Origins of the Vedic Religion

Since Indus-Ghaggar Valley have not experienced any intruding immigrants from minimum of 7000+ BC, there is no any genet

923 122 918KB

English Pages [283]

Report DMCA / Copyright

DOWNLOAD FILE

Polecaj historie

Origins of the Vedic Religion

Citation preview

Preface

Superficially, it may appear that the Aryan or Indo-European language speakers’ migration theory, whether correct or incorrect, is a serious attempt to understand our roots. We also can expect from such attempts that they are not prejudiced and marred with hidden agenda to prove some group of the people, speaking certain protolanguages, were superior over others. However, if we look at the history of last 200 years on this ever-boiling ‘homeland’ issue, we will eventually come to the conclusion that the motives of all the sides of this debate are racially and hence, politically motivated. The racial aspects those were prominent during the 19th century and early 20th century, now are changed to Proto-Indo-European (PIE) language origins and the subsequent dispersals of its speakers, but underlying meaning clearly seems to be unchanged. The issue of PIE homeland has been controversial since beginning, with no consensus on any as it simply is based on the artificial reconstruction of the so-called IE languages. It is not that all scholars agree with the linguistic reconstruction theories. Shaffer et al observed, “Historical linguistic scholars still assiduously attempting to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European language and attempting to link that language to a specific homeland, in order to define population migration away from the seminal geographical base.” 1 The problem with the scholars seems to be they have preconceived the necessity of the ‘single location origin’ and have been building their theories ever since. To find the ‘original homeland’ of the PIE language speakers thus became basis of their quest to solve the assumed linguistic mysteries. Several original homelands have been proposed, migration maps have been drawn, and yet there is no agreement because they have not taken into the consideration that to cause ‘Net of the Languages’ original homeland of any particular people and their dispersals were not required. I have focused on this

issue and after giving due consideration to the present homeland theories, have challenged ‘Single Location Origin’ theories, based on the pre-history of the humanities and the languages. [1]Let us not forget that the history of languages begins about 70,000 years ago. It is not as young as PIE theorists tend to believe. The history of human settlements, too, goes back many millenniums prior to the assumed dates of so-called migrations of PIE language speakers. For history of the so-called PIE languages, we cannot limit our search just as back as 2,000 BC to 7,000 BC but we need to go beyond that to the era when the faculty of the languages emerged in the remote ancestor of the modern human being. For millenniums, the ancestors, while on constant move in search of the food, with independent innovations and constant interactions, painfully, have developed the basic structures of the languages. Languages, even proto, were not independent, isolated innovations. Human beings, with the invention of the agriculture, started settling down about 15,000 BC to 10,000 BC. Then, onwards, the people mostly have independently developed their languages and cultures, based on the accumulated wealth from the past, in different regions, wherever they had settled. The pastoral nomadic life, too, the scholars forget, was limited to the known territories, unless, some drastic circumstances forced some tribe/s to look for new habitats. Foragers long since had limited their roaming in the known territories, interacting with the almost same tribes, either as enemies or as friends. The roaming was intelligent and not aimless. He communicated, exchanged and learnt the innovations, whether linguistic or technological. Rather, most of the settlements occurred in the known regions thus creating a net of the languages and cultures within the horizons of the earlier known regions. During this period inter-breeding within the tribes coming across most frequently were obvious. Thus using Archaeogenetics to prove the ‘expansions’ of some groups of the people occurred about 10,000 to 14,000 years ago, also cannot become the foundation of expansion/migration theories as well. The genetics, too, it would

appear, to have been used to prove expansionist theories, but not to any avail. If agreed to their suppositions, no matter which data they use to prove their theories, the vital question remains unanswered that why as yet they are unable to find the original homeland? Why have heated debates, which sometimes reach undignified levels? In fact, Biblically motivated, supremacist European scholars, in an attempt to search their own identity in the hypothetical ancestors, located at some imaginary place, speaking the same language in its earliest form and their invasions/migrations to cause cultural and language spread after subjugating the natives, have given birth to this unending crazy quest of the original homeland! Recently, taking a clue from the possible repercussions of the theory, Indian Vedicists, too, came forward with a big claim that India was the homeland of the Vedic Aryans. They do not stop here. They claim that the IE languages (and culture) did spread to the West with their outward movements! We can call this a kind of supremacist euphoric and half-baked counter attack on the European theorists of the same genre! While trying to prove the progenitors of the cultures across the regions wherever so-called IE languages are spoken; these so called indigenous Aryan theorists have staked the big claim on IndusGhaggar Civilisation (IGC) as well.2 Vedicists may not be far advanced in their own remote culture, but, it clearly seems, they are well advanced in their spurious attempts to steal the heritages of others! The claims from both the sides, unbiased being a few, no matter how scholarly they twist the facts, no matter how they misinterpret the same evidence deriving opposite meanings sometimes, have only a problem that they are heavily influenced by the misconception of the single location origin. Linguistic science is often called as pseudoscience because it does not work like a mathematical model. It has

lots of parametres as to how it would evolve and what many other unpredictable factors would affect its course. Also, the debate overwhelmingly is centred on the horse-chariots, being a major basis of the debate, claimed to be an invention of PIE people. The migration route maps are drawn on that hypothesis based on early and late archaeological findings. Using the same data, surprisingly, indigenous Aryan theorists are now claiming that Vedic Aryans did not know spoke wheeled chariots, rather by ‘Ratha’, they could have been referring to wagons with solid wheels!3 The sole objective behind this somersault is to stretch back the timeline of the Rig Veda, pre-Harappan, to prove migrations of indigenous Vedic Aryans to adjust timeframes of other rich civilisation, including IGC, and stake a claim on them as their authors.4 Otherwise, there cannot be any explanation to why the Vedicist scholars, previously waging a war to prove that IGC knew the spoke wheels and that horse too was known to them, should change dramatically their stance? Similarly, we find how the geological explorations conducted at the Ghaggar channels and their findings have grossly been either neglected or shrewdly misrepresented to claim Ghaggar being lost river Saraswati of Rig Veda. This is the ridiculous way our modern Vedicist scholars are overworking, but not scientifically and honestly! I have seriously challenged single location origin theories of languages, with new scientific evidences to support, which clearly indicates that they do not fit into the picture of the history of humanities. Though the invasionists or migrationists have been claiming the Indo-European movement to India which, they assert, caused substantial impact on the Indian civilisation and languages, there simply are no archaeological or literary proof to support such movements. Kenoyer remarks from the archaeological evidence that the genetic data derived from the burials of early and let Harappa indicates very limited biological discontinuities and can be attributed to the movement of the traders travelling from the Iranian plateau and

Indus Settlements. Such trade interactions are recorded from the earliest Neolithic period (+7,000 BC) through the Harappan period. It does not at all indicate massive movement of the people. Scull measurement data, too, indicates that the burials of the Harappan period, too, have closest biological affinity with those of the late Harappan period. The archaeologists confirm, from the beads found in a bead pot in 1996, at Harappa, the technological innovations and change in trade networks and socioeconomic hierarchies in the late Harappan period. The glass industry was becoming prominent in this era (1,900 and 1,700 BC). There is conclusive proof that during this era, there was no interaction of Indus-Ghaggar people with Mesopotamia and Egypt, may be the trade with these civilisations had come to a halt because of the political upheavals. But the agreement is the Indus glass technology was an indigenous development. From the beads made of agate in late Harappan period till the early historic sites of Gangetic plains, it is suggested that this raw material (agate) could have been sourced from Central Deccan plateau or the Vindhya Mountain, thus suggesting a wider trade network within the subcontinent. In short, the continuity in the basic features of architectural traditions as well as in many technologies has been proven. The discontinuities reported by the archaeologists are the use of seals, weights and writing which only prove the changes in key technological and cultural features that were associated with the early Harappan period. Also, the biological evidence from Harappa does not indicate a significant change in population. 5 Senior archaeologist, B.B. Lal, who earlier was in favour of the Migration Theory, later changed his stance and started propagating the Indigenous Aryan Theory using the same proofs, though with some misinterpretations, also have stated that there was never any massive movement of intruding people in India.6 Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A Lichtenstein, too, are not in favor of migration and call it a ‘myth’.7 Yes, we have to agree, in the absence of any archaeological evidence, that there was no migration to India of so-called PIE speakers. But on the same grounds, with utmost certainty, we can

state that there was no migration to the West from India as well! The way AIT/AMT theory is loaded with serious faults, Out of India theory too is not an exception, rather is more idiocratic! Then, naturally, a few questions will be raised, such as, where was Rig Veda composed? What relation Vedic people had with IGC or rather whether the culture reflected in Rig Veda can be compared with the culture of IGC? Can Rig Veda be pre-Harappan as some scholars tend to believe? Were the composers of Rig Veda part of IGC or was it composed elsewhere? If Rig Veda was composed elsewhere, how come that the Vedic religion found space in Northern India, in the absence of migrating hoards of Aryans or branch of Indo-Iranians? Is the Ghaggar river Saraswati river of Rig Veda? What relationship, geographical, linguistic as well religious, we can notice between Rig Veda and Avesta? And finally, were the Vedic Aryans indigenous? Well, I have tried to answer these and related questions in this book, as diligently as possible, based on the available proof and facts. This book is not aimed at creating any controversy, but to bring reality to the notice of the readers and how the debate of the origin has been fought ceaselessly to just prove a hypothesis which has no supportive strong evidence. Out of India or from Eurasia to India… both the theories have their vital shortcomings and sometimes loaded with deliberate misinterpretations which have made the comparatively simple issue very complicated. From Central to South Asia, various civilisations have evolved, prospered till the time was favorable and collapsed because of the technological shifts, climate changes, political upheavals or cultural revolutions. “It is into the cultural area of Greater Iran that the mobile pastoralist speakers of early Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan entered. The sudden decline of all cultures of the area, from Mesopotamia to the Indus and from Bactria to Bahrain and Oman, at the beginning of the second millennium is suggestive, but it cannot simply be explained by an "invasion of Aryan hordes”. The situations in all areas concerned are to disparate and they also are geographically too

distant (e.g. in Oman) as to allow such a simple, mono-causal explanation." 8 Thus states Michael Witzel. It will indicate that the migrationist scholars, too, are hesitant to attribute the fall of the civilisations to the migrating nomadic, comparatively less civilised people. Rather, I have shown with the archaeological proofs that BMAC culture was contemporary to the Zoroaster and composers of the Rig Veda. They weren’t new foreign cultural elements encroaching on an established civilisation but apparently were contemporary to it. They spoke the same dialects with regional variances and by and large, its descendent languages are still spoken in these regions. There was no need of so-called Proto-Indo-European speakers’ migrations to linguistically and culturally influence the already established civilisations. Rather, the development of the languages becomes complex and yet polished in the settled societies for want of their over grown socio commercial needs, rather than in nomadic society for their limited needs of expressions. However, we can clearly see that the homeland quest was emerged out of racial egotisms. Trautmann had rightly remarked, “This is the theory that Indian civilization was formed by a big bang, caused by the light-skinned, Aryan, civilized invaders over dark skinned savage aboriginal Indians, and the formation of the caste system which bound two in a single society, at once mixed and segregated. If this theory were true, there aught to be evidence in the earliest Vedic texts.” 9 However, we shall see further in the book that there was no migration of Indo-Europeans in India or out of India, but what came to India was Vedic religion by way of the missionary activities. Vedicist scholars have fallen prey to the supremacist notions of the European scholars and hence, they, too, have jumped on the bandwagon of the homeland quest, just to prove their superiority over large Indian masses and even over the westerners! The identity crisis of the Vedicists is thus has become a serious issue. While searching for their roots, Vedicists are attempting to discredit non-

Vedic masses from their glorious heritage on flimsy and sometimes fabricated grounds. Such attempts need to be seriously condemned. However, we can see from the opinions of various scholars that the migrations of the people from any direction are gradually being doubted, but due to the psychological rigidity they possess, they do not want to abandon the outdated and unproven theory. This is why, though their observations and findings are almost correct, their conclusions and counter suggestions and unending arguments to find alternative explanations have become the main hurdle in concluding Aryan or PIE language controversy! The supremacist views of the scholars thus have marred the spirit of an honest cultural debate and a search of the roots of civilisations. With all due respect to the scholars of the present and past era, I have tried to throw light on the stark realities of the civilisations debated over so far to present new insights about our roots. -Sanjay Sonawani *

References and notes: 1. “South Asian Archeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions” by Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 93. 2. For this see “Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate” by Koenraad Elst, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1999. Also see “Rigveda: A Historical Analysis” by Shrikant G. Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000 and “The Rigveda and the Avesta: The final Evidence” by same author, Aditya Prakashan, 2008. 3. “A Reply to Michael Witzel’s ‘Ein Fremdling im Rgveda’”, by Vishal Agarwal, published online on 11 August 2003. You will find many interesting aspects of the Vedicist views those even deny Vedic Aryans during Satapatha Brahmana era knew iron. The magical play with the term “syamaayasa”, (black metal, i.e. Iron.) has been made here to discard Witzel’s assumption that the Satapatha Brahmana being creation of the full-blown Iron Age. It is clear Agarwal wants to stretch back the period of this text to Bronze Age. 4. For example see, “Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate” by Koenraad Elst, Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 1999 5. “Culture changes during the Late Harappan period at Harappa: new insights on Vedic Aryan issue”, by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 31-40.

6. “Aryan Invasion of India- Perpetuation of a myth” by B. B. Lal, in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005, page 50-72. 7. “South Asian Archeology and the Myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions” by Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Laurie Patton, Pub. Routledge, 2005.

8. “The home of the Aryans” by Michael Witzel, available on line on http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/AryanHome.pdf, page 8. 9. ‘The Aryan Debate’ by Thomas R. Trautmann, pub.: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 100.

1. Aryan Migration Theories: A Critique Using the term ‘Arya’ as a race has proven the intellectual bankruptcy of 19th century racist scholars. In fact, any discussion about this term is a waste of time. Much so because it has been a hypothetical, fanciful and proven to be an idea dangerous to the humankind supported by no material proof except for some wild guesswork. The term invoked racial ego in Europeans as well as in some classes of Indian society causing sever irreparable social damage and unnecessary social divide. Moreover, now it seems to be an intellectual entertainment for some scholars, who engage themselves in the issue under the disguise of solving linguistic mysteries. The term ‘Aryan’ was invented in the mid-18th century. Prior to that, the term had never been used to refer to a race or ethnic group, which existed anywhere on the globe. Max Muller was the first one to refer to ‘Aryans’ as a ‘race of people’.1 Of course, he later realised the grave danger of doing so and apologetically took back his words. He also explained that while using the word ‘Aryan’, he meant a group of languages and not the ethnic race.A Still, the harm had already been done. B Without getting into the detailed history of this term, we will focus on a few points, which explain what the term ‘Aryan’ really meant in the ancient societies. In the Rig Veda, the word ‘Arya’ appears on only 36 occasions in 34 stanzas and it is used to address mostly to the Rig Vedic patronkings, such as King Sudasa, and Gods, as an epithet. Moreover, in the Verse 7.33.3, the term ‘Arya’ has been used for enemy also. ‘Airyana Vaeja’ in Yasna and Yasts, (Persian scriptures) is the name of a mythical or poetically glorified land where Zarathustra was born and delivered his first sermon. In Persian scriptures, it does not refer

to people or epithet. Moreover, the term rarely appears in the Avesta. According to Gherardo Gnoli, ‘Ariya’ was not quite a racial category. Later in Achaemenid times, ‘Ariya’ was meant to be a cultural and religious term to evoke the kings' origin, like a title of particular nobility. In its very restricted, exclusivist nature, the term is quite different from a racial category. 2 The words similar to ‘Arya’, like ‘Ariya’, ‘Ire’, ‘Ariana’, ‘Aristocrat’ etc. appear in several languages and they do not represent any race anywhere. At some places, such words represent titles or epithet and at some places, they represent certain geographies. According to Max Muller, the term ‘Arya’ means ‘one who ploughs or tills’ which later on came to be used as ‘Noble’, of a good family. 3 The etymology of ‘Arya’ is yet not certain. Some linguistics like Oswald Szemerény considers it most probably being a loan word, meaning ‘kinsman, companion’ from non-Indo-European language ‘Ugaritic’.4 The term ‘Aryan’ came into use as a race by the politically and ideologically motivated people to prove the supremacy of the White races over other races. The so called Aryans who were described as ‘fair haired, light or blue eyed Nordic warriors, who tamed the horses and invented wheel and conquered most of the Europe, Northern India and much of the Middle East thousands of years ago, were indeed a fairy tale. More so, because no skeletal remains of that could be identified with, such as Nordics, have ever been found so far in the vast of Indus civilisation or Iran. Such complex is the nature of the ethnic diversity in the so-called Indo-European language speaking regions that no material proof of the Aryan Race theory and its so called supremacy is found. C Though, the Aryan race theory has been abandoned, discarded by the scholars of present times, the Indo-European Languages group theorists still continue to propose the same, carefully replacing the term ‘race’ with ‘PIE language speakers group’ in their theories. Though racial elements looks like to have been removed from the

new theories of the Indo-European Language group, the underlying intentions are the same - supremacist and racially prejudiced. Iranian scholar Reza Zia-Ebrahimi stated, “Today, the talk of the ‘Aryan race’ in the West is restricted to White supremacist circles in North America and neo-Nazi militants in Europe. The very concept of ‘race’, although, it is still used in political discourses, especially, in the United States, is scientifically bankrupt. Leading scientific associations assert that genetic variations between human groups are so gradual that drawing lines is inevitably an arbitrary and subjective exercise. "Indo-European" today refers to languages, not to people, let alone people supposed to assume inherent characteristics. Even its now limited use has been questioned. According to prominent linguists such as Merritt Ruhlen and the late Joseph Greenberg, the theory which holds that Indo-European languages are unrelated to other language groups such as the ‘Semitic’ is overstated, if not outright fictitious.” He further added, “Throughout the 19th century, Aryanism was wrapped into the discourse of science. Racial anthropology came into being as a discipline claiming to classify humans into different racial categories with immutable psychological features by measuring noses, skulls, and ears. As we know all too well, Aryanists, in particular like Adolf Hitler, became increasingly obsessed with the racial purity and elevated the opposition between Aryan and Semite to the level of paradigmatic antagonism. This opened the way for the next stage: extermination. Aryanism provided the ideological backbone for Nazi atrocities.” 5 It will be pertinent here to note that all British ethnologists of the 19th century have classified the Indian population in different races based on the physical measurements of the people. Their study is held in almost a gospel like reverence even in the present day India to make governmental and judicial decisions on socio-ethnic issues and reservations. There has been no attempt to relook into the social and ethnic history of India from a fresh point of the view to correct the mistakes of the past, which rather is the need of the time.

