous material in Book 10 was

appended to the entire collection” (Proferes). These are called the “non-family books”. Of the family books, “the connections of Book 5 [is] with Books 1 and 8 and not with the other clan books (2-4, 6-7)”

(Proferes).

So we get the following three chronological categories of books as per the western scholars: Old books: 2-4, 6-7. Middle book: 5. New books: 1, 8-10.

If the books are further arranged chronologically within each group, we get the following order: Earlier Old books: 6, 3, 7. Later Old books: 4, 2. Earlier New book: 5. Later New books: 1, 8, 9, 10.

13

Geographical Facts (Rivers): The following is the distribution of the eastern rivers: The eastern rivers: Three Earlier Old books:

VI.27.5,6; 45.31; 49.7; 50.12; 52.6; 61.1-7,10-11, 13-14. III.4.8; 23.4; 54.13; 58.6. VII.2.8; 9.5; 18.19; 35.11; 36.6; 39.5; 40.3; 95.1-2,4-6; 96.1,3-6.

Two Later Old books: II.1.11; 3.8; 30.8; 32.8; 41.16-18.

One Earlier New book: V.5.8; 42.12; 43.11; 46.2; 52.17.

Four Later New books: I.3.10-12; 13.9; 89.3; 116.19; 142.9; 164.49,52; 188.8. VIII.21.17,18; 38.10; 54.4; 96.13. IX.5.8; 67.32; 81.4. X.17.7-9; 30.12; 53.8; 64.9; 65.1,13; 66.5; 75.5; 110.8; 131.5; 141.5; 184.2.

14

Contrast this with the distribution of the western rivers: The western rivers: Three Earlier Old books:

NONE. Two Later Old books:

IV.30.12,18; 43.6; 54.6; 55.3. One Earlier New book:

V.41.15; 53.9. Four Later New books:

I.44.12; 83.1; 112.12; 122.6; 126.1; 164.4; 186.5 [+ a praise of the Indus river in a refrain repeated in the last verse of 19 hymns: I.94-96,98,100-103,105-115].

VIII.7.29; 12.3; 19.37; 20.24-25; 24.30; 25.14; 26.18; 64.11; 72.7,13. IX.41.6; 65.23; 97.58. X.64.9; 65.13; 66.11; 75.1,3-9; 108.1-2; 121.4.

15

Conclusion: A comparison of the references to the eastern and the western rivers in the Rigveda shows that the

movement of the Vedic Aryans during the Rigvedic period was from east to west: a) Four of the five old books show great familiarity with the Sarasvati and rivers to its east:

the easternmost river of the Rigveda, the Ganga/Jahnavi is mentioned in the two oldest books of the Rigveda, 6 and 3 (VI.45.31; III.58.6); and the second easternmost river, the Yamuna, in the third oldest book 7 (VII.18.19). Likewise the Sarasvati is referred to in a total of 33 verses in these three oldest books (books 6,3,7), and has three whole hymns in its praise (VI.61; VII.95-96). It is also the only river mentioned in the fourth old book (book 2).

b) But these four old books (all three of the earlier old books, and one of the two later old books) show absolutely no acquaintance with the Indus and rivers to its west.

c) The Indus and rivers to its west first appear in the later old book 4, become more familiar in the earlier new book 5, and are very familiar geographical features in the later new books 1,8,9,10. But these new books also continue to show equal familiarity with the eastern rivers as well.

16

Other Geographical Facts: An examination of the other (than rivers) eastern and western geographical data in the

Rigveda confirms this picture of a movement from east to west to a stunning degree: The Place-names in the Rigveda:

Western: Gandhari, (indirect=) gandharva. Eastern: Kikata, Ilaspada/Ilayaspada, (indirect=) nabha+prthivya, vara-a-prthivya.

The Mountains in the Rigveda: Western: Sushom, Arjik, Mujavat.

The Lakes in the Rigveda: Western: Sharyanavat(i). Eastern: Manusha.

The Animals in the Rigveda: Western: Ushtra, Mathra, Chaga, Mesha, Vrshni, Ura, Varaha. Eastern: ibha/varana/hastin/srni, mahisha, gaura, mayura, prshati.

17

The distribution of the eastern geographical data: Four Earlier Old books:

Book VI: 1.2; 4.5; 8.4; 17.11; 20.8. Book III: 5.9; 23.4; 26.4,6; 29.4; 45.1; 46.2; 53.11,14. Book VII: 40.3; 44.5; 69.6; 98.1.

Two Later Old books: Book IV: 4.1; 16.14; 18.11; 21.8; 58.2. Book II: 3.7; 10.1; 34.3,4; 36.2.

One Earlier New book: Book V: 29.7,8; 42.15; 55.6; 57.3; 58.6; 60.2.

