What DNA Says About Aryan Invasion Theory-1

[dhu]

<!--QuoteBegin-Sushmita+Dec 2 2005, 06:14 AM-->QUOTE(Sushmita @ Dec 2 2005, 06:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->...That bit on Johanna Nichols is also very interesting and I had not come across it before.
[right][snapback]42387[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Sushmita, that excerpt on Nichols is from Shrikant Talageri's online book:
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/rig/ch7.htm

Talageri also made a rare post on the IC list recently:

msg # 83263, 83308
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Srinivasan Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@...>
Date: Mon Dec 19, 2005  12:08 pm
Subject: Mitanni  kalyan97
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
*The **Mitanni***

* *

*HOCK'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE OIT*



H. H. Hock presents various arguments against the OIT in two papers included
in the volume "Aryan and non-Aryan in South Asia" (Ann Arbor, 1997, edited
by Madhav M. Deshpande and Johannes Bronkhorst): "Out of India? The
Linguistic Evidence" (p.1-17), and "Through a glass darkly: Modern 'racial'
interpretations vs. textual and general prehistoric evidence on arya and
dasa/dasyu in Vedic society" (p. 145-?).



The papers are interesting, and afford scope for some fundamental studies on
certain points, which produce strong evidence on matters pertaining to the
indo-Aryan problem, though, as we shall see, *not* in the direction
indicated by Hock.



In the first paper, Hock touches on the "Vedic-Sanskrit=Proto-Indo-European"
theory and the alternate "Proto-Indo-European-in-India" theory, and argues
strongly against both. The first of these theories is, of course, untenable.
But, in the course of his arguments, Hock deals with the issue of the
Mitanni language in a debatable manner. In discussing the second theory, he
takes up two issues, both of which invite debate: the "equine evidence", and
the evidence of ancient IE dialectology.



In the second paper, he discusses the AIT arguments about the racial
differences between the so-called invading (or immigrating or
"acculturating"?) Indo-Aryans, *as derived from textual analyses*, and,
fortunately, dismisses them as baseless. However, in the course of his
paper, he presents other arguments from the AIT side on two issues, which,
again, invite debate: the identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the RV, and
the evidence of river names with particular reference to the identity of the
Sarasvati in the RV.



We will, therefore discuss the following issues here:



The Mitanni evidence.

The Equine evidence.

The evidence of ancient IE dialectology.

The identity of aryas and dasas/dasyus in the RV.

The Rivers, especially the Sarasvati, in the RV.





*A*. *The **Mitanni** Evidence.*



Hock argues against the arguments of S.S.Misra, "that the Mitanni form of
Indo-Aryan must be later than Vedic Sanskrit and must have been imported to
the Near East from India", and concludes, to the contrary, that the Mitanni
language is in fact not a "form of Indo-Aryan" at all, but a form of *
Indo-Iranian*, and that this



"near Eastern variety of Indo-Iranian appears to predate the earliest
attested stages of both Indo-Aryan (which has changed (*d*)*zh* to *h*) and
Iranian (with *s*>*h*)" [HOCK 1997:3].



His *sole* argument, on the basis of which he reaches this conclusion, is
that the Mitanni word



"*wasanasaya* 'of the chariot', appears to reflect a stage prior to the
change of pre-Indo-Aryan voiced aspirate *(d)zh>h, assuming that the word
corresponds to Skt, *vahanasya* (see MAYRHOFER 1986, s.v. *vah-*)" [HOCK
1997:2].



Witzel, in the present volume under review here, modifies this to suggest
that the language *is* indeed Indo-Aryan, but



"an early pre-Rgvedic stage of IA, seen in the preservation of IIr –*zdh*->
Ved. –*edh*-, Iir *ai*> Ved. *e*, as well as in the absence of retroflexion
.... there is no retroflexion in *mani-nnu*, or the Southwest Iranian, Elam.
O.P. **bara-mani* and in the East Iranian dialect, Avest.: *ma**ini* (in
spite of the very specific phonetic alphabet used by the Zoroastrians!)
.... Mit. IA also does not have typical South Asian loan words such as
*ani*'lynch pin'."
(p.361-2).



He amplifies this in his footnote:



"Note –*zd*- in *Priyamazdha* (*Bi-ir-ia-ma-as-da*, Mayrhofer 1979:47 in
Palestine, cf. *Priya-asva*: *bi-ir-ia-as-su-va*): Ved. *Priyamedha*: Avest.
*–mazda*. Or, note retention of Iir *ai*> Ved. *e* (*aika*: *eka* in *
aikavartana*), and retention of *j'h*> Ved. *h* in *vasana(s)saya* of 'the
race track' = [*vazhanasya*] cf. Ved. *vahana-* (EWA II 536, Diakonoff 1971:
80; Hock 1999: 2). Mit. IA also shares the Rgvedic and Avest. Preference for
*r* (*pinkara* for *pingala*, *parita* for *palita*)" (p.389).