The Rig Veda or the Avesta nowhere indicates that there ever was a distinct race of the Aryan and that it had any struggle with the Dasas, Dasyus etc. on racial account. Rather, in the famous battle of ten kings, among the enemy of king Sudasa, five tribes bore the title ‘Aryan’ while the five other tribes did not. The Dasas and the Dasyus were no racial groups. They were rather groups of different religious faiths. In the Rig Veda, Dasyus appear as ‘Avrata’, which means without Vedic rites (RV 1.51.8, 9) or as Anagnitra, Ayajjyu or Ayajvan, which means without fire sacrifice (RV 5:189:3, 1.131.44, 1.33.4). Apparently, with their religious conversion, the Dasas, too, could become Aryas. The Rig Veda states, “Oh Vajri, though hast made Aryas of Dasas” (RV 10.49.3). Thus, it seems that initially the Vedic society had been welcoming the non-Vedics to the Vedic fold. Similar terms like Dahae, Dakhyu do appear in the Avesta, too, but they connote men or compatriots of the same society and not any different race. Zarathustra’s epithet is ‘Dakhyuma’ (temporal Lord) though his sacred land of birth is called as Airyanam Vaejo, which means in a way the prophet was Dakhyu (Dasyu) and Airya (Arya) in same breath. People of those times developed the designation of ‘Aryas’ to denote or express self-pride and independent religious faiths. We may not know ever from where this term originated and how it travelled across the regions adorning different meanings. In the latter days, the term Dasa, Dasyu came to be used for slaves and robbers. Nevertheless, the change in the meaning of the words over a time is not new phenomena. A famous example of this is that the term Asura (The Lord) came to acquire the exactly opposite sense, i.e. Demon in the Vedic tradition. Of course, this, in no way, suggests that the term Dasa-Dasyu was used to show any kind of racial or linguistic distinctions. In short, though the ‘Aryan as a race theory’ has not been proved on any, even genetically count beyond doubt, the Indo-Aryan language speaking people’s migration theories are in circulation in different formats. Like the Aryan race theory, PIE group of languages theory, too, has prerequisites such as a common habitat of single, closely

knit society and their subsequent migrations to different directions, either in waves or in unison, in the small span of time of the earliest settlement. However, does this hypothesis stand up to the test of logic? Does it require explaining some similarities in the various languages? There are many unanswered questions in this regard. The Indian Vedicist scholarship seems to have denied the Aryan race theory completely or partially. However, it did not deny the IndoEuropean language origin theory. The only change they have made recently is that the Aryans migrated from India towards the West up to Europe and not otherwise as suggested by Western scholars. Needless to mention, that for them, the term ‘Aryan’ of India means just the Vedic people, i.e. three Varnas. Max Muller asserts that, “In the later dogmatic literature of the Vedic age, the name of Arya is distinctly appropriated to the three first castes- the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas as opposed to the fourth, or the Sudras.” 6 We will see in next chapters that how the Shudras meant those all who didn’t follow the Vedic religion. Also kindly take the note that the term ‘Shudra’ is absent in the Rig Veda except of Purushasukta. (RV 10.90) The issue of original homeland of the Aryan people has also been a matter of a great controversy since 19th century. Various theories have been proposed vehemently to prove Vedic homeland either within India or outside India. One must wonder what is so special about the Vedic people engaging in the search of their original habitat! However, let us not forget that ‘Original Habitat’ itself is a flimsy concept. There is nothing like original habitat when it comes to the human race. In no way, it explains the common features in the world cultures and languages. No race possesses any special qualities on basis of which it can boast of superiority over others, as declared by the UNESCO. 7 Moreover, it would be wrong for the people to be hyped about the Vedics for it being the oldest known religion codified in the Rig Veda.

Vedic, as we have already discussed, is neither the oldest religion nor are the Vedas or even the Avesta the oldest scriptures. The oldest religious script found so far was in Egypt (2400-2300 BCE) in the form of Pyramid texts, that, too, in a written format which is not the case with either IE scriptures like the Avesta and the Rig Veda. D Did the Vedics (IE’s) come to India from Urasia? According to most of the scholars who believe answer to this question is in affirmative, suggesting most suitable candidate for the original habitat of the Indo-Europeans is South Russia. Did the Vedics migrate from India towards the West spreading their language and culture? Vedicist scholars like Shrikant Talageri place their original habitat towards the east of the Ghaggar (which he believes to be the Saraswati) river. E Let us take an overview of both the theories and check if they help us understand the realities of the history of humanities. The general assumption is that for the spread of the so-called IndoEuropean languages and culture, the migrations of people belonging to the certain stock of common ancestry, speaking some unique proto-language, is the first requirement, no matter wherever might have been their original habitat and whenever they would have started migrating. For migration theorists, we can raise a few simple questions: [2] place?

Why do the migrations in unison or in batches take

2. Are immigrants superior over the native populace wherever they migrate or could it be otherwise? 3.Is the massive migration essential for the spread of culture, languages and religion? Many questions can be raised on this issue. However, in this chapter, let us deal with the abovementioned questions only and try to find answers.

Migrations are not a new phenomena occurring in the human world. It is widely assumed that from the ancient times, human race has been moving from one place to other in the search of the food. Geographical spread of the human beings is attributed as reason to this. However, the human beings had almost started settling down in different regions in the Mesolithic period (approx 15,000 years BC). C.K. Chase-Dunn (Institute for Research on World-Systems (IROWS), University of California, states, “The earliest sedentary societies were of diversified foragers in locations in which nature was bountiful enough to allow hunter gatherers to feed themselves without migrating. These first villagers continued to interact with still nomadic peoples in both trade and warfare. The best known of these is the Natufian culture of the Levant, villagers who harvested natural stands of grain around 11,000 years ago. In many regions, the largest villages had only about 250 people. In other regions, there were larger villages and regions with different population densities were often in systemic interaction with each other.” 8 On this basis, we can surmise that by 10,000 years ago, most of the tribes had settled in their respective regions. They were seminomadic for their profession of cattle herding and primal agriculture. In 2013, the archaeologists unearthed evidence of early agriculture at a 12,000-year-old site in the Zagros Mountains in eastern Iran. Mehrgarh site indicates that the human beings of that region knew agriculture 10,000 years ago. There may be more sites indicating to the earliest agriculture on the globe. The fact remains that it helped human being to settle in the respective regions. Kenoyer asserts that, “….These data indicate that foragers were present in the exact locations where we later see the emergence of settled agro-pastoral communities during the Early Food Producing Era (7000-5500 BCE) and the Regionalization Era (5500-2800 BCE).” 9 Kenoyer furher declines the idea of any new influx of the population in the Indus Valley and Gangetic regions. What does it means that the people who were progenitors of the Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation (IGC) were settled in the same region long before Harappan times.

The technological advances led them to the urbanisation and establish trade networks with the known world. Even after the decline of the IGC, due to the climatic changes, although, people abandoned urban centres, they spread out nearby opting for to live in small settlements or towns, but they did not desert their habitat. Cultural evolution of the human beings has been almost a simultaneous process in various parts of the earth. We cannot attribute it to any particular advanced human race or region. Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University), on basis of proofs gathered from Europe, states “Around 40,000 years ago, there was a cultural explosion in which jewelry, art, and elaborate burials suddenly became common place all across Europe. These attributes indicate that for the first time in history, anatomically modern humans started to behave and think like modern humans.” 10 Proofs found in other continents, too, support this conclusion. The evolution of cultures that includes even the languages has been a parallel phenomenon across the globe as an outcome of innate need of the human race! Since we cannot attribute such ‘cultural explosion’ result of any particular intruding advanced tribe, how can we believe that the some so called advanced group of PIE language speakers could cause acculturation of all other tribes those had already settled in the respective regions with their own advanced cultures? What was the status of languages in those times? Noam Chomsky, a proponent of the discontinuity theory, says the ability to speak or language faculty is as old as 100,000 years. 11 From primordial gestures and sounds to the present complex state, the language has evolved through the passage of the time. Let us keep in mind here that there is a close relationship between developments of the language with growing complexities of the life. Early languages must have been too rudimentary, limited to some words supported by the gestures. Certain sounds are so common in

the human world that there is no need for tracing their origin to any certain place and population of common ancestry. As per the linguists and psychologists, the language is an innate need of human race, it is adequate to consider that the language evolutions, their exterminations and re-evolutions or blend of own languages with other languages of neighbouring people with social mutations has been the constant process in human societies of the globe. We find similar words having hypothetically similar roots in different languages and conclusions of the scholars that one language influenced the other have marred our linguistic history. We find several similar words in most of the languages but the meanings attached to them are opposite or entirely different. “Language consciousness is probably identical with every human meta-consciousness and may therefore play a significant role in the control processes effected in the human subject by consciousness,” states Jerzy Banczerowski, a noted linguist. 12 Development of languages is largely a collective process. Development of the words and their order put syntactically to express larger meaning mostly depends on the cultural ethos and the complexity of transactions of the people of the certain regions. The words gain larger yet restricted meanings in the course of their evolution. Of course, here we are not ruling out the borrowings and exchanges of vocabulary among the people those come across frequently, either by virtue of being geographically connected or political and trade interconnections. To get back to the topic under consideration, with the invention of agriculture or even before that, around 15,000 years ago, the human beings had begun settling down. It does not mean the people of certain settlements did not migrate ever. They did migrate, but it hardly would be called as mass exodus. Sometimes the human beings had abandoned settlements because of the drastic climatic changes, severe epidemics or because of an enemy driving them out forcibly or enslaving them to occupy their fertile lands. Technological

and commercial advances also have led the human beings to establish new superior settlements in the close vicinity of the old ones. Obviously, if invasions took place for occupying the lands, unless the victorious community outnumbers the local masses, there cannot be extinction of the local languages and cultures. Most of the times, the invaders have been societies located geographically close to the subjugated people. Rather, there are examples, wherein, even the victorious invaders adapted to the local cultures, leaving very insignificant mark of their own cultures! Even if PIE language theory considered being true, for a moment, a supposed early migrating branch of them to Anatolia, could not enforce their language and culture on the local people, rather the PIE language theorists admit that the so called Aryan branch rather got merged in the local masses, accepting their culture and language. 13 Considering the population of those times, the theory that the PIE immigrants enforced their so-called ‘polished language’ and culture upon others in entire sphere of Asia and Europe remains a hypothesis that attracts serious attention and rethinking. In this regard, Kazanas states, "But invasion is the substratum of all such theories even if words like ‘migration’ are used. There could not have been an Aryan immigration because (apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for this) the results would have been quite different. Immigrants do not impose their own demands or desires on the natives of the new country: they are grateful for being accepted, for having the use of lands and rivers for farming or pasturing and for any help they receive from the natives; in time it is they who adopt the language (and perhaps the religion) of the natives. You cannot have a migration with the results of an invasion." 14

Kazanas’ remarks need to be taken seriously, though, all scholars at the least unanimously agree that there was no invasion; however, they assert there was migration in the waves in India. Migrations, as Kazanas explains, infact imply the invasions, nothing else. It is just a

way to put up a harsh proposition mildly! But was it a reality, even migration? Whatsoever, the fact is, the history has witnessed recapturing of the lost lands by the vanquished as soon they regain power. When people stage emergency exits from the lands owing to the severe droughts or epidemics, the same people repopulate such lands when the situation is right again. Many a times, settlement patterns seems to have changed after such reoccupation, but change in the settlement patterns does not mean that the new people had arrived there. Besides, migrations of small group of the people in search of the employment or power have been well recorded since the ancient times. However, they hardly could influence the languages of the people wherever they settled or ruled significantly. We cannot distinguish the Huns, Kushans, Parthians and Scythians from other indigenous populations those came to India, ruled and settled permanently here. If such powerful rulers belonging to the foreign regions could not exterminate the local cultures and the languages, it is beyond even a wild logic that wherever the so-called PIE’s migrated they could exterminate all native cultures and languages to enforce their own. There were habitual nomads in the world and such nomads still do exist. Have they caused any significant influence on the societies wherever they went or they have themselves acquired the lingosocial elements from the others? Like monkeys, human beings, too, have resorted to knowing and owning their respective regions. It has been observed in the case of Chimpanzees that they tend to live in the regions where they must compete with gorillas for food and scarce natural resources. They also interact with the neighbouring chimpanzees or even patrol their boundaries! Territory thus becomes more important for them. 15 Territorial consciousness is a characteristic of them and so it is the case with the human beings too. Similarly, there have been interactions, exchanges of vocabulary, syntax and socio religious

elements between the preliminary nomadic hunter-food gatherer societies over the millenniums, which later had settled after cultural shift to agriculture, in the habitable but known regions of those times. The geographical consciousness could have been the innate trait that made humans wander for food and game in the known regions, unless natural calamities forced them to find new places for survival. The PIE theory, though the factor of the similarities in the languages to some extent can be held as true, but the pre-requisite that this theory proposes, migration of some linguistic group to effect such similarities is thus fundamentally wrong. For example, overpopulated North could not fundamentally change the linguistic structure and vocabulary of the South Indians, so called Dravidians, except for few notable exchanges of the vocabulary over the period of thousands of years, even with the so-called Aryan expansion towards the south or geographical closeness of different group of the languages. Why the distinct group of the languages has survived even after so much of socio-political interactions between North and South or the so called Aryan dominance over the Dravidians is a question, which the migration or invasion theories just cannot solve. Then how could migrating groups of so-called PIE speaking people impact the original linguistic patterns of the people those already had settled in their respective regions and comparatively were advanced societies over nomadic migrants? Let us not overlook that the linguistic is a parascience. Since it is not a science as such, there are multiple linguistic theories waiting for real breakthrough. “Language for itself is neither complex nor complicated. It is what it is. Problems of language are not problems for language but for the linguists inquiring into it. They do not originate from the complexity of language but from the limitations of cognition.” Linguist Jerzy Banczerowski aptly have stated. 16 The parascience or pseudoscience applied by the linguists to reconstruct the PIE language makes the issue more complicated

than what it is in reality. Computer stimulated models of language change may be wrong or misleading because we simply would not know how the minds of the ancient people functioned! Computer cannot replace the human brain, no matter how brilliantly computer programs are written. Even the efforts by the linguistics to reconstruct the proto-language are hypothetical and unattested. Moreover different reconstruction systems yield different protolanguages. In addition, the pertinent question is from where had the PIE speaking communities arrived at the certain place of South Russia (or any other hypothetical place of origin, such as Anatolia, Kurgan etc.) before they again dispersed in different directions? What was the language they spoke before they assembled at that certain place and how did it evolve to become completely another linguistic entity? Was it a single tribe or the group of the tribes? Were not the human tribes nomads since at the least 70,000 years ago, till they invented agriculture and started settling about just before 15,000 to 10,000 years? Would not this tribe or group of the tribes, too, have been wandering in search of food and game since then? From where did this tribe or tribes’ accumulated basic vocabulary to build on their proto Indo-European language? Was it an independent invention? In my opinion, the linguists, party to Aryan debate, have hardly addressed these questions. F There should be no doubt that the language is an innate faculty of human being. 17 The proofs are appearing that the immediate predecessor of modern humane, Neanderthal man, also was capable of complex speech. 18 Language is a social need of the human being and its evolution from rudimentary vocal sounds/words to complex construction could not have been an independent process but must have advanced through the mutual exchanges with innovations. In short, no language has independent, single root origin to claim! This applies to so-called PIE speaking people who were originally settled in some hypothetical Andronovo or Kurgan or Anatolian lands!

