Repudiating the linguistic evidence

for the Aryan hypothesis

Angela Marcantonio
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’
 Introduction

The Aryan Hypothesis

And our objective today
 The Aryan Hypothesis (simplified)

Indo-Europeans
~3000 BC

Supposed
Theory entirely based on linguistics. Indo-Aryan
migration
Archaeological, palaeo-
anthropological & genetic evidence is
completely missing!
 The Indo-Aryan debate
• Indo-Aryans were ...?
– Indigenous
– Migrants (from the Indo-European area)
• Seems impossible to resolve the debate
• Bryant 2009
– There is nothing in Indian archaeology that supports
the assumed migration of peoples
– The entire issue is a derivative consequence of the
‘family tree’ presuppositions of historical linguistics
– Scholars have become exhausted with the polemical
and emotional element of the discussions
 What textbooks say
Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic English
Bhár-ā-mi Phér-ō Fer-ō Bair-a (I) bear
ásmi eimí sum im (I) am
ésti est est ist (he) is
pitár patér pater fadar father
tráyah treis trēs θrija three

•Examples of word similarities

•Most similarities include Greek – Sanskrit
•Many also include Latin
•Other languages also represented
Cutting the Gordian knot
• Received wisdom is that Sanskrit derived
from Indo-European
• No evidence from archaeology, palaeo-
anthropology or genetics
• The only evidence is linguistic
• We will examine the linguistic theory
– it is based on mistaken evidence
– It fails Sir Isaac Newton’s criterion for an
acceptable scientific model - it is ‘unfalsifiable’
• The time has arrived to challenge the Indo-
European theory
– May cut the Gordian knot
– Allow space for alternative models for the origin
of Sanskrit
The linguistic evidence (1)

Many claimed Indo-European words

 Widely cited example: ‘Father’
LANGUAGE WORD
Sanskrit janaka, Pitár-, taataH
Old Avestan (modern day Iran) Pta (later patar/pitar)
Greek Patḗr
Latin Pater
•One of the Sanskrit forms is similar to Greek
Slavic, Albanian (missing)
•Greek influenced Latin (eg classical writers bilingual)
Lithuanian (missing)
•Latin then permeated Germanic area
Old Irish Athir
Gothic (4th century) Atta (except once: ‘O Father’)
Old high German (9th century) Atto ~ Fater Bible translation:
Modern German Vater Latin or Greek ->
Germanic
Geographical distribution of ‘father’
Matches the Indo-Greek states
‘Father’

Indo-Greek states
Bilingual
Greek -
Sanskrit
c
 Conclusion on ‘father’
• Claimed as evidence for the Indo-European theory
• But an entirely different history is equally possible
– Indo-Greek states used Sanskrit and Greek as official
languages
– Policy of intermarriage
– Opportunity for the word to spread
– Then Latin modelled on Greek
– Then helped to spread via church influence (‘O Father’ has
strong religious meaning)
• The Indo-European inheritance explanation is not the
only possible one!
 More on word correspondences
• Many more words are like ‘father’
– Greek and Sanskrit are the bedrock of the theory
• About 1000 nouns (Pokorny 1959-1969)
– But Ringe: ‘evidential standards’ are ‘lamentably lax’
• 683 ‘safely reconstructed’ IE verbs (Rix 1998)
– But 29% are evidenced in only one language or
branch
– 34% are evidenced in only 2 languages or branches
– This indicates most claimed words are of local origin,
not Indo-European
• We will return to this topic ...
The linguistic evidence (2)

Sound laws
 Introduction to sound laws
Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic English
Bhár-ā-mi Phér-ō Fer-ō Bair-a (I) Bear

