01-佛陀之前的印度

, while none of the other contributions in this section envisage a date before 420 B.C. Akira Hirakawa defends the short chronology and Heinz Bechert himself sets a range from 400 B.C. to 350 B.C. but a 'somewhat later date is not inconceivable.'」即：长年表、短年表、折中三说并存于同一文集，正文所述无误。（三）「至今仍有学者为接近传统的长年表辩护」· 确，即上引山崎元一（Yamazaki）一家。（四）「也有学者认为现有证据不足以在两者之间作出裁断」· 确，且 Cousins 本人即持此态：论及 Härtel 与 Kulke 所举考古证据时曰「Undoubtedly the archaeological evidence… is the major factor tending to support a later date. It is not however clear whether it is as yet overwhelming」。（五）Cousins 并纠 Bechert 自述之过当，此层可供正文取用：Bechert 于卷首谓诸家倾向下移，Cousins 评曰「This seems to slightly overstate the case, as not all the contributors propose any dating and others have worded their position very cautiously. It might be better to say that the overall tendency is to conclude that there is at minimum no objection to a later date」。「至少不反对更晚的年代」比「相当多学者下移了几十年」更准，正文書 15 行可按此收紧。（六）学者比例亦有数：直接评估印度传统的十篇中，Cousins 谓「seven seem to present a viable case」；支持晚期年代者他列出 von Simson、von Hinüber、Lienhard（约前 400 年，上下约二十年）、Halbfass，及「rather cautiously」的 Schmithausen。（七）一项未能核实，惟不碍：脚注作「3 vols… 1991–1997」。二评所及者，Narain 评第一卷（1991，xv+525 面），Cousins 评前二卷（1991–92）并谓「with a third to come」；第三卷的 1997 之年，二评皆早于其出版，无从坐实，然与 Cousins 所言不相悖。 该细节属著录，非承重之判，故不碍本行结案。

eries was modelled on the procedures adopted for the functioning of the gana-sanghas. Regular fortnightly meetings were held… decisions arrived at… democratically」——僧团议事程序直接仿自共和部落议事，不只是词源借用。判确，脚注无须改动。

（二）路径：草原血统经中亚南下——「Yamnaya Steppe pastoralists who spread into Central Asia by the turn of the second millennium BCE」，先见于 BMAC 诸址的离群个体，再经斯瓦特河谷入南亚。（三）与印欧语传入相吻合：「providing an independent line of evidence for a Steppe origin for South Asia's Indo-European languages」；所据为婆罗门等传统司祭群体草原血统高于 ANI-ASI 混合预期（「Brahmins who are traditional custodians of liturgical texts in the early Indo-European language Sanskrit, tend (with exceptions) to have more Steppe ancestry than expected」），并以波罗的—斯拉夫语与印度—伊朗语之亲缘为旁证。原文亦正面排除本土／伊朗高原起源：「provide evidence against an Iranian plateau origin for Indo-European」。另一项正文保留语亦得支持：「不是一支军队的一次性征服」——原文谓草原血统在今南亚人中主要来自男性，指向「asymmetric social interaction」，属渗透式接触，全文无 invasion 之论。

Language change flows in the direction of accents that are admired and emulated by large numbers of people. Ritual and political elites often introduce and popularize new ways of speaking. Small elite groups can encourage widespread language shift toward their language, even in tribal contexts」。并明改前人之名：「Renfrew has called this mode of language shift elite dominance but elite recruitment is probably a better term」。全书 migration 二百一十六见而 invasion 仅十三见，用词的悬殊本身即是其立场。二证同向，正文書 35 行末「不是一支军队的一次性征服」一语由此两面坐实。

（二）祭官与经的对应亦有据：「The yajus… from which the Yajurveda takes its name… are generally in prose and, in principle, intended to be muttered by the adhvaryu」；又记 anuvākyā 为「mantras to be recited by the hotar」，yājyā 为同一祭官所诵以配 adhvaryu 之献；某祭「a brāhmaṇa for the hotar and one for the adhvaryu」。全书 hotar 三十四见、hotṛ 三十九见、adhvaryu 十八见、udgātar 二见（另见书末索引 111、190、314、348、432 诸页）、brahman priest 九见。（三）一层精确可供正文取用：原书指《阿闼婆》「was only at a later date recognized as canonical, was often excluded」，其时则称「three Vedas」或「threefold Veda（trayī vidyā）」。「四吠陀」之为四，本身即有先后，正文若言其分工，宜带此一笔。

（二）该书自身对这一颂的读法与正文口径有出入，值得知道：Rao 于此颂下明言，把它读作四种姓起源「is the explanation most often given」，并举 rājanya 一词于《梨俱吠陀》仅此一见、visha 在吠陀语境泛指人群等语，主张此颂本意在万有同源而非社会分层。正文说它「给等级制套上宇宙起源的外衣」，讲的是后世如何用它，与 Rao 所论不冲突；但若正文他处要断言吠陀时代已有四姓之制，此条不足为据。