Theories of Migrations The basic principle behind the spread of so called Indo-European languages that it was due to the migrations of the Proto IndoEuropean language speaking people from some place, though, the original place is still debated. The 19th century scholars believed that the language of the Rig Veda was most archaic and that its origin can be traced back to the Bronze Age. The similarities between European and Indian languages made them believe that at some time in the ancient past, the group of Proto-Indo-European speaking people must have been settled together at some place from where they took different directions to move on for unknown reasons. Various models were proposed and being proposed even today to solve the mystery of PIE homeland. However, the main hurdle in confirming the original homeland of the Aryans has been the lack of any Archaeological proof. Still, the Migrationists or Invasionists proposed various homelands of the Aryans, right from South Russia to Central Asia and Black Sea, Anatolia to India (Punjab) haphazardly assigning the dates of their migrations to conveniently suite their theories. Some of the theories are briefly listed below: There are many theories, conflicting in nature and timelines. However, let us try to have a brief look at generally popular hypotheses. Some theorists propose that people of Andronovo culture migrated from Russia to Anatolia, Iran and South Asia. They claim that the Indo-Iranian people were grouping of ethnic groups, such as Indo-Aryan, Iranian, Dardic and Nuristani people. The Sintashta culture is supposed to be the predecessor of Andronovo culture inherited by the proto Indo-Europeans. The migrations from the Andronovo culture is said to have taken place in two waves. As per this theory, the first wave consisted of migration into Anatolia, founding of Hittite Empire and Mitanni kingdom while a later wave migrated south-eastward over Hindu Kush into North India. G

As per Asko Parpola, the Iranian wave is the second wave. According to the scholars, the Iranians first reached Black Sea in 8th century BC and finally, settled down into the Iranian plateau. According to Dr. Rajesh Kochhar, there have been three waves: A. The ‘Murghamu’ (BMAC) related people who entered Baluchistan at Pirak, Mehrgarh south cemetery, etc. and later merged with the post-urban Harappans during the late Harappans Jhukar phase (2000-1800 BCE); B. The

Swat IV that co-founded the Harappan Cemetery H phase in Punjab (2000-1800 BCE); C.

The Rigvedic Indo-Aryans of Swat V that later absorbed the Cemetery H people and gave rise to the Painted Grey Ware culture (to 1400 BCE). Though, attempts are made to attribute Painted Grey Ware culture to the second wave of invading Aryans, the idea has been dismissed and PGW now is seen as an indigenous culture of India, whose origins lay within its own area of dispersal. 19 There is other hypothesis that speakers of the proto-Indo-European (PIE) languages lived in Anatolia in Neolithic era. However, the scholars do not much academically favor this hypothesis. Similarly, Kurgan hypotheirs, presented by Marija Gimbutas in 1950, which too met with sharp criticism. Formulated by Elst, 20 Indian Homeland theory has been vehemently pushed forth by Shrikant Talageri. According to him, the original habitat of the Aryans was East Punjab, beyond Saraswati (Ghaggar) river. The clan of Sudasa (Bharata or Tritsu, a hypothetical sub-clan of Puru Tribe) migrated towards West from there. According to him, the Indo-Aryans gradually spread to Europe from Afghanistan. According to him, the migrated Anu tribe of India formed the Iranian culture. 21 However, this hypothesis is not being well received. Bryant states, "There is at least a series of archaeological cultures that can be traced approaching the Indian subcontinent, even if

discontinuous, which does not seem to be the case for any hypothetical east-to-west emigration.” 22 From this, we get a broad picture of the diversified migration/invasion theories of varied hypotheses and motives. The basic assumption here is that no matter from where, but, unless there was migration, the so called Indo-European languages could not have spread. However, we have few questions about this, such as: what made the Indo-Europeans to migrate from their original habitat? What was their population? If they migrated in various batches taking independent directions, how many people were there in each batch? Can there be such a great ethnic diversity in a region where Indo European language speaking people were originally located? Was their population so large that they could overpopulate the lands to enforce their languages on the locals? The fact to be noted is that the geographical spread of the Andronovo culture or other candidate cultures was limited. There have been no archaeological evidence indicating severe drought, epidemic or any violent wars which may have driven out so called Indo-Europeans from their original habitat. If they had decided to migrate on their own accord, what could be the compelling reasons to desert a homeland where they had prospered? Besides, there are no remnants of continuation of so called Indo-European culture at their claimed original homelands. Moreover, there is no proof to indicate that the so called homelands had enough population to overpopulate other regions wherever they went to influence native languages and cultures. One must understand that the absence of conclusive homeland in itself is a proof for non-existence of such PIE group of the people. The only indicative evidence of the Andronovo people being the so called Aryans is the existence of excavated horse-chariot burial practices. It also is believed by some scholars that the Andronovo people had inherited (or were successors of) the Sinthasta culture to which was preceded by the Kurgan culture. Chariots of the

Andronovo people were spoke-wheeled and horse drawn. Many scholars believe that the invention of horse-drawn chariots made Andronovo people militarily advanced over the rest of the cultures which resulted in conquests and rapid spread of the Indo-European culture. Earlier, Vedicist scholars were too happy to accept the hypothesis. But there again was another U turn destined. Vedicist scholars recently have started stating that though Rig Veda mentions chariots, nowhere it speaks about the spoked-wheels! The scholars like Kazanas, too, are arguing that since the Rig Veda nowhere mentions spoke-wheels, the Vedic people’s chariots could have been of solid wheels and so were of the Mitanni, Hittites, Iranian’s and Greek’s! 23 Scholars also have argued whether ‘Ratha’ meant the chariot or just wagon. However, the Rig Veda and the Avesta do mention chariots most frequently and prominently. Then why this sudden somersault? Why they suddenly started to deny the spoked-wheel chariots were known to the Rig Vedic people? The ulterior motive is to stretch the timeline of Rig Veda, to take back substantially to pre-Harappan times! Such sudden shifts while stretching or adjusting timelines to suit the favorite homeland theories has become so common that make us wonder whether the scholars really want to reach the truth! It is assumed that the Andronovo people invented chariots and tamed the horses to make their movement swifter, which made them advanced in the warfare. However, scholars know too well that this is a hypothesis and they have very little to go on and prove that the Andronovos were predecessors of the Indo-Iranians and the HittiteMitannians beyond doubt. [3]The social classification and the terminologies for the classes, too, have been used as a medium to establish ‘oneness’ of these societies. However, unfortunately enough, the terms used for the classes do not match with each other. For example, the Veda terms

the priests as Brahmans whereas the Avesta uses Athravans for the priests. The Vedas use Kshatriya for warriors whereas the Avesta uses ‘rathe á¹£á¹hÄ ’ (Standing in the chariot) for the same class of people. Though, it seems classification of the people, it does not show or indicate the permanent social stratification. Rather, these proofs go contrary to the claim of oneness or common ancestry. The burial practices described in the Rig Veda and the practices at Andronovo, too, differ significantly. Ashvamedha (horse sacrifice) of the Rig Veda and the horse sacrifice and horse-chariot burial along with significant amount of weapons of Andronovo has nothing in common except showing that their life was horse centered. Also, all burial sites, which have been excavated so far, do not show duplication in ritualistic rites elsewhere but rather seem to be independent of them, with possible slightest influences of others, developed by the tribes those were spread in Central and South Asia of those times. What we can deduce that the cultural practices, such as of burials, have more ancient traits, started almost since then when the human being began to think of ‘life after death’. Also, neither the ancient literature nor the Archaeological proofs indicate migrations in India or out of India. Shaffer et al opines that, “Some scholars suggest there is nothing in the ‘literature’ firmly locating Indo-Aryans, the generally perceived founders of modern South Asian culture tradition(s) outside of South Asia and the archaeological record is now confirming this.” 24 Though, the art of taming the horse and invention of spoke-wheeled chariots is attributed to the Andronovo people or their predecessors, was migration required to spread the art of making chariots? Was it so that the Andronovo people cut off from rest of the neighbouring world due to which they did not come into the contact with it for the cultural or any kind of exchanges? If at all they were inventors of it, did the art of chariot making spread because of their movement or by the cultural exchanges with other tribes? Hypothetical Aryans used chariots need not mean that they were inventors of the chariot. The useful inventions, no matter in which

tribe they were invented first, are adopted by others and do spread rapidly. Many inventions are independent of others though they may look alike superficially and there is no need to find a single root. For example, remains of earthen ovens found at Kalibangan, Lothal etc. are quite similar to those found at Inamgaon of Maharashtra, as observed by M.K. Dhavalikar.25 It does not mean that the Indus people had ever migrated to Deccan to spread the style of oven making! The spread of materialistic and cultural elements cannot be linked to a single originator society and its movement. Interestingly, horse and chariot burials were not new to the Bronze Age world, let aside Eurasia. It appears from historical records that the chariots were used extensively in China, too, during the Xia dynasty (21st century BC) era. Xi Zhong, a mythical sage, has been credited for the invention of the chariot during Xia dynasty. 26 The chariot and horse burials, too, were not unknown to them as chariot and horse burial sites have been found in excavations at Luoyang. Twenty-five chariots and 37 sacrificed horses have been unearthed at two sites. Interestingly the Chinese chariots, too, were spoke-wheeled. These remains date back to approximately 1,600 to 1,100 B.C.E. (Shang Dynasty) Did Chinese imitate them from Andronovo people or Andronovo people had ever migrated to China? There is no proof any which way. In fact, horse sacrifice was known to the out of hypothetical PIE world as well. Funeral sites containing domesticated horse bones and horse decorating items including strapping that date back to the megalithic period have been excavated in Madhya Pradesh and Vidarbha region. 27 Thus, Anthony’s statement, “Chariot driving Shang kings of China and the Mycenaean princes of Greece of the ancient world at about 1500 BCE, shared a common technological debt to the Late Bronze Age herders of Eurasian steppes.”, 28 sounds ridiculous. Therefore, it cannot be said in affirmative tone that the Andronovo or their ancestors invented spoke-wheeled chariots and were only people to practice horse-chariot burials. ‘Ashvamedha’ (Horse sacrifice), practiced by the Vedic people, was entirely of a different

style than of Andronovo people. Ashvamedha had special purpose behind it, which does not seem to be practiced even by their closest neighbors – the Avestans. Indus people traded with Mesopotamia, Turkmenistan, Iran and other regions by sea and land routs as well, at least since 3100 BC. 29 It means that these regions were already populated and flourishing even before the Andronovo people started their supposed migrations. The people there were, as the physical proofs speak, literate and an advanced society. If Indus people were not from IndoEuropean speaking stock, as the migrations of the IE speakers had not yet taken place, what were the languages of the people residing in those vast regions? They certainly knew spoke-wheel. The archaeologists initially had bluntly concluded that the Indus people did not know the spoke-wheels. This conclusion was formed on the basis of the finds of earthen cart toys, which had solid wheels. However, as recently reported by senior archeologist B.B. Lal, specimens of spoke-wheels have surfaced during excavations at Banavali and Rakhigarhi. H These proofs belong to the mature phase of the Indus culture, i.e. 2,600 BC. This evidence predates over the spoke-wheels of Andronovo. It only suggests that the spread of technologies does not require the physical migration of the people. They could be independent developments as well! Concluding that the Andronovo civilisation was inventor of the spoke wheeled chariots making their movement swifter was a blunder. Rather spoke-wheeled or not, chariots cannot be a conclusive proof of superiority of any civilisation. Besides, the claim that PIE speakers were the first people to tame the horses has been proven false and ridiculous. Why should a single group of the people ingenuous enough to tame the horses, invent spoke-wheeled chariots, desert its own region to spread their so-called advanced technologies? The ridiculous thinking has prompted even the scholar like Witzel to state bluntly, “Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the "tank" of the

2nd millennium B.C. is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya ("Tremble enemy" in RV 4.38.8) ........The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.” 30 However, the physical proofs speak that the horse taming or chariot making was not the only business of so called PIE people, but other societies as well! Based on such fragile findings making bold statements suggest nothing but imaginative conclusions of the scholars! The Indo-European migration period from Andronovo culture is roughly estimated at about 2,000 BC. The period of Indus culture is estimated from 3,200 BC up to 1,750 BC. Early Indus culture predates so-called PIE culture by 1,100 years. This is not a small passage of the time and there was literally nothing to fill in by the so-called Aryans. When the Indus civilisation had already reached par excellence matured phase as compared to the civilisations of those times, the so-called Indo-Iranians were still settled in their respective hypothetical homeland. It is an erroneous to even think that a small group of people migrated to different directions for no obvious reason and found other habitats of different geographies and climates to settle down forever. Influencing the entire culture of the natives by migrating nomads thus is out of question. We can observe that the region between Russian Steppes to Anatolia has been a populated region since ancient times, even before so called Andronovo or PIE culture had came into an existence. The people living there engaged in a variety of trade with each other and naturally, they must have established a dialogue. Exchanges of cultural, religious thoughts, technological advances and vocabulary during such transactions were but obvious.

We find wars, too, taking place in ancient history. The Rig Veda mentions several wars with a variety of tribes but do not mention anywhere the language of the enemy tribes being unintelligible, though it could be dialectically slightly different with variances in accents, obvious from the terms such as ‘Mughra vacha, anasa’ appearing in Rig Veda for such tribal speeches. With Witzel detecting about 500 words of non IE origin along with certain grammatical forms those are alien to the IE in the Rig Veda is a proof of such linguistic exchanges. 31 However, Marija Gimbutas claims, "…The process of IndoEuropeanization was a cultural, not a physical, transformation. It must be understood as a military victory in terms of successfully imposing a new administrative system, language, and religion upon the indigenous groups." 32 Besides, the claim is that Indo-Europeans warriors were responsible for replacing peaceful matriarchal cultures with patriarchal cultures. Though, some scholars have refuted these observations stating that the expansions of Indo-Aryans were gradual and peaceful, still, it is opposed by some. However, such proponents of invasion theory seem to have overlooked the fact that barring a few tribes, the gradual replacement of matriarchal society with patriarchal society has been a global phenomenon, which cannot be attributed to the invading, expansionists and hostile Indo-Europeans. Moreover, we cannot overlook that the prominence of female deities in any ancient or modern societies does not necessarily mean that the societies followed matriarchal social order. Anthropologists, too, seem to have similar views. What we can surmise here is, there is not enough proof to establish that the social order took drastic shift because of the hostile Indo-European invaders having different social order, that the rest of the world was matriarchal and wherever the IndoEuropean invaders went, they established their rule and enforced the patriarchal social order upon them. There could be the societies of

both types and egalitarians like early Egyptians co-existing on the earth of those times. The migration theories thus become problematic. They are built merely on the artificial reconstruction of the so-called PIE language, single location origin hypothesis, burial practices and hypothetical social orders of those times. We must consider the opinion of George Erdosy. He observes, “It is impossible, thus, to regard the widespread distribution of certain beliefs and rituals, which came to be adopted by Indo-Iranian speakers, as evidence of population movements. Just such reasoning led B. G. Tilak to believe that the Aryans originally inhabited the Polar Regions due to their knowledge of the fixed pole star and polar days and nights, knowledge which was probably obtained from Scythian tribes.” 33 We can understand why Indian Vedicist scholars want to prove India being the homeland of Vedic people. But Europeans seems to be far more curious to find the homeland of the proto Indo-Europeans. Why it is so can be found in the statement of J P Mallory, which goes like this, “While many have maintained that the search for the PIE homeland is a waste of intellectual effort, or beyond the competence of the methodologies involved, the many scholars who have tackled the problem have ably evinced why they considered it important. The location of the homeland and the description of how the IndoEuropean languages spread is central to any explanation of how Europe became European. In a larger sense, it is a search for the origins of western civilization.” 34 Finding the roots can be said a psychological as well political need of the modern human being, but while doing so, building the theories on flimsy proofs naturally will turn out to be a bubble. What we can derive from the above is for the spread of rituals, beliefs, languages and material culture movement (migration) of the population is not necessary. The single location theory has its limitations whereas the multi-location theory for the developments of languages can solve many riddles of the ancient times. To

understand how single location theory puts our studied but biased conclusions in jeopardy, let us have a look at Out of Africa Theory.