Four Later New books: Book I: 16.5; 37.2; 39.6; 64.7-8; 85.4-5; 87.4; 89.7; 95.9; 121.2; 128.1,7; 140.2; 141.3; 143.4; 162.21; 186.8; 191.14. Book VIII: 1.25; 4.3; 7.28; 12.8; 33.8; 35.7-9; 45.24; 69.15; 77.10. Book IX: 57.3; 69.3; 72.7; 73.2; 79.4; 82.3; 86.8,40; 87.7; 92.6; 95.4; 96.6,18-19; 97.41; 113.3. Book X: 1.6; 8.1; 28.10; 40.4; 45.3; 51.6; 60.3; 65.8; 66.10; 70.1; 91.1; 100.2; 106.2,6; 123.4; 128.8; 140.6; 189.2;

191.1.

18

The Distribution of the western geographical data: Five Old books:

Book III: 38.6. (a hymn classified as late) One Earlier New book: NONE Four Later New books:

Book I: 10.2; 22.14; 43.6; 52.1; 61.7; 84.14; 88.5; 114.5; 116.16; 117.17-18; 121.11; 126.7; 138.2; 162.3; 163.2. Book VIII: 1.11; 2.40; 5.37; 6.39,48; 7.29; 34.3; 46.22-23,31; 64.11; 66.8; 77.5,10; 97.12. Book IX: 8.5; 65.22-23; 83.4; 85.12; 86.36,47; 97.7; 107.11; 113.1-3. Book X: 10.4; 11.2; 27.17; 28.4; 34.1; 35.2; 67.7; 80.6; 85.40-41; 86.4; 91.14; 95.3; 99.6; 106.5; 123.4,7; 136.6;

139.4-6; 177.2.

Conclusion: The eastern geographical data (place-names, mountains, lakes, animals) is distributed evenly throughout

all the ten books of the Rigveda. But the western geographical data is found only in the later new books. The one verse in an old book is in

a hymn in book 3 which is classified (in the Aitareya Brahmana VI.18) as a late addition into book 3. This again shows that the movement was from east to west.

19

The movement east to west: It is clear, from the data for the eastern and western geographical names, that the

Vedic Indo-Aryans were originally inhabitants of the areas to the east of the Sarasvati during the period of the three oldest books of the Rigveda (books 6,3 and 7) and they had expanded westwards into the areas to the west of the Indus by the time of composition of the new books (1, 9-10).

If so, this expansion east to west should also be seen in the distribution of the geographical data pertaining to the central region (the area between the Sarasvati and the Indus):

The central rivers: Marudvrdha , Shutudri, Vipash, Parushni, Asikni, Vitasta. The central place-names: Saptasaindhavah, (indirect=) sapta+ sindhu. No mountain or lake names of the central region are found in the Rigveda. Nor are

there any specific animals peculiar to the region: the eastern and western animals spill into this region from either side.

20

THE CENTRAL RIVERS THE CENTRAL PLACE-NAMES

Three Earlier Old books: Book III: 33.1. Book VII: 5.3; 18.8,9.

Two Later Old books: Book IV: 22.2; 30.11.

Five New books: Book V: 52.9. Book VIII: 20.75; 75.15. Book X: 75.5.

Three Earlier Old Books: NONE.

Two Later Old books: Book IV: 28.1. Book II: 12.3,12.

Five New books: Book I: 32.12; 35.8. Book VIII: 24.27; 54.4; 69.12. Book IX: 66.6. Book X: 43.3; 67.12.

The Distribution of the central geographical data:

21

Distribution of River names

22

Distribution of Place names

23

The expansion westwards through the central region during the period of the old books of the Rigveda is confirmed by the distribution of the central geographical data in the Rigveda: a) The oldest book 6 does not mention a single river west of the Sarasvati. b) The second oldest book 3 describes an Ashvamedha yajna performed by the

Bharata king Sudas still in areas east of the Sarasvati, and his expansion “east, west and north” (III.53.11). Then it describes (hymn III.33) Sudas and the Bharata warriors crossing the first two easternmost rivers of the central area, Vipash and Shutudri (Beas and Satlej).

c) The third oldest book 7 describes the great battle fought against the expanding Bharatas on the banks of the third easternmost river of the central area, Parushni (Ravi) (VII.18.8,9), by the kings and people of the areas of the fourth easternmost river, the Asikni (Chenab) (VII.5.3).