The evidence for the language being Indo-Aryan rather than Indo-Iranian is
overwhelming — every single Mitannian "Aryan" word is Indo-Aryan, and an
overwhelming majority of the words are absent or unknown in Iranian. Hock
has to indulge in special pleading [HOCK 1997:2-3 footnotes] to explain away
the absence of Vedic/Mitanni deities like *Varuna/uruwana*, or the
Vedic/Mitanni numeral word *eka/aika*, in Iranian; but the evidence is much
more wide-based: as Witzel puts it, the words cover



"the semantic fields of horses, their colors, horse racing and chariots,
some important 'Vedic' gods, and a large array of personal names adopted by
the ruling class" (p.361)



And all these words point *towards* Indo-Aryan, and *away from* Iranian.



Witzel, therefore, only concentrates on showing that the "Mit. IA" words
"belong to an early, pre-Rgvedic stage of IA" (p.361). And his evidence to
this effect consists only of the absence of retroflexion (eg. in *mani-nnu*),
the absence of what he calls "typical South Asian loan words" (the word *ani
*, "lynch pin"), and the *ai* in *aika*, *zd* in *Priyamazdha*, and *zh* in
*vazhanasya*.



The evidence is clearly flimsy and argumentative: the absence of
retroflexion in Iranian is a separate matter. The absence of retroflexion in
the Mitanni words is perfectly natural: Indo-Aryan languages migrating from
India often tend to lose their retroflexes. It is possible that the Mitanni,
like the Iranians before them (if they had retroflex sounds) and the
Romanies or Gypsies after them (who definitely did), lost the retroflexes
after emigration. In any case, the languages which borrowed and used the
Mitanni words, in the records, did not use alphabets which had letters for
retroflexes (and when, even today, millions of Indians write Indian words in
the Roman alphabet without seeing any need to indicate the retroflex sounds,
it would be too much to expect the non-IE languages which borrowed some
Mitanni words to invent special alphabets to represent retroflex sounds if
found in those words. Modern Arabic words used in Hindi, also, do not
indicate the exact Arab sounds in the words). "Typical South Asian loan
words" is an insolent phrase: How does Witzel decide that the word *ani*,
"lynch pin", is a "typical South Asian loan word", and how does he decide
that the word is absent in the Mitanni language? The sound *ai* instead of *
e* in *aika* is too flimsy to be of any value as an indicator of its
pre-Rigvedic vintage.



It is definitely not *my* claim that the Rigveda was composed in 5000 BCE or
completed in 3100 BCE, or that the Mitanni language is a form of Prakrit. *But
it is my claim that the **Mitanni** were emigrants from **India** in the
Late Period of the Rigveda, which I have always roughly placed between 2300
BCE or so and 1500 BCE. And the evidence of the **Mitanni** words in **West
Asia** proves this beyond the shadow of any doubt.** It is the same story,
of ara ("spokes") or of the "Bactria-Margiana words", all over again*:



A large number of Mitannni names end with the suffix *–atti. *Parpola lists
the following from the Mitanni records: *Biratti, Mittaratti, Asuratti,
Mariatti, Suriatti, Intaratti, Paratti* and *Suatti* [= Vedic Sanskrit
*Priyatithi,
Mitratithi, Asuratithi, Maryatithi, Suryatithi, Indratithi, Pratithi* and *
Suatithi*]. Other names end with the suffix –*medha* such as *
Biiriamasdha/Priyamazdha* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyamedha*], the suffix
–*asva*such as
*Biiriaassuva* [=Vedic Sanskrit *Priyasva*], the suffix –*sena* such as *
Biiriasena* [=Vedic *Priyasena*], the suffix –*ratha* such as *
Tusratta/Tuiseratta* [=Vedic *Tvesaratha*], or *start* with the *prefix* *
rta*- such as *Artaassumara* and *Artataama* [Vedic *Rtasmara* and *
Rtadhaman*].




*Excluding the names Vadhryasva and Vrsanasva, which have a different
grammatical form, and with the sole exception of one name (which is in fact
an exception that actually proves the rule, as we shall see) names with the
above suffixes and prefix are absent in the Mandalas of the Early Period and
the Middle Period of the Rigveda, and are found only in the Mandalas of the
Late Period (the non-family Mandalas I, VIII, IX and X, and in the only
Family Mandala which falls in the Late Period, Mandala V*):

* *

*Atithi*: *Medhatithi * VIII.8.20

*Medhyatithi* I.36.10,11,17; VIII.1.30; 2.40; 33.4; 49.9; 50.9; 51.1;
IX.43.3 * *

*Nipatithi* VIII.49.9; 51.1

*Mitratithi* X.33.7 **



*Medha*: *Asvamedha* V.27.4,5,6; VIII.68.15,16

*Priyamedha* I.39.9; 45.3,4; VIII.2.37; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45; 8.18;
32.30; 69.8,18; 87.3; X.73.11