Out of Africa theory: Becoming a myth It would not be imprudent here to discuss the Out of Africa theory, as it claims single location origin as PIE supporters do. First presented in 1987, the Out of Africa Theory assumes that the first HomoSapiens, the immediate predecessor of the present human species, appeared in Africa about 1.30 lakh years ago and about some 60,000 years ago started migrating to different continents to populate the globe replacing the population of the descendents of Home Erectus. 35 Until recently ‘Out of Africa’ theory was considered to be a base of human origin and migration all over the world to inhibit the continents. The assumption was based on the finding of fragmented remains of earliest Homo-Sapiens in Africa, dated as earliest as 1,30,000 years. It was believed that the first human being appeared in Africa from where our ancestors began dispersing in other continents taking different routes about 60,000 years ago. Until recently, all anthropologists held this theory as the gospel truth and it had gained phenomenal popularity. The hypothesis was turned to a theory, based on which the human distribution maps were drawn. However, a team of archaeologists and anthropologists excavated teeth fossil of the pre-human ancestor “Afrasia djijidae” in 2012 in Myanmar. This is said to be the missing link between Africa and Asia. This new finding showed that the Asia was the first place where our pre-human ancestor appeared. The findings of four teeth fossils are dated 37 million years old. They are similar to the fossils of approximately same age found in Libya. This find has led to a change in the earlier hypothesis that the early human species lived in Asia from where they moved to Africa, fairly late in the process of evolution. “Not only does Afrasia help seal the case that anthropoids first evolved in Asia, it also tells us when our anthropoid ancestors first made their way to Africa, where they continued to evolve into apes and humans,” says Chris Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History Paleontologist. 36

The story does not end here. We have another claimant from China as well! In The Sunday Morning Herald (25.8.14), Peter Spinks, Fairfax Science columnist reported the findings of fragmented human (Homo Sapiens) teeth in China (Lunadong, China's autonomous region of Guangxi Zhuang) and part of Southeast Asia. These, too, are 1,30,000 years old, as old as the finds of Africa. Spinks quotes anthropologist Christopher Bae of the University of Hawaii saying, "The Lunadong modern Homo Sapiens’s teeth contribute to growing evidence that modern and/or transitional humans were likely in eastern Asia” 37 The original theory that the human species dispersed from Africa about 60,000 years ago is now being questioned because of the several finds on the various continents predating the assumed date of the early dispersals. Though, the scientists still believe that Homo Sapiens appeared first in Africa and they may have taken different paths in very early age than was thought before. However, even this theory raises serious question because it was also believed that the hominids or human like animals had appeared first in Africa about 25 million years ago. The finds of Myanmar and Libya are as old as 37 million years. This shatters the foundation of ‘Out of Africa’ theory. Anthropologist Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University) concludes, “Does the evidence prove that all humans originated in Africa from a small population of hunter-gatherers that lived over 150,000 years ago? Not exactly: while the Out of Africa model does incorporate certain fossil, genetic, and archaeological evidence, the same categories of evidence also prove the complete opposite. Humans seem to have certain morphological features that were around hundreds of thousands of years ago, indicating that the complete replacement endorsed by the Out of Africa model could not have been complete. Genetic evidence also demonstrates that certain blood traits and even the mtDNA evidence do not consistently fit the Out of Africa model. The archaeological evidence also indicates that complete replacement probably did not take place. Why then, does

the “Out of Africa” model continue to be so popular and widely accepted today?..... This thesis has demonstrated that the Out of Africa model is most likely not the correct model of modern human origins.” 38 (Emphasis mine) Many scholars have recently raised serious questions about the validity of Out of Africa model. Australian historian Greg Jeffery asserted, “The whole ‘Out of Africa’ myth has its roots in the mainstream academic campaign in the 1990s to remove the concept of race. When I did my degree they all spent a lot of time on the ‘Out of Africa’ thing but it’s been completely disproved by genetics. Mainstream still holds on to it.” 39 Similarly, in Armenia, 325,000 to 350,000 year old stone tools have been found and they, too, have posed a serious challenge to this model. Similarly, many examples that pose a serious threat before the myth of ‘Out of Africa’ are being now vehemently discussed. Therefore, jumping from one location origin theory to other, whenever old and older findings come to the fore, is not going to solve our problem of origin. If we carefully observe the new findings and consider the possibility of more finds surfacing in the future, the assumption that any species appeared at a single location and dispersed globally becomes irrelevant. There cannot be some unique location where raw material for the early biological formations was made available by some unknown forces i.e. God. If ‘Out of Africa’ theory poses serious problems over single location origin of human ancestors, how can we apply it to the single location origin of the PIE speaker’s? The same logic applies to the ‘Out of India” theory too. Now, when we have discussed as to how the migrations are not an unforeseen phenomenon in the human history, but are mass exoduses without leaving any footprints of the culture or language at his original homeland, are something that have no scientific basis, let us have a look at the other serious lacunas of PIE origin theory.

Other Aspects When it comes to linguistics and similarities in hypothetical IE languages speaking world, what oldest proofs do we have apart from the Avesta and the Rig Veda? The Rig Vedic language is considered to be rather modern, dating back to 1,000 BC. The Rig Vedic language has transformed adorning new characteristics through the Rig Vedic age until it took the final shape. We have an oldest proof of this language not from the Rig Veda or Avesta but from the Bogazkoy treaty of Hittites and the Mitanni (between Suppiluliuma and Shattiwaza, 1380 BC) in which Vedic Gods like Mitra, Indra, Varuna, Nasatyas (Mitrašil, Uruvanaššil, Indara, and Našatianna in Mitanni.) were invoked among series of other local gods. This is considered a major proof of Indo-Aryans existence in Mesopotamian domain. However, this cannot be the proof of language or presence of Indo-Europeans. It only means that the Mitanni people, too, knew some Gods known to the Vedics and Zoroastrians. Also the spelling (phonemes) of the names is close to Prakrit languages rather than with the Vedic Chandas. It is assumed that the Mitannis did not speak any Indo-European language except the ruling families those were of Indo-European origin. In addition, the deity’s names appeared in the treaty seems to have taken local forms. Personal names of Mitanni Kings like Tusratta (Dashratha), too, have some traces of Sanskritic (actually Prakritic) forms. The other name is Artatama, which belongs to Persian personal names. The name of the capital, Vashukanni (Sk. Vasukhani), is said to be close to Sanskrit. Although, many other Sanskritic personal names have been found, this cannot be a conclusive proof of Aryan presence there. South Indian Dravidian kings also had adapted personal and city names from Sanskrit in the past, though, their own languages and ethnicity was drastically different. Another proof forwarded is a Hurrian text written as a manual of horse training by Kikkuli, a Mitanni, in around 1,400 BC. The text obviously is in Hurrian languages, which is neither Semitic nor IndoEuropean but belonging to the Hurro-Urartian language family.

According to the scholars, the IE substratum is present in the text in the form of numerics like aika (Vedic Sanskrit eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (pancha, five), satta (sapta, seven), na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, rounds or a turn of a wheel). But except from these so-called Indo-Aryan terms, there are borrowings from other languages, too! “….The Mittani-Hurrian horse trainers and their Hittite colleagues used common terms as well as special hippological termini technici from different languages such as Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite,Luvian, Hurrian and Indo-Aryan in the ancient Near East.” demonstrates Peter Raulwing.40 This clearly indicates, to which most of the scholars have not paid any heed to the fact that technical terms, not only from supposed Indo-Aryan, but from other languages also have been used in the horse training manual of Kikkuli. Raulwing in this paper also admits that the Indo-European was not the spoken language at the time of Kikkuli. Jumping on to the conclusion that the Indo-Aryans had been present in those regions is mere a flimsy hypothesis. Except occurrences of numerological and colour terms, there is no linguistic association between the so-called IE language and the work of the Kikkuli. Moreover, the above mentioned terms find close resemblance with the Prakrit languages, to which linguists define as middle Indo-Aryan languages, rather that so called IE languages.

Bogazkoy treaty The scholars are almost in unison agreeing when they fix the period of the Rig Veda being 1,500 BC and onwards. Like the Rig Veda, the Avesta, too, mentions the same Gods/Demons like Indra, Mitra and Nasatyas except Varuna which appear in the Bogazkoy treaty. The date of the Bogazkoy treaty is almost fixed at 14th century BC. When the treaty was being signed, according to the scholars’ estimate, Rig Vedic Aryans were already in India and busy composing the Rig Veda. That work continued until 1,200 BC or 1,000 BC. Iranian Aryans just had then settled in their respective part of the world. Mitannis, too, are considered to be another branch of migrating IE’s that reached Anatolia establishing their rule prior to the Indo-Iranians migration. However, the question as to how the mighty IndoEuropeans had gotten absorbed in the Hurrian society without leaving any mark on their languages, except the memory of few deities and numeric names remains unanswered. While discarding this idea that the Anatolian royals were the part of first branch to migrate, we must see the fact that though the names of the Gods or demons are similar, their characters were different with the different societies. For example Indara, (RV Indra) Daeva of Avesta, is the despicable demon enumerated after Angra Mainyu. Though mentioned only twice, his character is quite different in Avesta. Rig Veda repeatedly recites his noblest ever deed to have killed Vritra to release the dammed waters. However, this deed is not mentioned in the Avesta, though a Verethragna is mentioned in Yasts (Bahram Yast, 14), have been attempted to connect with Indra, being his epither Vritreghna (Killer of demon Vritra). Though both the terms looks similar in sound, this term of Avesta just means a form of divinity, giver of victory. Boyce states about the term, “Verethraghna is the personification of victory. A neuter noun ‘verethraghna’ meaning literally the “smiting of resistance”….. his yast, though illpreserved, contains what seem very archaic elements” 41 Hence there is no possible connection in the both.

In Avesta, rather the similar task, killing of three headed dragon Azi (Sk. Ahi) Dahaka is attributed to a mythical heroic king Traetaona. (Interpreted as the Son of the Av. Deity Thritas). Thrita and Traetaona terms do also appear in Rig Veda as Trita and Traitana. Trita of Rig Veda means ‘three fold’ or just a numeral, whereas Traitana is one of the slaves who had attacked blind seer Dirghatamasa. Thus Trita of Rig Veda is numeral whereas Traitana is a personal name. 42 Hence, there cannot be any connection between the two, although the terms appear to be same in sound. Similarly, we find the different characteristics of the identical deity/demon names in Avesta and Rig Veda. We cannot be so sure what characteristics were assumed by the Mitannians by similar deity names. Varuna does not find mention in Avesta I whereas Nasatyas do. However, Nasatyas appear as demons in Avesta, like Indra. In short, except Mitra, other Gods have demonic characters in Avesta. From the treaty, it appears that they altogether were Gods to the Mitannians. Hence, in all probabilities, they must have had different characteristics than that of Avesta and Rig Veda. Also, it is pertinent to note here that the names of gods appearing in the treaty are invoked with series of other deities unknown to our world. Most importantly, except this treaty, although, so many other treaties and correspondence with officials and other kingdoms that have been found in the excavations, we find no mention of these gods again! 43 It is surprising that even if the Hittites referred to thousand of gods, many appear in the various excavated tablets, but no mention of these so called Vedic Gods except of one treaty. Though, we know the names of all these Mitannian Gods, we do not know anything more about them.44 Hence, the conclusion drawn by the scholars about the presence of the Indo-Europeans in Anatolia is not valid on just a paragraph of a treaty mentioning Vedic gods or Avestan demons as we find no repetitive mention of them. Borrowing of the names of deities is not uncommon in civilisations, though their characters may differ drastically. In many cases, the

characters of the Gods are borrowed but they are named differently, as it happened with the Greek gods when adopted by the Romans. Keeping his characteristics almost same, Skanda is named and worshipped as Murugan in South India. Technically, a few characteristics of Greek God Zeus seem to match Vedic Indra, though the names are quite different. However, the mythologies associated with Zeus do not suggest in any way that the Zeus is equivalent to Vedic Indra. It is widely assumed by Western scholars that the cult of Mithras was Romanised version of the Persian Religion of the Zoroaster. Rig Vedic Mitra and Iranian Mithra, is synonym for contract, trust and fairness. Later, it became the other name of the Sun. In the Rig Veda, Mitra is mostly coupled with Varuna. During the period from the 1st century AD to the 4th century AD, Mithras mysterious cult was popular in the Roman world, which was believed to have been introduced to Romans by Cilician pirates of Anatolia. It was naturally assumed that the Persian (Zoroastrian) Mithra had travelled across to the Rome to become basis of the largest cult of those times. This cult was so large that scholars like Ernest Renan believed that had there been no rise of Christianity, the world would have become Mithraic. 45 However, Paul Kriwaczek states, “There was only one difficulty with this thesis (Cumonts), and not minor one. Nothing that we know about the Roman Mithras matches the Persian Mithra. Neither cult nor iconography…..The result is rather convoluted, one might almost say farfetched explanation of remains, in which symbols are said to symbolise other symbols, which in turn symbolise yet others.” 46 Mithraic cult images found in iconography are entirely opposite to the concepts of the Zoroastrian Mithra and Vedic Mitra. So, though the name Mithra, which either travelled from Iran to Rome or was of independent origin, appears to be same but nothing else is common between the both. There are numerous similar examples which pose the major challenge before the advocates of PIE theory.