• ‘Exceptionless’ laws of sound change from IE into the

various languages
– Founding laws
• 1822: Grimm’s law
• 1876: Verner’s Law
– Today: many laws
• Verner’s “Stunning paper”
– Roger Lass, 1997
• “Critical for uncovering language relations”
– Hoeningswald, 1990
 What does Verner’s Law say?
• 1822: Grimm’s Law
– Indo-European p, t, k  Germanic f, θ, h~ χ
• 1870’s: counter-evidence to Grimm’s Law published
– Verner thought he detected a systematic pattern
– Claimed to turn exceptions into ‘apparent exceptions’
• 1876: Verner’s Law
– Germanic f, θ, h~ χ  b, d ~ đ, g
– ‘voiceless consonant from Grimm’s Law becomes voiced’
– In medial position only
– Unless the corresponding consonant in the supposed IE
ancestor word is preceded by an accent
 Verner’s Law in action
• First must reconstruct the IE accent
– Not reconstructable (IE languages differ too much)
– Verner says ‘I must use Sanskrit’ (does not say why)
– But Sanskrit has tones, not a stress accent
• Verner uses the tone that is transcribed like a stress accent!
• Verner’s Law applied to ‘father’
– Sanskrit (assumed = IE) Pitár
– (by Grimm’s law) fiθar
– (by Verner’s law) fidar  θ becomes d because
no Sanskrit accent before
• These laws do not consider vowels
 Verner’s evidence (1) kinship terms
Gothic bible (4th century): ‘Father’ = atta (Fadar attested once: ‘O Father’)

Meaning Sanskrit Verner’s Attested Attested

Germanic Gothic Old High
prediction German
Father pitár fadar Fadar
?
Brother bhrátar brōθar Brōθar
?
Mother-in- śvaśrū- swigar swigar
law ?
Father-in- śváśura- swehur swehur
law ?Verner But what
If there is no ... Then the
Sanskrit accent Germanic consonant claimed a about
beforehand ... becomes voiced perfect match these?
 Verner’s evidence (1) kinship terms
Exactly 50% do not match - expected by chance!
Meaning Sanskrit Verner’s Attested Attested
Germanic Gothic Old High
pridiction German
Father pitár fadar Atta Atto~fater