24

d) During the period of these three oldest books, even the word saptasaindhavah for the central region is totally missing (it is found only once in the new book 8: VIII.24.27). But even the form sapta+sindhu, which is is found in most of the other books, is totally missing in these three oldest books.

d) The fourth oldest book 4 for the first time takes the Vedic Indo-Aryans into the areas beyond the Indus when it describes the final battle fought on the banks of the Sarayu (Siritoi), a western tributary of the Indus in the NWFP, in the time of Sudas’ descendants Sahadeva and his son Somaka (IV.15.7-10) . This book for the first time mentions the Indus (IV.30.12; 54.6; 55.3) and rivers beyond (Sarayu IV.30.18; Rasa IV.43.6).

e) After this, except for the Sarasvati-centered book 2, all the subsequent books of the Rigveda (5,1,8,9,10) show increasing familiarity with the Indus and areas to its immediate west.

Conclusion: The geographical data and the actual historical events show that the movement of the

Vedic Aryans through the Punjab was from east to west.

25

To sum up: 1) The Rigveda has absolutely no memories of any external homeland, of any

migration into India, or indeed even of any acquaintance with places or areas outside India. Nor does it give even the faintest indirect indication of any of the above.

2) The Rigveda does not refer to a single person, friend or enemy, who can be identified on linguistic grounds (and after all, the whole Aryan issue is a purely linguistic one) as Austric or Dravidian or as being the speaker of any other non-IE language known or recorded anywhere in the world.

3) The pattern of distribution of the geographical data in the Rigveda, as well as the historical narrative in the text, give irrefutable evidence to the fact that the Vedic Aryans in the oldest part of the Rigvedic period were inhabitants of areas in the interior of India to the east of the Sarasvati with no prior acquaintance with the areas to the west, with which they became acquainted only in the later parts of the Rigvedic period.

26

What Archaeology can not tell us: Archaeology is the scientific study of the material culture found in excavated archaeological

sites. But this material culture in itself simply can not tell us about the language spoken by the inhabitants, unless there is concrete evidence, either direct (readable inscriptions or other records in the site itself) or indirect (references to the language of the inhabitants of these sites in the records of other contemporary cultures).

The same material culture can be found in sites representing different linguistic groups, and different material cultures can be found in sites representing the same or similar linguistic groups.

To this day, no evidence, direct or indirect, has been found to identify any excavated site linguistically as either proto-Indo-European (anywhere in the world ), proto-Indo-Iranian (on the way eastwards to Central Asia), Indo-Iranian (in or around Central Asia), or even Vedic Indo-Aryan (inside India).

Therefore, strictly speaking, the identification of archaeological cultures as proto-Indo-European or Indo-Iranian or Indo-Aryan, or non-Indo-Aryan, without linguistic evidence to that effect, has absolutely no archaeological basis.

27

Flaws in AIT arguments based on Archaeology: Yet, in the motivated search for archaeological evidence for the proto-Indo-European

homeland and for the postulated Indo-Iranian migrations, “identifying archaeological remains of Indo-European populations in Central Asia has been one of the main questions that has occupied a number of linguists and historians for many years” (Francfort). Different sites, from South Russia to Anatolia and Central Asia, are identified as proto-IE or Indo-Iranian, in the total absence of any linguistic evidence about the language spoken at the sites. At the same time, the Indus sites are identified as non-Aryan, again in the total absence of any linguistic evidence to that effect.

The identification in every case is a predetermined one based on “the simple linguistic space-time argument for locating the speakers, in which case a study of the archaeological record is useless since anything goes… there is no factual evidence apart from the linguistically reconstructed time-space predictions” (Francfort).

That is, archaeological remains which fit in with the time-space expectations of the linguists and historians, as to where the IEs or Indo-Iranians must have been at a particular period of time, are identified as IE or Indo-Iranian.

28

It simply does not matter what is found on the sites: the identification of any site as IE or Indo-Iranian (or of the Indus sites as non-IE) is not based on what is found on the sites; it is based only on the time and location of the remains.

When aspects of the material culture are necessarily cited to prove their IE or Indo-Iranian nature, these aspects are so general that they could “be used to identify the Arab, the Turk and the Iranian, three completely distinct types” (Lamberg-Karlovsky) or to conclude that “the Bronze Age Chinese were Indo-Europeans” (Francfort).

Likewise, when passages from the Rigveda or Avesta are cited to identify aspects from the sites , they are “of a most general nature and do not convince… [They] are sufficiently general to permit the Plains Indians of North America an Indo-Iranian identity” (Lamberg-Karlovsky).

All this basically amounts to a contempt for objectivity in the analysis of archaeological data: “what is the relevance of archaeological material if any sort of assemblage present at the expected or supposed time/space spot can function as the tag of a linguistic group?” (Francfort).

29

Contrarily, when genuinely peculiar Indo-Iranian aspects such as fire-altars are found in the Indus sites, alternate explanations are given, only because the Indus sites do not fit in with the time-space expectations of the linguists.

Therefore, it is clear that archaeology has no role whatsoever to play in identifying any archaeological remains or sites as either IE or non-IE in the absence of concrete linguistic evidence.