In fact, apart from Vedic deity names, non-Vedic or non-Avestan God Shiva, too, appears in various language groups, especially Semitic.James Hewitt stated, “He is the God Saiv of the Ural-AltaikcFinns, meaning the protecting God, an epithet of the deity, which is, according to Castren, common to all the Ural Altaic Tribes. He is also the Hindu shepherd god Sib or Saiva, and the father god of the Semitic races, who called themselves the sons of Sheva or Sheba.” 47 Would it be logical to derive from this that the Indian Shaivaits of the remote past did move to these regions to spread worship of their God and culture or the Semitics had encroached India? Either suggestion would be ridiculous. Travel of technical terms such as numerals, too, is not sufficient proof to establish migration theories. Had it been the case, the Mitanni’s or Hurrian’s language would not much differ from the IE languages. Assyrian empire did belong clearly to Asura culture, but their language was not at all Indo-European. It proves that the IE speakers’ migration was not responsible for the Indra-Varuna’s mention in Bogazkoy treaty. Moreover, one has to bear in the mind that their (Mitanni and Assyrians) boundaries were not far from the Iranian lands. Therefore, minor exchanges between the neighboring civilisations cannot be attributed only to the migrations. It is ridiculous argument that by 1400-1500 BC Indo-Aryans were absorbed in more numerous Hurrian populations. Why the same logic then cannot be applied to North-West India and Iran? Iran and North-West India, too, was populated at the time of hypothetical entry of the Aryans which could have absorbed them in the local culture making them forget or abandon their own languages and culture! Let us not forget here that the recorded history of the Assyrian empire dates back to 2,500 BC until 605 BC and was mightiest of those times. We do not have any records, even in Avesta or Rig Veda or in records of the contemporary civilisations, of movements or empires of IE language speaking people anywhere in the vast region of Central Asia and Europe. The evidences of reconstructed

and broken linguistic traces cannot become the foundation of such a vital claim about any of the civilisation. What we must not forget here is journey of the human has very ancient origins, before he started settling about 15,000 to 10,000 years ago. It does not at all begin with the hypothetical movement of the so-called PIE people that began about just 2,000 BC or little earlier. No language or culture could be independent of others wherever they had to roam in most reachable regions. The tribes grew, branched, were either assimilated with others or took independent paths to branch further to take different directions. The process of mergers, assimilations and separations continued in the human history from about 60,000 BC till about 10,000 BC. In this vast passage of the time, the branched or merged tribes must have kept their innovations continued while adding new developments they came across. The material and psychological adaptations and expressions would be different from place to place and thus people to people. Though ancient traits of individual tribes possibly would survive, but in what form? Certainly, it would survive with corruptions, improvisations, alterations coupled with new innovations. The possible interactions between the tribes of the past, neutral or otherwise, it couldn’t be just a scene of clashes or mutual friendships or solitary roaming all the time. It must have been a scene of mutual exchanges, transactions while crossing each other, of not only early vocabulary but technical advancements as well, even from the enemy tribes to make their tribe stronger to make it competent enough. In the era of antiquity, the tribal identities, necessary for survival, must have been developed from early age. Early totemic choices must have been to represent their identities. The division between good forces versus evil forces must have been made by the human being in his very early stage of tribal civilisation. Fertility symbols for the mystery of reproduction, yet unsolved to them, must have carried too much significance and hypnotic awe everywhere in the human mind. We find existence of genital worship almost in every part of the

world for this very reason. Geography to them was meant a mean of livelihood to sustain their tribes. During that era, geographical conscience must have gradually developed limiting his roaming to the known and comfortable territories alone. Whatever the human tribes of about 15,000 BC were, they learnt from the interactions with multitude of other tribes through generations with their own wealth of cultural and linguistic independent traits, naturally would have became foundation of their culture when they began settling in the respective regions. They developed their own languages and cultures from what they had accumulated from their experience of millenniums of wandering life to suit their own needs and environments. The human history does not begin with the so-called dispersal of a hypothetical tribe or group of the people speaking some language to impose language and culture upon others. Rather, it begins in remote antiquity since when the human being has been in contact, brief or longer, with surrounding regions during his nomadic life. The cultural and linguistic divergence, though more or less, naturally had impact of what they acquired from others in their past. To deities, they gave different characters or borrowed the characters but named differently. Similar things did happen about other aspects of the life, which took independent routs, his way, when he settled down. For this reason, we cannot attribute the similarities in the languages or cultures to the movement of one to impact many others! Making such claims, as Europeans and Vedics do, it just is like promoting a fake hypothesis to nourish false racial or cultural egotism to prove some race or culture superior and antique over others. This is not the science of humanity.

Asura v/s Deva Asura in Indian culture is not meant as same as of Vedas. Asura term is not as same as of Iranians even they, too, were prominent adherents of Asura faith. The Yasna, though linguistically similar to Vedic Yadnya, both are not the same except the fact that they are fire and Soma-centric. Indian Asuras mostly were practicing idolatry. Vedic and Avestans did not worship any idol. Asuras of Assyria, although, the God Ashur being a supreme deity, his pantheon is full of other gods like Enlil, Marduk, Nippur etc, those cannot be related with any other civilisation. Rather Assyrian religion (that spread about various adjoining regions) was polytheistic, worshipping variety of gods including city gods. Ashur was deified form of the city of Assur, capital of the old Assyrian kingdom. Avesta is rather monotheistic; though there are some ‘yazatas’ (worthy of worship) are mentioned. Similarly, though fire-centric, Vedic religion is polytheistic. The Asuras of Assyria seem to be practicing idolatry but not phallic worship, whereas Indian Asura culture was mostly based on genital worship that continues even today! Though the mythologies find quite superficial similarities, they have different characters everywhere. The story of Manu and Noah appears to have same root, most probably acquired from others while on move in remote antiquity, but have been developed independently to suit their respective general psychologies and religious needs. Some scholars have also postulated the movements of the Semitic or Assyrian people to India establishing their kingdoms in IGC. Malati J. Shendge states that the Ashur of the Assyrians, Ahur of Iran and Asur of the Rig Veda and India used with other forms of the same word such as Ashir are the same terms though pronounced or spelled differently. She further asserts that Osiris of Egyptians, too, is close to the Asura term, Egyptians borrowing the name from Assyrian people or any other tribe in remote past. However, the word did not denote the same characteristics and meaning wherever it was used. In her book, Shendge suggests that the Harppan culture,

too, was Asura oriented after finding close similarities of the term ‘Shiva’ in other Asur centric civilisations.48 In its early hymns of Rig Veda, the epithet Asura was lavishly used for previous supreme deity Varuna along with other deities like Mitra, Agni, Rudra, Pushan, Marut, Soma and Savitri. Surprisingly, Rig Veda (7.65.2) even describes Mitra-Varuna as “Devanam asura”, Gods of the Asuras. However, the position of the Asuras is not maintained same in Rig Veda throughout. Dr Bhandarkar informs us that Indra and Agni later acquired the position of ‘Asurahan’, destroyer of Asuras. (RV 6.22.4, 7.13.1) Asuras are called godless in some verses. What Bhandarkar deduce from the various shifts in regards with Asuras is that the Asura term was used in two senses, one is as supreme deity and other as people. He also suggests that the Assyrians had settled down in India prior to the entry of Aryans.49 However, we find that the Asura epithet for supreme deity itself has taken a drastic shift in the Rig Veda. Hence, the term Asura had no two senses, but one and the same, i.e. epithet of the supreme deity or demon and its followers. When Vedic people abandoned Asura as their supreme deity and embraced Deva cult, they no longer remained to be Asuras or Asura centric. Though, the Assyrians being settled in India before so called entry of the Aryans is a farfetched suggestion of Dr Bhandarkar and Shendge, in regards with Asura, the fact remains that Asura term along with Deva had spread from India till Assyria, somewhere powerful, somewhere not. Zoroaster rejuvenated the dying Asura (Ahura) oriented religion in Northeast Iran from where it again spread in southern and west Asia and remained dominant for some time. The religion or culture of Devas seems to be predominant before he reintroduced his religion. Rig Veda, too, in its early period of compositions followed the suit or they still were following Asuric

culture and religion from ancient times even before they started composing Rig Vedic hymns. Hence, the terms for Devas and Asuras, including Shiva must have very antique origin, could have originated even far before 15,000 BC. The people were still nomads and exchanged and mutually developed some rudimental concepts of duality i.e. Good forces versus evil forces. Having designated some common names to them, they remained almost same or were further modified independently when they settled down taking almost independent paths of their own culture and linguistic developments based on what features people had accumulated from the past as the initial capital to go on. In the course of time, the terms seem to have acquired different meanings. Even shifts from Asura to Devas orientation of the Vedic people has been well preserved in Rig Veda. Mostly, the shift could have resulted because of the rivalries among the people of the adjoining regions and their faiths or independent likes or dislikes. Though many retained some terms of the past, they also developed independent pantheon of gods and demons as well which is evident from the mythologies of every culture. This is why, being geographically too close resulting in many similarities in language and religion, the Avestan pantheon is not equally similar with Vedic pantheon. Attempting to reconstruct the proto languages could be entertainment for the linguists; it does not prove their single location origin. For example, David Anthony suggests the words for wool and wheel are the oldest in proto Indo European language, as old as 3,500 BCE to 4,000 BCE. His assumptions are based on the hypothesis that the wheeled wagons were not known before 4,000 BCE, because the first mention of the wagons in the tablets found at Eanna temple of Uruk precinct that dates about 3,500-3,370 BCE. He also refers to the Hungarian clay models those are dated about 3,500 BCE. He also talks about the species of the lambs that humans developed for the sake of the wool and milk from wild

sheep. What he means is the vocabulary for the wool and wheel (sometimes including wagon) has been originated from proto IE languages, even adapted by the Semitic language speaking people. However, he admits that there is no proof where originally the wheel was invented and wool was brought in use for cloth.50 And in reality as well, there is no proof that the vocabulary for wheel and wool has PIE origin or there is no proof to conclusively attest the location where it was invented first. In fact, the word for some innovative creation naturally would belong to the people those invented it for practical purpose, after lot many trial and errors. The innovation would spread rapidly seeing its utility along with what it was called first, may be with corrupt or improvised forms. Finding such corrupt forms and attempting to reconstruct them with, to which Anthony rightly call as dead language; PIE language is nothing but corruptness of our intelligence. The fact is PIE language speakers, having common homeland, never existed. So, whether they were deities or epithets for culture or nobles, or early inventions, did spread for the want of their material and cultural applications. They did not remain same, with new characters they were adorned, new meanings they delivered and new designs were developed. If you compare designs of the chariots of the ancient era, region by region, you will find a variety of the models. The innovations, too, are acquired suitable to the land and mindsets​ of the local communities of the acquirers. It becomes thus impossible to find provenance of any early invention or earliest words used for them and how they transformed in that course and how they were retained or improvised is unknown to us as simply there is no any record.

The Greeks The Greeks, too, are considered a part of PIE speaking people migrating to Greece. Greek history dates back to the maximum of 900 BC. However, if we look at the pre-history of Greece, we find the physical proofs of mature Bronze Age in Greece. The Minoans (C 2,700 to 1,500 BCE) are said to be the founders of the Greek civilisation though we do not know what the Minoans called themselves. The name is given to the civilisation after a legendary king Minos. The Minoans were primarily sea farers. Although, their Linear A (hieroglyphic) script remains undeciphered as yet, the excavations have thrown light on the Minoan civilisation. According to the scholars, Minoan society was matriarchal, women having higher status than their counterparts had in many other ancient civilisations. This is reflected from their religion where the primary deity was earth goddess although the male deity armed with spear, too, was worshiped. However, the civilisation came to an abrupt end because of disastrous volcanic eruptions. Weakened Minoan age was then replaced by the Mycenaean’s. Culturally rich age is Mycenaen (1500-1100 BC) is also called as ‘Heroic Age’. The Mycenaean’s established city states and textile industry, too, was prosperous during this phase. But it was unknown to the Vedic cult of those times. 51 Linguistically speaking V Gordon Childe states, “…Yet many namesOdysseus, Achilles, Pelops - can only with great difficulty and by torturing phonetics be explained as Indo-European.” 52 In fact, the influx of Indo-Europeans in Greek culture is hardly traceable. The rule of Midas (Phrygian) in 8th century B.C. and its some remains in Greek languages are interpreted as the presence of Indo-European tongue. However, V Gordon Childe states, “…the great prominence of the mother goddess in their pantheon and references to matriarchy among their social institutions are quite unAryan features.” 53 We should note that the Phrygians belonged to Thrace, which was quite close to Greece. Greek mythology

incorporates several myths of Thracian culture. This again challenges the very concept of migration or empire of PIE speakers into the Greek regions except of neighbouring tribes. Little is known about the religious practices of the Mycenaeans’ though only a few texts depict the name of Gods. A popular deity was Poseidon, (at the time probably associated with earthquakes). Other important Gods included the Lady of the Labyrinth and Diwia (Sea Goddess). Other members of the pantheon, evidence of which has been found, include Zeus-Hera, Ares, Hermes, Athena, Artemis, Dionysus and Erinya. There are very few temples or shrines where religious practices may have been exercised have been found. So, we can assume that all rituals took place on open ground or in peak sanctuaries. Some shrines that have been found had a tripartite structural design. Minoans had a strong influence on most of the religious practices and rituals practiced by the Mycenaeans’ 54 The physical proof of the earliest Greek writing dates back to 7th century BC (Dipylon Inscription), indicating that the Greeks knew the script even earlier to that, though it is said to be adapted by the Greeks from Phoenicians to which they developed to fit the various dialects spoken in different parts of Greece.55 However, it should be noted that the Vedics were unaware of the script of any kind. Rather, there is no cognate in the Rig Veda for writing or script. There is not a single specimen of inscription that could even remotely belong to the Vedic language. What does this indicate? None of such religious practices were followed by the Greeks that were known to the Vedic Aryans or Zoroastrians. There is no parallel work like Avesta or Rig Veda in Greek world of ancient times. Under such circumstances, how can they be the migrating branch of the Indo-Europeans? If from Dyous of Rig Veda evolved Greek Zeus, (And Jupiter from Greek Zeus-Pater) attributing this to some common ancestor language would be unwise as, though the phonetically Dyous term could have been adapted by the Greeks as Zeus, but such derivation

is unwarranted because Dyous stands for bright sky in Rig Veda whereas Zeus is the God having every humanlike character.56 Hence, as we discussed earlier in this chapter, though the terms may have been exchanged in remote past, they did not carry the same meaning or characters in the later era. The word Deva seems to have been derived from Dyous but yet Devas of Rig Veda still remain abstract, representatives of the cosmic powers. This only means that the words could have been originated anywhere, among any tribe of ancient times, could have been shared by many, but it did not carry the same meaning everywhere. It rather got adapted by others their own way. The meanings they took for the words couldn’t have remained same in the course of the time.

The Germans On the other hand, the Germans also claimed the Aryans to be a master race, Nordic in origin, technologically advanced and destined to rule the world. But they used the Aryan term exclusively for German superiority proposition. Nazi theorist Alfred Rosenberg had determined that these people, who, he claimed, were originally from Atlantis, were a dynamic warrior people who dwelt in prehistoric times in northern climates on the North German Plain, from which they migrated riding their chariots southeast, eventually reaching Ukraine, Iran, and then India. They were supposed to be the ancestors of the ancient Germanic tribes, who shared their warrior values. Rosenberg claimed that Christianity was an alien Semetic SlaveMorality inappropriate to the warrior Aryan master race and thus supported a mélange of aspects of Hindu Vedic and Zoroastrian teachings (both of these religions having been organised by Aryans), along with pre-Christian European Odinistic paganism, which he also considered to be distinctively Aryan in character. 57 J Such was the Nazi Aryanism. However, though scarcely, Germany was populated since prehistoric times; its history does not go back older than 750 BC. Germany has very little to offer of its pre-history. According to Jill Claster, during the Roman Empire, Germania was enslaved by Julius Caesar (1st BC) and continued to be so almost till the fall of the Roman Empire. The Germans came into contact with the Celts, Iranian and Baltic tribes in first century BC. 58 During pre-Christian era, Germanic (other Europeans too) people followed the pagan religion, mostly being polytheistic. Wodan was their main god, most probably borrowed from Anglo-Saxons to whom this god was known as Woden. Julius Caesar writes in his commentary on Gauls (1st Century BC), “The Germans differ much from these usages, for they have neither Druids to preside over sacred offices, nor do they pay great regard to

sacrifices. They rank in the number of the gods those alone whom they behold, and by whose instrumentality they are obviously benefited, namely, the sun, fire, and the moon; they have not heard of the other deities even by report.” Further is the same commentary, he says, “They worship as their divinity, Mercury in particular, and have many images of him, and regard him as the inventor of all arts, they consider him the guide of their journeys and marches, and believe him to have great influence over the acquisition of gain and mercantile transactions.” 59 Although scholars find this information contradictory with the other information coming from other Germanic tribes, it is mostly accepted that the Wodan was identified by the Romans with Mercury. Like Wodan, Mercury was also a god of dead. The sign of the planet Mercury is represented by Wednesday, i.e. Woden’s day. 60 Of prehistoric times, there is not much cultural advancement is seen, though the Europe was populated since 20,000 BC by the modern species of the human being. The agriculture was invented in the Neolithic era (C.7,000 BC), that helped the people to settle. However, the development of urban living was as late as 140 BC to 300 AD. Rather Iron Age dawned in Central Europe quite late, i.e. 800 BC. Not to forget here, Germany was lagging behind of rest of the Europe in technological advances. 61 This brings us back to the same conclusion that the history of Germans does not support any hypothetically migrated Aryan origin or Aryan influx in the Germanic cultural body. Rather, if compared to other European countries, we find that the German civilisation is comparatively of recent origin than them. If any cultural influence is on them at all is seen, it is of neighbouring European countries and not of so called migrating Indo-Europeans. This, as we can see clearly, shatters the very foundation of the Proto-Indo-European speakers’ migration theories. Erdosy after testing hypotheses derived from the linguistic evidence against hypotheses derived from archeological data, states that there is no

