30 SANSKRIT AND INDO-EUROPEAN that the Aryan gods mentioned in the above mentioned treaty are specifically Vedic gods. The linguistic argument for this conclusion is illustrated by the word aika- ‘ one ' which corre- sponds to Sanskrit eka- wehereas Iranian has aw a- with a different suffix (cf. p. 258). Likewise the name of the sungod SuriyaS corresponds to Sanskrit Suryas , whereas Iranian shows no such form, but only the base (hvar Vedic svdr) form which sUrya - is derived. As far as the treaty gods are concerned, they are prominent in the Rgveda, and are indeed all mentioned together in one hymn (RV. 10. 125. 1), but they cannot be shown to be all Proto- Aryan or Proto- Iranian, and there are in fact some reasons for believing that they were not so. If the Aryans of the ancient Near East are to be connected specifically with the Indo-Aryans, then we must assume that they were two migrations proceeding from the same source, a massive one into North-West India and a smaller one in the direction of North-Western Iran. Since the Vedic Aryans certainly entered India across the mountain barrier separating the subcontinent from North-Eastern Iran, we must conclude that the closely related section of the Aryans who appear in the Near East started from the same source, taking a route which was to be followed early in the next millennium by the Medes and Persians. The chronology of these two movements corresponds very closely. The Aryan invasion of N.W. India can be dated by the end of the Indus civilisation, for which no doubt they were largely responsible, and it may be assumed to have taken place in successive waves over a considerable period of time. In the ancient Near East their presence is established by 1500 b.c. at latest, and the process of migration and settlement must have occupied a considerable period before that. § 7 . The Emergence of Indo-Aryan The pre-history of the Aryan language of India takes us far from the North-West India of the Vedic period both in space and time. Comparison with other languages renders possible a reconstruction of linguistic history which is nowhere directly recorded, and establishes as a fact important migrations and movements of peoples which otherwise would be unknown to history. It has also been possible to say something definite.