What Archaeology can tell us: Archaeology can not identify linguistic remains at any site as IE or non-IE. But it

can identify ethnic-cultural changes in any area, and migrations of ethnic-cultural groups or material culture from one area to another.

Even here, it can not identify, in the absence of concrete linguistic evidence, whether either the original or the new or the migrating ethnic-cultural groups are IE or non-IE, but it can identify whether or not ethnic-cultural changes and migrations have taken place at all.

30

Facts: The fact is that no such changes have taken place at all in India. This is the strongest possible

archaeological evidence against the AIT and for the Indian homeland: the overwhelming majority of archaeologists testify categorically that no ethnic-cultural changes in, or notable migrations into, the Vedic/Indus area have taken place between 5000 BCE and 600 BCE.

A major western academic volume edited by two proponents of the AIT, Erdosy and Witzel, contains the papers of eminent western linguists and archaeologists on the subject of “The Indo-Aryans of ancient South Asia: language, material culture and ethnicity”. In the preface, Erdosy tells us that the idea of an Aryan invasion of India in the second millennium BCE “has recently been challenged by archaeologists”; that the perspective of achaeology, “that of material culture… is in direct conflict with the findings of the other discipline claiming a key to the solution of the ‘Aryan problem’, linguistics”; and that there is a “disciplinary divide” between the disciplines of archaeology and linguistics.

31

In his paper in this volume, K A R Kennedy details the findings of physical anthropology and archaeology that “while discontinuities in physical types have certainly been found in South Asia, they are dated to the 5th/4th, and to the 1st millennium B.C. respectively, too early and too late to have any connection with ‘Aryans’”.

D A Lichtenstein’s paper describes and stresses “the indigenous development of South Asian civilization from the Neolithic onward”.

J M Kenoyer’s paper finds that “the cultural history of South Asia in the 2nd millennium B.C. may be explained without reference to external agents”.

J G Shaffer, elsewhere, writes: “The diffusion or migration of a culturally complex ‘Indo-Aryan’ people into South Asia is not described by the archaeological record”.

Witzel, who is the linguist pitted against the archaeologists in this volume, also admits: “So far, clear archaeological evidence has just not been found”.

32

Even archaeologists, linguists and historians who identify “Indo-Iranians” in archaeological sites and remains from South Russia to Central Asia can not find any archaeological trail leading from Central Asia into India. But, there are archaeological trails leading into almost all the other historical IE areas. Thus: “a ‘common European horizon’ developed after 3000 BC, at about the time of the Pit Grave expansion (Kurgan Wave #3)… usually known as the Corded Ware Horizon… the territory inhabited by the Corded Ware/Battle Axe culture, after its expansions, geographically qualifies it to be the ancestor of the Western or European language branches: Germanic, Baltic, Slavic, Celtic and Italic” (Winn). Similar trails have been identified for the IE language entries into Anatolia, Greece and Iran (“from the east”). The trail for Tocharian (in Chinese Turkestan to the north of Tibet) does not go further west than Central Asia.

Conclusion: Archaeology categorically negates any Aryan migration into India in 1500 BCE. But it

does not negate, and in fact it corroborates, IE migrations into other historical IE areas.

33

We have examined all the arguments in each of the three disciplines involved in the IE debate, and this examination only disproves the AIT and confirms India as the IE homeland.

It is time to take note of the facts and evidence, and to change the history books and text books accordingly.

The main reason why this is not happening is because the AIT is a subject evoking strong passions and involving powerful vested interests, particularly in India. A number of entrenched political ideologies have been formulated and are still flourishing on the basis of this theory.

Even otherwise, the AIT is a theory based on “assumptions long taken for granted and buttressed by the accumulated weight of two centuries of scholarship” (Erdosy). This accumulated weight of two centuries of world scholarship is not easy to dislodge. The entrenched scholars today have also contributed to that weight, and will not accept anything which will render their own writings on this subject obsolete.

But the truth, if it is really the truth, will ultimately have to be accepted, at least by the academic world, however long it may take.

But for this, the truth must be intelligently formulated and presented. After that it is only a matter of time.

34

This presentation basically involved only an examination of the AIT arguments. The examination shows that the AIT is based only on baseless subjective and circular arguments in all the three disciplines involved in this matter (linguistics, textual analysis and archaeology). And this examination actually uncovers objective, concrete and conclusive evidence in support of an Indian homeland.

A more direct and detailed presentation of the OIT, or Out-of-India theory, which will follow, will show conclusively and finally that: 1. There is datable inscriptional evidence outside India proving that the Indus

civilization was Indo-Iranian. 2. The OIT is not just a theory, it is recorded history. 3. The OIT answers every single linguistic problem associated with the IE

homeland question.

35