evidence of massive migrations. "As a result of the investigation, some support was found in the archaeological record for small-scale migrations from Central to South Asia in the late 3rd/early 2nd millennia BC, but any support for Burrow’s 2-wave model was firmly ruled out." 62 We have seen earlier in this chapter that the small scale migrations from ancient times till today have been common phenomena. However, this fact does not support what PIE migration theorists want to imply. In fact, except for a few similarities between Zoroastrians and Vedics, the religious practices of other so called Indo-European world seem to be far different. Mostly pagan religion was practiced by the people of those times including Greeks. German history rather is, too, younger compared to these countries. Why would there be such a big difference in religious and cultural ideas of the people belonging to the single origin and location those took different directions to impose their languages and culture? The single origin theory of the PIE language thus collapses based on the material proofs! This, above statement, rather means there could be migrations on small scale from anywhere and in any direction, having different unknown motives, but not to the extent as to change linguistic and cultural features of the natives wherever they migrated. Some tribes, after invention of the agriculture, must have been roaming to search for suitable cultivatable lands, must have waged wars to capture fertile lands or would have been submissive to the powerful tribes. But after 10,000 BC till 7,000 BC, we find from archaeological evidences that the most of the tribes had settled and even had established city states and empires by 5,000 BC. Agriculture thus had changed the lifestyle of the nomads to a settled and easy that resulted in the explosion of the new civilisations across the globe. 63 We can observe that the every region had and still has the peculiarities of its own language, evolving over the course of the time with the ever changing needs of the time. Borrowing or an exchange

of any cultural element between neighbouring societies, too, is a common phenomenon that we observe even today. The linguistic patterns mostly depend on the environments and geography in which humane cultures evolves. The primordial rudimentary vocabulary developed independently and accumulated from others, while on constant move, must have become the basis of its systematic development owing to the drastically changed ways of the life when settled. Finding hypothetical some similarities does not prove anyway its provenance was owed to some single closely tied linguistic society and its migrations, as PIE theorists like to believe. The sole purpose of ‘Aryan Theory’ or IE Language family theory was and is to create a myth to support cultural as well racial hegemony of Europeans and Indian Vedic people. If we carefully probe into the above points, we can reach to the only conclusion that the Proto-Indo-European migration theory has a very weak foundation. There was no major migration in India or out of India or to Europe, after dawn of early settled civilisation. People largely lived in the regions from pre-historical times as they are mostly living there. The movements of the human beings became limited when the agriculture was invented at about 10,000 BC. We find from the historical migrations that they were limited and to comparatively shorter distances. Though the Vedic and the Avestan societies were mainly pastoral, they were settled groups, being semiagrarian. Their movements were limited to the periphery of their habitat. Known world to them clearly appears in their respective religious texts. Both didn’t know the far away regions. Neither the Avesta nor the Rig Veda has hints anywhere about the mass exodus of their ancestors from one land to other lands. Almost all other regions those Zarathustra enumerates in Avesta are identified and are within and outside of the boundaries of the present Iran. 64 The regions mentioned in the Rig Veda, too, indicate its geography in the close vicinity of Avestans. The linguistic and religious similarities, whatever, between both the scriptures (Rig Veda and Avesta) have no explanation other than their geographical

closeness! No need of their coming from far afar to stay together for centuries and again disperse in different directions! It was not the case. It couldn’t have been the case because continuity of their religious practices is not seen anywhere in the so called IE language speaking world. Had it been the case of migrations, it would have reflected in their both the early religious scriptures. Rather Persians, a conglomeration of several tribes, including Turanians (those are mentioned in Avesta and Rig Veda) continued to live in the same region as they were living in the Avestan times. Pakhtuns, Balochis, Persians, and Parthians etc, too, doesn’t seem to have ever changed their respective locations. The Semeitc groups, too, don’t seem to have migrated anywhere, deserting their lands, in unison in the noted history. There is no clue why then so-called Proto-IndoEuropean language speakers should have deserted their homeland, whichever it was, to spread into rest of the Asia and Europe to cause linguistic and cultural impact on the already advanced societies? Eventually, all their versions finally meet with the same arguments that they have no answer for. The single location origin theory, in itself, is problematic and has been postulated by Western scholars with political and supremacist intents. Spread of the technical terms (such as used in Hurrian horse training manual) like numerals and colors and names, too, find more prominent spread and adaptation than other cultural aspects. Hence, finding such vague similarities elsewhere does not necessitate the presence of the particular race speaking a certain dialect. In fact, what we culturally and linguistically standing upon should be owed to our global ancestors of remote past. We cannot credit any particular group of the people enforcing or spreading its so called superior culture. Hence, one language cannot claim the origin or mother of other languages as the language, in itself, is an innate need of human being and the geographical conditions determine its characteristics, how it develops and is pronounced and be expressed. One should

not search for the origin, rather, as we have discussed in this chapter, multi-location theory and the considerable exchanges between early humanities only can help us to solve this riddle. As stated earlier, migration theories are none but the outcome of superiority complex. Indo-Europeans have carefully nourished it to prove their superiority to which Indian nationalists (Vedicist folks) too fell for! No region or a group of the people have any right to claim any culture being its independent innovation as no society was isolated from rest of the world. Actually, the theory of ‘single location origin’ and subsequent spread is religiously (Biblically) motivated and has been promoted extensively by Western scholars that takes us nowhere. PIE theorists do not provide any conclusive proof of original Aryan habitat and their exact routs yet, except for wild guesses presented with pseudo-scientific scholarship to amuse us. We have also seen that the applying migration theories for spread of language and culture are unscientific. Whatever migrations of small groups have taken place in the historic past hardly has left permanent mark on the languages and cultures, extinguishing earlier traditions, wherever they migrated. There was no any mighty race to subjugate rest of the later hypothetical IE world to enforce languages and cultures over the vanquished. Neither archeological nor documented history supports this hypothesis. *

References: 1. ‘Lectures on the Science of Languages’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans, Green, And Company, 1866. 2. “Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal”, by REZA ZIA-EBRAHIMI, 2010, Frontline. (Available online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/08/ post-2.html#ixzz3R87tvvn4) 3. ‘Lectures on the Science of the Language’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans, Green, And Company, 1866, p. 226) 4. ‘In Search of Indo-Europeans’, by J. P. Mallory, Pub.: Thames & Hudson, 1989, p. 276 5. ‘Iranian Identity, the 'Aryan Race,' and Jake Gyllenhaal’, article by REZA ZIA-EBRAHIMI, Frontline, August 2010. 6. ‘Lectures on the Science of the Language’ (Vol. 1), by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans, Green, And Company, 1866, p. 225. 7. ‘Four Statements on the Race Question’, UNESCO Publication, 1969 8. ‘WORLD URBANIZATION: THE ROLE OF SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS IN HUMAN SOCIAL EVOLUTION’, by C. K. ChaseDunn, (Available online at: http://www.eolss.net/SampleChapters/C04/E6-94-18.pdf) 9. “Changing Perspectives of the Indus Civilization: New Discoveries and Challenges!”, by JONATHAN MARK KENOYER, Puratatva, Editor-K. N. Dixit, Number 41, 2011, Indian Archeology Society, p. 4 10. ‘A Critique of the Out of Africa Model’, by Michael Maystadt (Illinois State University), (Available online at: http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/anthro_theses/a_critique_ of_the_out_of_africa_model.pdf) 11. ‘Powers and Prospects. Reflections on human nature and the social order’, by Noam Chomsky, Pub.: London: Pluto Press, 1996, p. 30. 12. ' Glottotronics: An inevitable phase of linguistics (Linguistic Science Fiction?' by Jerzy Banszerowski in

‘Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries’ , (Vol. 1), 'Linguistic Theory' , edited by Dieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek,pub.: Mouton de Gruyter, 1986, p. 19 13. History of Ancient Geography, by J. Oliver Thomson, Pub.: Cambridge University Press, 2013, p. 17. 14. ‘The AIT and scholarship', by Nicholas Kazanas, July 2001(Available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/Kazanas.htm) 15. ‘The Geography of Genocide’, by Allan D. Cooper, 2009, pub.: University Press of America, p. 39 16. ‘Linguistics Across Historical and Geographical Boundaries’, by Jerzy Banczerowski , (Vol. 1), edited by Dieter Kastovsky, A. J. Szwedek, Pub: Walter de Gruyter,Berlin, 1986, p. 15. 17. "Natural Language and Natural Selection'’, Pinker, S. & Bloom, P., Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13(4): 707 †http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdo/download? doi=10.1.1.231.4056&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

784, 1990. (Available at:

18.

‘A Middle Palaeolithic human hyoid bone’, Arensburg B, Tillier AM, Vandermeersch B, Duday H, Schepartz LA, Rak Y (April 1989), Nature 338 (6218): p. 758–60.) 19. Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture, edited by J. P. Mallory, Douglas Q. Adams, Pub.: Taylor & Francis, 1997, p. 414-15. 20. . 'Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate' by Koenraad Elst, Aditya Prakashan, 1999.

21.

‘The Rigveda : A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 4 & 5. 22. 'The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The IndoAryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 236 23. ‘Rig-Veda is Pre-Harappan,’ by Nicholas Kazanas, 2006, in Sanskrit Studies (Vol. 2), edited by Wagish Shukla, New Delhi, Pub.: D.K. Printworld, 2007 24. ‘South Asian Archeology and the myth of Indo-Aryan Invasions’, by Jim G. Shaffer and Diane A. Lichtenstein in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and inference in Indian

history’, edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie A. Patton, 2005, Pub.: Routledge, p. 93 25. Quoted by Edwin Bryant in " The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 160. 26. ‘Readings in Classical Chinese Philosophy’, edited by Philip J. Ivanhoe, Bryan W. Van Norden (Second Edition), 2001, p. 331-32. 27. ‘Encyclopedia of Prehistory: Volume 8: South and Southwest Asia, Vol. 8’, edited by Peter N. Peregrine, Melvin Ember, 2002, p. 32. 28. ‘The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How BronzeAge Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World’, by David W. Anthony, Pub.: Princeton University, 2010, p. 437. 29. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC- CLIO, 2008, p. 166. 30. ‘Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters’ by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gryuter; Berlin, 1995, p. 114, including footnote. 31. ‘Early Sources for South Asian Substrate Languages’, by Michael Witzel in ‘MOTHER TONGUE’, Special Issue, Oct. 1999. (Available online at: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~witzel/MT-Substrates.pdf) 32. ‘The Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe: Selected Articles from 1952 to 1993’, by Marija Gimbutas , Edited by Miriam Robbins Dexter and Karlene Jones-Bley, 1997, Pub.: Journal of Indo-European Studies Monograph, p. 309. 33. ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995, p. 12-13. 34. ‘A Short History of the Indo-European Problem’ by J. P.Mallory, Pub.: Journal of Indo-European Studies 1, 1973, p. 21.

35.

‘Evolution and Prehistory: The Human Challenge’, By William Haviland, Dana Walrath, Harald Prins, Bunny McBride, Pub.: Cengage Learning, 2007, p. 192-94. 36. ‘Fossil Discovery Sheds New Light on Evolutionary History of Higher Primates’, by Leigh Kish (Available see online at: http://www.carnegiemnh.org/press/pressrelease.aspx? id=7982) 37. 'Out of Africa' theory of human evolution under fire, by Peter Spinks, dated August 25, 2014, (Available online at: http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/out-of-africatheory-of-human-evolution-under-fire-20140824-106o5e.html) 38. ‘A Critique of the Out of Africa Model (13.11.2007)’, by Michael Maystadt, Illinois State University, (Available online at: http://soa.illinoisstate.edu/downloads/anthro_theses/a_critique_ of_the_out_of_africa_model.pdf) 39. Reported by Steven Strong in an article “DNA Evidence Debunks the “Out-of-Africa” Theory of Human Evolution” published in “Wake Up World”. (Available online at: http://wakeup-world.com/2013/12/16/dna-evidence-debunksthe-out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution/) 40. ‘The Kikkuli Text: Hittite Training Instructions for Chariot Horses in the Second Half of the 2nd Millennium B.C. and Their Interdisciplinary Context’, by Peter RAULWING, December 2009, page 6, (Available online at: http://www.academia.edu/3039204/The_Kikkuli_Text._Hittite_Tr aining_Instructions_for_Chariot_Horses_in_the_Second_Half_ of_the_2nd_Millennium_B.C._and_Their_Interdisciplinary_Cont ext) 41. ‘History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. I, The early period’, by Mary Boyce, Pub.: Brill, 1996, p. 63. 42. ‘Rig-Veda-Sanhita: A Collection of Ancient Hindu Hymns’ by H. H. Vilson, second edition, Pub.: N. Trubner and Co., 1866, p. 142-43. 43. ‘Letters from the Hittite Kingdom’, by Harry A. Hoffner, Pub.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. 44. ‘Letters of the Great Kings of the Ancient Near East: The Royal Correspondence of the Late Bronze Age’, By Trevor

Bryce, Paperback, Pub.: Routledge, 2014. 45. ‘The Roman Cult of Mithras: The God and His Mysteries’, By Manfred Clauss, Trans. by Richard Gordon, Pub.: Routledge, 2001. 46. ‘In Search Of Zarathustra: The Prophet and the Ideas that Changed the World’, by Paul Kriwaczek, Pub.: Hachette, 2011. 47. ‘The Rulling Races of prehistoric times in India’, by James Francis Katherinus Hewitt , 1894, Pub.: A. Constable, p. 362. 48. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav Publications, 1977. 49. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Educational Services, Reprint 1989, p. 32-34, ) 50. ‘The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How BronzeAge Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the modern world’, by David W. Anthony, Pub.: Princeton University Press, 2007, p. 34 and 59-77) 51. ‘The Spartans: An Epic History’, by Paul Cartledge, 2003, Pub.: Overlook Press, New York, p. 45. 52. ‘The Aryans: A Study of Indo-European Origins’, V Gordon Childe, 1926, page 45. 53. Ibid, page 63. 54. “MYCENAEAN AGE (1600 - 1100 BC)” (More available at: http://www.ancientgreece.com/s/Mycenaean/) 55. ‘Greek Inscriptions’, by B. F. Cook, Pub.: University of California Press, 1987, p. 9. 56. ‘The Imperial Dictionary of the English Language : A Complete Encyclopedic Lexicon, Literary, Scientific, and Technological’, (Vol. 2), by John Ogilvie, Edited by Charles Annandale, Pub.: Blackie & Son - The University of Michigan, 1883, p. 116. 57. ‘Myth of the 20th Century : An Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual Confrontations of Our Age’, by Alfred Rosenberg, Pub.: Invictus Books, reprint 2001.

58.

‘Medieval Experience: 300-1400”, by Jill N. Claster, Pub.: New York University Press, 1982 59. ‘Caesar’s Commentaries on the Gallic war’, by Julius Caesar, Charles Anthon, Pub.: Harper & Brothers, 1862. 60. ‘The Cambridge Planetary Handbook’, by Michael E. Bakich, Pub.: Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 85. 61. ‘Prehistoric Europe: Theory and Practice’, edited by Andrew Jones, Pub.: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2008. 62. ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1995, p. 23. 63. ‘ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS: The requirements and patterns to development’, edited by Robert Guisepi, International World History Project, Available online at: http://history-world.org/ancient_civilization.htm) 64. ‘Zoroaster’s Time and Homeland: A Study on the Origins of Mazdaism and Related Problems’, by Gherardo Gnoly, Istituto Universitario Orientale. Seminario di studi Asiatici, Series Minor, VII, Naples, 1980.

Notes A. Max Muller had stated, “ To me, an ethnologist who speaks of Aryan race, Aryan blood, Aryan eyes and hair, is as great a sinner as a linguist who speaks of a dolichocephalic dictionary or a brachycephalic grammar …If I say Aryans, I mean neither blood, nor bones , nor hair, nor skull. I mean those who speak an Aryan language.” (‘Biographies of Words and the Home of the Aryas’, by F. Max Muller, Pub.: Kessinger Publishing, 1888, reprint 2004, p. 120.) B. French diplomat and writer, Compte Arthur Joseph de Gobineau seized the racial aspect of the term in 1850. He wrote down a book, ‘The inequality of Human Races’ to prove that only white race was one with creative ability. Very soon, by European scholars of different countries began the attempts to identify whether the Aryans were Nordics, Alpines, Caucasoid or Teutonic, to claim the Aryan inheritance. The concept soon reached America, where it was popularized by Madison Grant through his book, ‘The Passing of the Great Race’ in 1916. However, the Nordic Aryan myth had already been debunked by William Z. Ripley in his ‘The Races of Europe’ in 1899. In India, Lokmanya B. G. Tilak wrote ‘Arctic Home in the Vedas’ in 1898, which was published later in 1903. He claimed that the Aryans home was at North Pole during the pre-glacial period. The theory took many turns, giving rise to the rival aboriginal theories causing socio-cultural divide on racial basis in India and other countries as well. Presently Indian Videcist scholars are claiming India to be the homeland of the Vedic Aryans. If we go through all the theories pertaining to this issue, it will appear that whether Europeans or Vedic Indians, the supremacist notions are stronger forces behind the facades of this so-called Indo-European scholarship.