*Nrmedha* X.80.3; 132.7

*Sumedha* X.132.7



*Asva*: *Aghasva* I.116.6

*Istasva* I.122.13

*Rjrasva* I.100.16-18; 116.16; 117.17

*Ninditasva* VIII.1.30

*Marutasva* V.33.9

*Vyasva* I.112.15; VIII.9.10; 23.16,23,24; 24.22,23,28,29; 26.9,11;
IX.65.7

*Vidadasva* V.61.10

*Syavasva* V.52.21; 61.5; 81.5; VIII.35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8



*Sena*: *Rstisena* X.98.5,6,8

[Tvesaratha is found as a phrase, though not a name, in V.61.13]



*Ratha*: *Priyaratha* I.122.7

*Brhadratha* I.49.6; X.49.6

*Srutaratha* V.36.6

*Svanadratha* VIII.1.32

[possibly also *Dasaratha* I.126.4 and *Aristaratha* X.6.3]



*Rta: **Rtastup* I.112.20 **

[*Rtadhaman* itself, as a name or phrase, is found in post-Rigvedic
Samhitas]



The word *mani*, referred to by Witzel, is another example. The word is *
very* common in the post-Rigvedic texts, and in all later periods, but, in
the Rigveda, it is found only in the Mandalas of the Late Period, namely, in
I.33.8 and 122.14.



In addition, it may be noted, about the Mitanni and late Rigvedic names
beginning with *Priya*- above, that it is not just *names*, but *all*compound
*words* with *priya*- as the first element are restricted *only* to the
Mandalas of the Late Period, and are *very* common later on, but completely
missing in the Mandalas of the Early and Middle Periods of the Rigveda.



The only exception referred to by us above, ie the only name found in
Mandalas earlier than those of the Late Period, is the name *Citraratha*,
found in a Mandala of the Middle Period, in IV.30.18 (and again, later, in
X.1.5). This, far from disproving the rest of the evidence, *actually
confirms it.* The only two other names which, although occurring in Mandala
I, are found in the upa-mandalas of the *Middle Period*, are the names
Istasva and Rjrasva. *All these three names, the three earliest occurrences
in the Rigveda of the categories of names listed above, together provide us
with the period and area of the provenance of these names: they all refer to
the great battle "beyond the Sarayu" between the forces of Rjrasva (Arjaspa)
and Istasva (Vistaspa) in Afghanistan in the early part of the Middle Period
of the Rigveda, in which Citraratha (a Puru or Vedic Aryan, who fought on
the side of the Iranians) was killed [see TALAGERI 2000:214-224].This battle
took place after the events of the Early Period which took place in Haryana,
and then in the Punjab, and the subsequent westward expansion [see TALAGERI
2000:210-14].*



In my earlier writings, both in my books as well as in my debates with
Witzel-etc., I have always expressed my unwillingness to postulate "hard
dates" for the events in the Rigveda without "hard evidence" like dateable
inscriptions and documents, etc. Nevertheless, Witzel-etc. compelled me to
express my precise views on the subject, which I did (roughly): Early Period
— 3400-2600 BCE; Middle Period — 2600-2200 BCE; Late Period — 2200-1400 BCE.
Witzel-etc. introduced the subject of spokes (*ara*) and "Bactria-Margiana
words", both of which confirmed my dates, at least for the Late Period. Now,
the subject of the Mitanni words, again reintroduced by Witzel, has led to
an examination of the Mitanni evidence, which clearly provides irrefutable
evidence for my dating for the Late Period once more, this time on the basis
of actual dateable inscriptions and documents — if not in India, then in
West Asia. *The Mitanni are clearly emigrants from India in the Late Period
of the Rigveda*.



All this overwhelming evidence cannot be ignored or refuted, and it is my
hope that at least scholars like Hock, if not evangelical crusaders like
Witzel, will care to weigh the evidence and reconsider their positions.
* *
*Source: Note from Shrikant Talageri, Dec. ** 16, 2005*

The rest of the arguments by Witzel, about the *ai* in *aika*, the *zd* in *
Priyamazdha*, and *zh* in *vazhanasya*, are too minor to stand out against
all thi s evidence: it may be noted that the actual word *Priyamedha* itself
is found in the Mandalas of the *Late Period* of the Rigveda as the name of
a prominent Rishi; and the word *vahana* (if indeed the Mitanni word
corresponds to *vahana*; and not to *vasana* as held by Misra and denied by
Hock in HOCK 1997:2) is not yet found as an independent word, but only as a
suffix in compound words, in the Rigveda. The only explanation is that the
Mitanni people, in their movement from India to West Asia thro ugh the
Iranian areas, may have been influenced by Iranian dialects in the forms of
a few words.

Yours sincerely
Shrikant G. Talageri<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->