Brother bhrátar brōθar Brōθar bruoder

Mother-in- śvaśrū- swigar swaihro swigar

law
Father-in- śváśura- swehur swaihra swehur
law
Verner’s ‘proof’ obtained by omitting
all the evidence that does not match!
 Verner’s evidence (2) : conjugation of verb
Meaning Sanscrit as cited by Verner’s Germanic
Verner reconstruction
To split Bhédana * Līθan voiceless
I split bhédāmi * līθa
You split bhédasi * līθis
He splits bhédati * līθiθ
We split bhédāmas * līθam
You split bhédatha * līθiθ
They split bhédanti * līθand
I split (past) bibhéda * laiθ voiced
You split (past) bibhéditha * laist
He split (past) bibhéda * laiθ
We split (past) bibhidimá * lidum
If there is no ... Then the
You split (past) bibhidá * liduθ
Sanskrit accent Germanic consonant
They split (past)
beforehand ... bibhidús * lidun becomes voiced
 Verner’s evidence (2) : conjugation of verb
• How is
Meaning Sanscrit as cited by Verner’s Germanic
Verner reconstruction
Germanic
reconstructed?
To split Bhédana * Līθan
• Gothic
I split bhédāmi * līθa
– All voiceless
You split bhédasi * līθis – ‘merger’
He splits bhédati * līθiθ • Old English
We split bhédāmas * līθam – Does not
You split bhédatha * līθiθ match
They split bhédanti * līθand – ‘Analogy’
I split (past) bibhéda * laiθ • OHG
You split (past) bibhéditha * laist – Inverted
alternation
He split (past) bibhéda * laiθ
– Not explained
We split (past) bibhidimá * lidum
• Germanic
You split (past) bibhidá * liduθ
‘forced’ to
They split (past) bibhidús * lidun match!
 Verner’s evidence (2) : conjugation of verb
Meaning Sanscrit as cited by
Verner
To split Bhédana
• Verner
I split bhédāmi conjugates
You split bhédasi
‘to split’ as
He splits bhédati
We split bhédāmas
class 1
You split bhédatha • But in fact it
They split bhédanti
I split (past) bibhéda
is Class 7!
You split (past) bibhéditha
He split (past) bibhéda
We split (past) bibhidimá
You split (past) bibhidá
They split (past) bibhidús
 Verner’s evidence (2) : conjugation of verb
Meaning Sanscrit as cited by Attested Sanskrit
Verner
To split Bhédana bhindaná
• Verner
I split bhédāmi bhinádmi conjugates
You split bhédasi bhinátsi
‘to split’ as
He splits bhédati bhinátti
We split bhédāmas bhindmás
class 1
You split bhédatha bhin(t)thá • But in fact it
They split bhédanti bhindánti
I split (past) bibhéda bibhéda
is Class 7!
You split (past) bibhéditha bibhéditha
Verner ‘forced’
He split (past) bibhéda bibhéda
the Germanic
We split (past) bibhidimá bibhidimá
reconstruction
You split (past) bibhidá bibhidá
to match the
They split (past) bibhidús bibhidús
wrong Sanskrit!
 Summary of Verner’s evidence
• Kinship terms
– Perfect match obtained by omitting all counter-
evidence
• Verbal conjugation
– Verner reconstructs a prehistoric Germanic
conjugation
• But it does not accord with any attested ones
– Crates a ‘Perfect match’ with an erroneous Sanskrit
conjugation!
• Conclude Verner’s Law is invalid
– contradicted by all the evidence in the original paper
 More on sound laws
• Many further laws are based on similar methods
– ‘rescuing procedures’ when the data do not match
– Able to match almost any data
• If an attested word appears to be an exception
– Add a special event in word development
• Eg ‘father ‘‘lost initial p’ in Old Irish Athir
– Add a sub-law (‘contextual specification’)
• Today there are over 200 laws and sub-laws
– Add some intermediate rules
• Perhaps like Verner’s rules for reconstructing Gmc conjugation
• If all else fails
– call it ‘not cognate’
– Therefore still not an exception
 Newton rejected models like this
• There are today more than 200 laws and sub-laws
– In fact there are more laws & sub-laws than words to
be explained in Rix dictionary
• This fails Newton’s test for a valid scientific model
– ‘What certainty can there be in a Philosophy which
consists in as many Hypotheses as there are
Phaenomena to be explained.’
• Because the model can flex to match any data
– Newton: ‘New Hypotheses may be devised that shall
seem to overcome new difficulties’
Conclusion
The Gordian knot
• Received wisdom is that Sanskrit derived from
Indo-European
• No evidence from archaeology, palaeo-
anthropology or genetics
• The only evidence is linguistic
• We examined the linguistic theory
– it is based on mistaken evidence
– It fails Sir Isaac Newton’s criterion for an acceptable
scientific model - it is ‘unfalsifiable’
– Many claimed IE correlations are in fact due to
contact
• Challenge the Indo-European theory
– There is no evidence for the existence of an Indo-
European speech community
– May cut the Gordian knot
– Allow space for alternative models for the origin of
Sanskrit
 Thank you

Angela Marcantonio
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’
 Summary (1) - methodology
• Problems with the linguistic evidence for IE
– ‘forced’ similarities – do not match common sense or the
archaeological evidence
• Unfalsifiable theory
– Not actually supported by evidence, but there’s always an
excuse
• The common sense approach
– Look at geographical distribution of words (‘isoglosses’)
– Look at opportunities for word to spread
– If they match, investigate why
• What if your evidence contradicts the IE theory?
– Don’t be afraid to publish your data
– The linguistic evidence does not trump yours!
Verner’s founding law of Indo-
European
Angela Marcantonio
University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’
 Introduction
• Hypothesis of Indo-European speech
community became ‘scientific’ with creation
of ‘sound laws’
Example 1: subsistence word: ‘Rye’
• Crop grows in
cold
temperatures
• All bordering the
sea in Northern
Europe
• North European
sea trading
community
provided
opportunity for
word to spread
‘Forced’ interpretation of a local word (Rye)
as Indo-European
• Rye in three IE language
groups (Russian, Germanic,
Baltic) so must be IE!
• But can’t reconstruct the
IE word
– Reconstruct IE god
*Deiwos- caused rye fields
to ripen
• But contradicted by
presence in Finnish
– ‘Borrowed into Finno-Ugric
at an early date’
• Unfalsifiable theory
– Not actually supported
by evidence, but there’s
always an excuse