C. K Kennedy (1984) had an opportunity to examine about 300 skeletons that had been retrieved from Indus Valley Civilisation. He found that the ancient Harappans “are not markedly different in their skeletal biology from present-day inhabitants of Northwestern India and Pakistan.” There have been no detectable traces of any intruding foreign elements in IGC, either culturally or genetically. It alone defeats the motives of the propagators of migration theories. (See ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, By Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 230) D. “At the end of the Old Kingdom, the walls of the inner chambers and corridors of ancient Egyptian pyramids were inscribed with a series of ritual and magical spells, known to

modern scholarship as Pyramid Texts. These inscriptions constitute the oldest body of Egyptian religious writings; usually literary in form and language, they are also the oldest representatives of oldest Egyptian literature.” (‘The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts’, by James P. Allen, Pub.: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007, p. 1) E. According to Talageri, it is evidenced from the Rig Veda that the Aryans moved from east to west, from Haryana towards Iran and Europe. He cites self-defined chronology of the River names appearing in various Mandala’s of early to late part of the Rig Veda and implies that the changing graph of the river names shows that the Aryan movement from East to West began after the time of King Sudasa. Talageri states in his book, “Rig Veda” A Historical Analysis,” (2000), “In the Early period, right from pre-Rig Vedic times to the time of SudAs, the Vedic Aryans were settled in the area to the east of the Punjab: MaNDala VI knows of no river to the west of the SarasvatI.” (See chapter 4, titled as “The Geography of the Rig Veda”). F. Lincoln in this regards observes, “The Andronovo people remained well behind the civilizations that flourished at that time both in East and West. These were the days when the Egyptians built the first pyramids and when Babylonia’s king Hammurabi wrote his famed code of laws. The third dynasty of Ur had already passed into history by the time the Andronovo people appeared on history’s stage.” (‘The Conquest of a Continent: Siberia and the Russians’, by W. Bruce Lincoln, Pub.: Cornel University Press, 2007, p. 49) G. A note of caution here is that various theories propose different geographical homelands and have been adjusting timelines of migration dates so often to suite their modified versions. I have assumed generally accepted dates for proposed migrations. The homeland quest demands geographically single location from where the so-called Aryan languages and culture spread. Kennedy takes stock of all the theories and opines that, 1) specific Indian prehistoric cultures

and their geographical regions are not identifiable as Aryan and 2) The human skeletal remains discovered from burial deposits are not distinctive than non-Aryan skeletal series. This would indicate that in fact there could not have been a race or ethnic group, which is assumed to be Aryan or Proto-Indo-European that became instrumental to spread certain language that was superior over others. Kennedy finally raises a serious question, “How could one recognize an Aryan, living or dead, when the biological criteria Aryanness are non-existent?” (See: ‘Have Aryans been identified in the prehistoric skeletal record from South Asia?’ by Kenneth A. & R. Kennedy in ‘The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, edited by George Erdosy, 1995, p. 39-61. H. Although Lal’s approach in ‘Can the Vedic people be identified archaeologically? An approach’ is Indocentric and he has been controversial many a times for twisting the facts, the find, if genuine, only proves that the spoke-wheels were not unknown to the Indus people. It does not mean at all that the authors of IGC were Vedic Aryans, but adaptations from others or independent innovations in the technologies were quite common in ancient world. (‘Can the Vedic people be identified archaeologically? An approach’, by B. B. Lal, p. 193. Available online at: http://www.indologica.com/volumes/vol31/07_Lal.pdf I. Prof. Roth, Whitney and M. Darmesteter strongly identify Asura Varuna with Ahuramazda. Many also identify Varuna with Varena of Vendidad. Varena is the fourteenth good land created by Ahura Mazda. As per the scholars this shows the common faith in the early Vedic and Avestan times. (Ref: Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, Or Philosophical Society of Great Britain, Volume 13 (Google eBook) Victoria Institute, 1880. P. 289-90) However, here we clearly see that the forced attempts to identify Asura Varuna of Rig Veda with Ahur Mazda or a region named Varena may not be at all correct. Mazda is often equated with Vedic “medha”, intellect. Still that would only mean that the “medha” was pronounced as “mazda” in Avestan language, but “medha” is no deity of any significance in Rig Veda.

J. Alfred Rosenberg (1893–1946) was an early and intellectually influential member of the Nazi Party. Born in what was then Russia (now part of Estonia) of Baltic Germans, his family fled the Russian Revolution during which time he became strongly anti-Semitic because of the preponderant Jewish role in that uprising and resultant Red Terror. He was appointed editor of the Nazi Party’s newspaper in 1923, and was elected to the Reichstag in 1930 and in 1933 was appointed head of the Nazi Party's foreign political office. Following the invasion of the USSR, Rosenberg was appointed head of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, a position he held until his arrest in 1945 by the Allies. He was executed in 1945. (Text from paperback edition, see: ‘Myth of the 20th Century : An Evaluation of the Spiritual-Intellectual Confrontations of Our Age’, by Alfred Rosenberg, Pub.: Invictus Books, reprint 2001.)

2. Saraswati and Ghaggar issue! Of late, the Ghaggar-Hakra river has become a centre of prime attraction and fascination for many reasons. With emboldened enthuasism, some Indian as well European scholars are vehemently identifying the Ghaggar river with the lost river Saraswati of Rig Veda. Rather, they have started calling the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation as ‘Indus-Saraswati Civilisation.’ Saraswati river could have been lost to some, but the Ghaggar was never. The Ghaggar has been a small and ordinary river that became seasonal from about 1750 BC onwards as monsoons weakened. After 1970, however, satellite images started indicating that the Ghaggar was a large river in the remote past. A hypothesis was put forth that because of the tectonic shifts, its tributaries changed their channels thus limiting its water flow. This finding and hypothesis naturally boosted the moral of Vedic scholars and they started claiming that the Ghaggar was the ancient lost river Saraswati. They thought they had solved the riddle of Indus culture by assigning it to the Vedic people as founders! In fact, the attempts to equate the Ghaggar with the Saraswati had begun in 1874. CF Oldham was the first one to correlate the textual descriptions of the Saraswati with palaeology of the Ghaggar-Hakra. Later, Sir Aurel Stein who had explored the Ghaggar-Hakra basin on his archaeological mission of 1940-41 joined in and identified the Ghaggar-Hakra with the Saraswati. 1 However, as streams of satellite images that showed dry beds and palaeo-channels of the rivers started pouring in from the LANDSAT satellite during 1972-79, the claims were staked more strongly. Ashoke Mukherjee had stated, “….But an interested circle, among whom there are some professional scientists and historians, has seized upon some of these satellite images and lodged a claim in public as well as professional forums that the lost channel of the Saraswati river has been discovered. This, they further claimed,

proved that the Vedic narratives are not mere mythologies, but refer to real and historical entities.” 2 A Actually, this identification was not new. Though it is a seasonal river, the Ghaggar, till date, flows, though the lower part, known as Hakkra, which runs in present Pakistan where it dries up completely in the deserts. Nevertheless, the claim that the lost Saraswati has ultimately been found was kept pushing forth in public domain with ulterior motives and renewed enthusiasm.B This claim and finds of large-scale Indus sites led to the vigorous research by teams of eminent geologists of the world wanting to find out the provenance of the ancient river system in the riverbed of the Ghaggar and the palaeo-channels. Instead of venturing into much technical jargon, let us understand what the latest findings are and ascertain whether they can be linked with the Vedic Saraswati river. First of all, we must keep it in the mind that the Saraswati is described in the Rig Veda as a river that is fierce (RV 6:62:7), swifter than others, roaring, and bursting the edges of the hills with its strong waves (all in RV 6:61), flowing from threefold sources in the mountains to the ‘samudra’ (7:95), passing through many kingdoms (RV 8:21:18). Keeping in view this Rig Vedic description of the Saraswati river, now let us have a look at the findings and observations made by the Japanese team that worked for almost five years conducting large scale investigations in the basin of the Ghaggar and adjoining rivers. These findings and observations have been presented in a paper in 2013 by geologists Hideaki Maemoku et al. as follows: 1. The width of the Ghaggar floodplain is much smaller than that of other glacial fed rivers like Indus and its tributaries. 2. Most of the sand dunes accompanying the Choutang and the Ghaggar on either side of the floodplain are as old as 10,000 to 15,000 years. They did exist during the mature Harappan period and continue to grow till present.

3. The results are supported by the habitation layers on the sand dunes dating back to the mature Harappan period and by the Harappan sites occurring in its present floodplain. 4. The Ghaggar did not experience drastic changes in water discharge during the Harappan period. 5. The Ghaggar was not glacial fed river anytime. 6. The mythical Saraswati did not exist in the Ghaggar basin as a glacial-fed large river, such as the Indus and its tributaries, as described in the Vedas, at least during the mature Harappan period. 3 These are the latest findings of the Japanese team. However, many scholars, intentionally or by sheer misunderstanding on their part, have leapt to the conclusion that if the riverbed of the Ghaggar was as wide as 8 kilometres at some places, it must have been a mighty river in the past. The fact is that the width corresponds to the floodplain and not to the riverbed as much touted by the Vedicist scholars. The floodplain width of Himalayan fed rivers ranges from 10 to 20 kilometres whereas Ghaggar’s average floodplain is only 5 kilometres wide. Its maximum floodplain width has been documented to be to the extent of 8 kilometres at some places in Rajasthan. It is agreed by Sridhar et al. (1999) that ephemeral rivers often have wider floodplains because of the shallow riverbed.4 The satellite imagery had shown the width of floodplains and not the riverbeds. Actual fieldwork exposes the difference between riverbed and floodplain of the Ghaggar river. The Ghaggar experienced severe floods in past, as recent as in 1988, 1993, 1995, 2010 and 2013. Except for the summer showers, normally, Ghaggar is a dry river just like other monsoon fed rivers. Many small Archaeological sites have been found in the floodplain of the Ghaggar. It means the Harappan people never suffered from the devastating floods ever since they settled there, state Giosan et al. 5 Had the river suffered frequent devastating floods during the Harappan period, there would not have been any human settlements

in the floodplain. Occurrence of the floods might have been a phenomena witnessed once in several decades. Moreover, this also indicates that the Ghaggar river almost flowed in the same order as it does today, though it was perennial river during the Harappan times because of the wet phase of the monsoon. Giosan et al. further state that, “This widespread fluvial redistribution of sediment suggests that reliable monsoon rains were able to sustain perennial rivers earlier during the Holocene (10,000 BC and later) and explains why the Harappan settlements flourished along the entire Ghaggar-Hakra system without an access to a glacier-fed river.” Giosan et al. states affirmatively, “…Contrary to earlier assumptions that a large glacier-fed Himalayan river identified by some with the mythical Saraswati watered the Harappan heartland on the interfluves between the Indus and Ganges basins, we show that only monsoonal-fed rivers were active there during the Holocene. As the monsoon weakened, monsoonal rivers gradually dried or became seasonal, affecting habitability along their courses. Hydroclimatic stress increased the vulnerability of agricultural production supporting the Harappan urbanism, leading to settlement downsizing, diversification of crops, and a drastic increase in settlements in the moister monsoon regions of the upper Punjab, Haryana, and Uttar Pradesh.” 6 From abovementioned facts, it is clear that the Ghaggar was not the Himalayan snow-fed river. The monsoons were stronger in Harappan period, which sustained the flow of river round the year. However, because of the climatic changes, the monsoon precipitation started reducing during the late Harappan period. The chronology of the climatic changes in north-west India has been recorded in following order: 6,200 BC – 4,000 BC: Wet Phase 4,100 BC – 3,800 BC: Dry Phase 3,800 BC – 2,200 BC: Wet Phase

2,200 BC - till date: Wet Phase begins to decline. 7 From this data, it can be surmised that the dry and wet phases have occurred in the Northwestern region alternatively after almost every thousand or more years. Of course, it does not mean that the wet phase remained wetter throughout or dry phase remained drier throughout. The rise or drop in the average rainfall must have influenced the human settlements in the region. However, the studies suggest that the decline of the Harappa civilisation was a gradual process and that it did not occur suddenly due to drastic natural or social events. This gradual decline resulted in disintegration of trade network connected with different regions of Indus society, thus affecting the economy as well.8 The economic patterns do change accordingly to sustain populations. It also includes change in production patterns and lifestyle. One cannot expect to continue the same pattern over a long period. The scholars’ argument that the emergence of Painted Grey-Ware culture (1,200 or 1,400 BC) occurred after decline of IGC which took around 1,700 BC and did not impact with the IGC in any manner does not mean that the people who were its makers changed but merely shows that the patterns had changed. Ascribing Painted Grey Ware (PGW) Culture to the intruders is also a bold inference derived from the archaeological findings of this period. We will see in next chapters that PGW culture did not show any discontinuity from earlier pottery making patterns but a gradual replacement of the earlier technology. Apart from the climate, there might have been other reasons for decline in trade such as recession in the domestic Indus and foreign markets because o​f political or climatic reasons. The world history is witness of such phases of rise and decline occurring periodically in every flourishing civilisation. McIntosh asserts that the patterns of sea trade through the Gulf altered as Mesopotamia experienced political and economic upheavals from around 2,000 BCE, causing a major retraction in its trade. 9

However, from archaeological evidence, it appears that around 1,700 BC, the Harappan settlements gradually started to decline and had to be abandoned later on because the climatic changes made the agriculture unsustainable. However, the people did not desert the IGC regions but just changed their settlement patterns. Regional cultures started occurring after the decline of urbanised culture, the manufacturing patterns did change, trade routes did change and so some of the practices related with the trade too did change. However influence of Indus-Ghaggar remained in varying degree. Jane McIntosh, about climate change, asserts that, “The late third millennium BCE saw a global increase in aridity that had a serious impact on the civilisations of Egypt and Mesopotamia and on the Hrappans’ neighbors in Seistan. The effect in the Indus region was to decrease the reliability of the summer monsoons, and, paradoxically, to increase winter rainfall, neither of which had a serious impact on Harappan agriculture, although it may have encouraged diversification.” 10 The global climatic change thus seems to have affected to some or more extent the global civilisations. The demand patterns of the era of stability do not stand the same when the adverse conditions do occur. People try to adjust with the changed socio-economical environments but do not desert the homeland. During the mature Harappan era, though the Ghaggar was a stable river, it was never a large river as interpreted by some scholars from the width of her floodplain. Since the riverbed of the Ghaggar was shallow and still remains so, the question of it being Saraswati described as a mighty river bursting with her strong waves in Rig Veda does not arise. Such was the importance of Rig Veda Saraswati for Vedic seers that they deified her. It was the most prominent river for them and was considered as ‘Ambitame’ (Dearest Mother) by them. Many praiseworthy sacrifices took place on her bank and she sustained the Rig Vedic clan with her abundant blessings. Rather, we can infer the culture of Rig Veda to be Saraswati centric.

However, the Ghaggar river nowhere matches the Rig Vedic descriptions on geological grounds. The empirical proofs stand opposite to the Vedicist scholars notions that the Ghaggar was a perennial river when Yamuna and Satlej were feeding into it, thus making the Ghaggar a mighty river. Most of the times Vedicist scholars attribute change in the course of the Yamuna and Satlej rivers to the tectonic shifts. The Yamuna, as it appears from the LANDSAT images, have changed her course thrice in the past. However, no tectonic shift has been geologically recorded in all explorations in the Ghaggar-Yamuna basins to cause any change in the channels. However, Bryant remarks based on findings of Francfort of the French expedition in regards with assumed “immense perennial river Saraswati”, states that, “The team included a strong geoarchaeological element that concluded that the actual large paleo courses of the river have been dry since the early Holocene period or even earlier (Francfort 1985, 260). Ironically, the findings of the French team have served to reinforce the “mythico-religious tradition of Vedic origins.” Rajaram's reaction (1995) to the team's much earlier date assigned to the perennial river is that “this can only mean that the great Sarasvati that flowed ‘from the mountain to the sea’ must belong to a much earlier epoch, to a date well before 3000 bce”. 11 From this, we can easily understand the sentiments of the hardcore Vedicists those twist any proof to make their claim strong over indigenous Aryan scenario. Let us not forget here that Holocene period started by 11500 to 12000 years ago. Francfort has indicated, since early Holocene or even earlier, the Ghaggar have been comparatively a lesser river, not mighty as Rig Veda indicates. Still let us see whether or not Yamuna and Satlej ever fed into Ghaggar.

Did Yamuna and Satlej ever change their course? It is widely assumed by the Indian scholars that during the Harappan Phase, Yamuna and Satlej used to be tributaries of the Ghaggar river. It is said that the Yamuna and Satlej added ample water in the Ghaggar channel and made it a mighty river. This assumption has been derived from the satellite images that show the palaeochannels of both the rivers. However, the satellite images do not define the minute topography and geological age of the river channels. Did Satlej and Yamuna ever flow in the channel of the Ghaggar? We need to consider opinions of various scholars in this regard. According to ‘Current Science’ report (2004) contributed by Indian and German scientists, “...the Saraswati did not carry glacier waters. The Ghaggar-Hakra area does not show mineral deposit of Himalayan glaciers, and thus it could not be a big, perennial, glacier fed river, but, rather, a smaller, seasonal, monsoon fed one. Based on sediment geochemistry and composition and geomorphologic and palaeoclimatic constraints that the Ghaggar-Hakra river was likely always Siwalik fed.” Further, the report adds, “The suggestion of glacial sources and the Yamuna and Satluj rivers draining to the river Saraswati through Ghaggar before they were pirated by the Ganga and Indus respectively, are not supported by our isotopic data. If these hypotheses were correct, we would expect to find sediments derived from the Higher Himalayas in the Thar. Our data also do not support the idea that there was a change in the source area for the Ghaggar from a glaciated region to rainfall region.” 12 The report emphatically states that the Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the Ghaggar, even in the remote past is a myth nourished by scholars neglecting the vital proof. According to the same report, the waning of the Ghaggar was only because of the declining of the rains, which was a gradual process, and not because of the capture of its tributaries by the other rivers or any tectonic events.

This means Satlej and Yamuna were never tributaries of Ghaggar, or at the least they were not feeding Ghaggar during the Harappan times, if taken into the considerations the other reports. Satlej and Yamuna are glacial fed rivers. Had they been feeding the Ghaggar in the past, the glacial mineral traces would have been detected in the sediments of the Ghaggar channel, but that is not the case according to the above-mentioned report. Rather, mighty rivers such as Satlej and Yamuna feeding a moderately small river even in the remote, pre-Harappan, past is a ridiculous idea. In a research paper, published in “Geology”, Peter D Clift et al states, “…although loss of the Yamuna from the Indus is likely to have occurred as early as 49 ka and no later than 10 ka. Capture of the Yamuna to the east and the Sutlej to the north rerouted water away from the area of the Harappan centers, but this change significantly predated their final collapse…... Throughout the Holocene, including the Harappan period this river was fed only by seasonal monsoon rain in the east. This rain-fed Ghaggar-Hakra was active until after 4.5 ka and was then covered by dunes before 1.4 ka. What this means is that the Ghaggar-Hakra, unlike any of the major Indus tributaries, was not fed by snow melt, which begins in Spring and may be unpredictable, but was entirely reliant on swelling its banks from the summer monsoon.” 13 According to Sanjeev Gupta (Imperial College London), the river sediments ceased in the tract of the palaeo channel after 14,000 BCE, long before the Indus civilisation era had began. He reached this conclusion after his team did extensive drilling in the 30-40 m thick sand body in the subsurface beneath a tract of the GhaggarHakra palaeochannel adjacent to the Indus city of Kalibangan.14 The Project Palaeo-Environmental Research Group -- FB conducted field research and analysis of satellite imagery to identify the former course of the Ghaggar river and determined the causes and the dates of its avulsion. Contrary to its description in the Rig Veda text, field evidence demonstrates that the Ghaggar was not a large river, but a small one capable of providing water for agriculture only during the monsoon season.15

Sedimentary Geologist Suvrat Kher, referring to the research of Clift and his colleagues, states on his blog that the Yamuna and Satlej stopped feeding the Ghaggar long before 50,000 and 10,000 years respectively. While doing in-depth analysis of the critical issue, he clearly states that, “…I have stressed that this attempt to link a hypothesis of a mighty Saraswati to the presence of Aryans is misguided and the one that has caused harm to the public understanding of the topic and to what constitutes good science. Many geologists and archaeologists accepted the validity of a glacial Saraswati without critically weighing the evidence. Taking their cue, in web forums and books, supporters of a glacial Sarasvati have popularised the hypothesis of a late river avulsion and often presented it as irrefutable evidence favoring the indigenous Aryan theory.” 16 This statement speaks for itself. The research paper published in “The current Science” which was mentioned earlier, also concludes that, ‘If the snowline did not drop to the Sub-Himalayan ranges even during glaciations and the glaciers continuously occurred only in the HHC, a higher rainfall for the huge erosion of Sub-Himalayan lithologies and to sustain the rivers was essential. Our isotope data provide a scientific basis for the absence of a glacial-fed, perennial Himalayan river in the Harappan domain, i.e. the River Ghaggar is not the Saraswati as far as its origin in the glaciated Himalayas is concerned.” 17 (Emphasis mine.) From the abovementioned facts, we can conclude the following: 1. The Ghaggar is not the mythical river Saraswati. 2. The possibility of the mighty Satlej and Yamuna being the tributaries of the comparatively minor monsoon-fed rivers is unlikely. 3. Even if considered, though unlikely, that the Satlej and Yamuna were flowing through the Ghaggar Channel before they changed their course, it was quite long before when even the early phase of the Harappa culture had began. 4. The decline of the Harappan culture was gradual for several centuries due to the climatic changes and was not a sudden

event as thought by some scholars. 5. At the least, equating the Ghaggar with Saraswati cannot become the basis of indigenous Aryan theory. It appears that the problem with some was also to find anyhow the location of the Vedic people in the vicinity of IGC sites to stake the big claim that they were authors of the magnificent civilisation. Scholars like Kazanas seriously try to place the date of the Rig Veda in third millennium BC to coincide with the previously supposed date of Yamuna and Satlej changing their course, but the hypothesis is ridiculous in the light of the geological findings. 18 C For the time being, let us leave aside the geological proofs, which clearly indicates that the Ghaggar could never have been Rig Vedic Saraswati, and consider different other points of view as to why the Ghaggar could not have been Saraswati. In addition, we have already discussed that the Ghaggar river never was a lost river, like Saraswati. It always flowed, though seasonably, in summer showers, though its water discharge had reduced considerably because of the weak monsoons. Desertion of the Harappan sites was a gradual process that might have continued intermittently over hundreds of years. No foreign aggression or sudden natural or social calamity in the vicinity has been recorded. Still there are other socio-cultural evidences as well which misfits the Ghaggar as a candidate for being the lost Saraswati.

Other aspects We have seen that the Rig Vedic description of the Sarasvati river also goes contrary to the identification of Ghaggar as Saraswati. The Vedic scholarship obviously neglected vital socio-cultural factors associated with their blatant claim as well. They did not pay any heed to or misinterpreted the scientific explorations conducted at the Ghaggar system and their results. They even neglected Vedic descriptions of Saraswati. Even if the changes that occurred in the channels of the ancient rivers like Satalej and Yamuna are considered, they neglected the fact that the Vedic Saraswati does not fit into the picture for the reasons discussed earlier. Moreover, the Sarasvati was a far prominent river of the Rig Veda over even the majestic rivers like Satlej and Yamuna. Rajesh Kochhar observes, “In the region of the Rig Vedic Sarasvati, there are other companion rivers which flow to the sea independently. The Ghaggar region does not fulfill this condition either. Rivers to its East join the Ganga while those to the West join the Indus.” 19 Rig Vedic Saraswati feeds Samudra (ocean or lake), however Ghaggar doesn’t! (RV 7.95.1-2) It is often claimed that in Nadistuti (Ode to rivers) hymn (RV 10.75), Saraswati is placed between Yamuna and Shutudri (Satlej) and only the Ghaggar meets that geographical order. Let us not forget here that almost 19 rivers enumerated in this particular hymn mostly include the rivers of Afghanistan as well. The related verses of the hymn read as bellow“O Ganga, Yamuna, Sarasvati, Shutudri (Sutlej), Parushni (Iravati, Ravi), follow my praise! O Asikni (Chenab) Marudvridha, Vitasta (Jhelum), with the Arjikiya (Haro) and Sushoma (Sohan), listen! “First united with the Trishtama in order to flow, with the Susartu and Rasa, and with this Svetya (you flow), O Sindhu (Indus) with the Kubha (Kabul R.) to the Gomati (Gomal), with the Mehatnu to the Krumu (Kurram), with whom you rush together on the same chariot.”

Nadistuti Hymn has been much discussed and relied upon by Indologists and yet there have been most conflicting opinions over it. Firstly, the scholars are unanimous on 10th Mandala being the last and youngest part of Rig Veda, mostly assuming that this Mandala has been composed when Indo-Aryans had settled near river Ganga. The first and only conclusive mention of river Ganga appears to be in this hymn. Moreover, most importantly, though the rivers mentioned in it are thought to be enumerated from East to West, there are some rivers whose identities are yet not clear. Of the identifiable rivers, Kubha (Kabul), Gomati (Gomal) and Krumu (Kurram) are not arranged in their geographical order. If the purpose of the composer of this Hymn was anyway to suggest geographical chronology of the rivers, the right order would have been, Gomal, Kubha and Kurram or vice versa and not as has been mentioned in the Hymn. Arjikiya, Sushoma, Trishtama and Svetya (Suvastu), too, are mentioned in wrong geographical order in the Hymn. Rather there almost the consensus is the river Rasa (Avestan Ranha) is Tigris of east Mesopotamia. It would become far off river if this hymn is considered to be enumerating rivers east to west. The serious anomaly in the hymn is if Asikni is identified with Chenab and Vitasta with Jhelum, there is a river enumerated between them is Marudvridha. However, there simply is no river between the two. There not an iota of any geological evidence that any lost river ever flowed between these two rivers! Based on this hymn and supposed chronological identifications of the rivers, the hypothesis was forwarded that the migrating Aryans had advanced and settled in the Gangetic planes when this hymn was composed. But there is a serious problem because there is not a single proof to indicate that the rivers like Vitasta, Parushni, Asikni are present Jhelum, Ravi and Chenab respectively! D No matter in what a corrupt form these rivers are known today, but certainly are not corruptions of Rig Vedic names. Ravi is corrupt form of its original name Iravati. Chenab is formed after its original name Chandrabhaga. Since we have ruled out any possibility of invasion or migration to India, and most of the identifiable rivers are of

Afghanistan origin, even if in corrupt forms, still are identifiable. However, Indian rivers changing their names to such a drastic proposition, including Sarswati to the Ghaggar, is quite improbable. Since Vedics claim the river Saraswati being cradle of Vedic civilisation, having so much so reverence for her, change in her name to Ghaggar after supposed dominance of Vedic civilisation in the north is simply unbelievable. E Of Ganga and Yamuna, either can be said that only these two rivers were known as easternmost rivers to the Rig Vedic tribes or these rivers could be any of western tributaries of Indus or Helmand river. Even if both the suggestions are dismissed, alternative answer would be that some Indian rivers were incorporated in the hymn when Vedic religion was being introduced to Indian populace by its faithful preachers those found refuge in the north Indian lands. However, let us not forget that the purpose of the Hymn is primarily to praise the rivers, not to record geography. Besides, some of the identifiable rivers mentioned in it are not direct tributaries of the Indus River. Many of them such as Ravi, Jhelum and Chenab and also Beas to Satlej confluence long before they feed into the Indus river. In indicates that the known rivers have been placed suitably in a poetic meter and not in geographical order in the Hymn, though some of the rivers may appear to be so, identity of many rivers still remains ambiguous. Moreover, the Rig Vedic descriptions of the river Saraswati as fierce (RV 6:62:7), swifter than others, roaring, and bursting the edges of the hills with its strong waves (all in RV 6:61), flowing from a threefold source in the mountains to the ‘samudra’ (RV 7:95) past many kingdoms (RV 8:21:18) nowhere matches the Ghaggar river. Ghaggar does not descent from the high Himalayan Mountains nor was it ever a mighty river. We have seen the geological evidences, which clearly show that the Ghaggar river was a monsoon fed river even during mature Harappan phase. It was not a noteworthy river such as the glacier fed rivers like Satlej and Yamuna. The Yamuna had become tributary of the Ganges 50,000 years ago due to shift in the river channel. The

Satlej, too, had followed the suite about 10,000 years ago to become a tributary of the Indus, thus making the Ghaggar a monsoon fed river. Recent geological reports based on the scientific surveys, using modern technologies and analytical systems, of the sediments of the Ghaggar river, directly indicate that the Yamuna and Satlej were never ever the tributaries of the Ghaggar. Neglecting these empirical proofs and using Nadistuti hymn as a basis of determining provenance of a river cannot be considered a scientific approach. Nadistuti hymn thus becomes unreliable, not only to support any migration or Ghaggar ever being Rig Vedic Saraswati. Besides, there are other problems in equating the Ghaggar with Saraswati, which cannot be overlooked. It is widely assumed by the Vedicist scholars that the Ghaggar is Saraswati, on whose bank most of the Rig Vedic corpus was composed. If the claim considered to be true, following major anomalies do arise. 1. It is a well-established fact that there are close similarities between Zoroastrian and Vedic religion and rituals. The languages of the Vedas and the Avesta have striking similarities. Many proper names and deity names are common, borrowed or exchanged but conveniently changing their characters. Ahura/Asura, Mithra/Mitra, Indara/Indra, Magvan/Maghavan, Anahita/Anahita are a few examples of their numerous exchanges or borrowings from the traditional religions of the past. We find these Gods/Demons in both the religion with new characters with prominent or minor statuses. Ahura (Sk Asura) is Lord in the Avesta whereas it turns to be demon in Rig Vedic compositions of later times. In the beginning of the Rig Veda, the term ‘Asura’ denotes same meaning as ‘Ahura’, which means ‘Lord’. We find in the Rig Veda ‘Asura’ word appearing at more than 90 occasions as a synonym to God, and mostly as an epithet of Vedic supreme God Varuna along with Mitra, Adityas etc. In later times, ‘Asura’ became a synonym of demon in the Vedic literature whereas Zoroastrians retained the original meaning throughout. 2. This means at some point of the time, Zoroastrian and Vedic people shared almost similar faith. The drastic shift in the

meaning, from Lord to Demon, can be attributed to the religious conflict between the two religions, as evidenced from some wars mentioned in the Rig Veda. Most importantly, this could not have happened unless both the religious groups were geographically close to each other. (see Chapter 4) 3. It is clear from the Avesta (Zamyad Yast) that its geography was the northeast Afghanistan, approximately in the Bactria region.20 The oldest name mentioned of this river in the Avesta is Haraxvaiti, a cognate to Sanskrit Saraswati. (Sanskrit S changes to H in Avestan language.) The meaning of Saraswati or Haraxvaiti in both the languages is ‘Full of ponds’. Vedic Saraswati empties its stores in ‘Saraswan’ sea. (RV 7.96) Saraswan means a larger lake. Helmand river, too, feeds into the Lake Hamaun. As letter S turns to Avestan H, Lake Hamaun would become Lake Samaun, close to the Sanskrit Saraswan or Samudra. 4. If we look at the map, the distance between the Helmand and the Ghaggar region is not less than 800 miles. However, this fact does not help us explain the similarities between the Vedic and Zoroastrian faiths and their languages. We cannot assume that either the Zoroastrians or Vedic people migrated from one place to other to cause religious and linguistic impact on the other people. With linguistic similarities and dissimilarities between both the languages and religious concepts of both the religions, it is not possible to assume any migration theory. 5. In the Rig Veda, Zarathushtra finds his mention as ‘Jarutha’. The Zoroastrian scriptures and Greek records attest his death as described in the Rig Veda as well (RV 7.1.7). Though some scholars hesitate to connect Jarutha with Zarathustra, they at the least agree that this is clearly Iranian name. Not only this, we find mention of Avestan king ‘Vistaspa’ as ‘Istasva’, Arjaspa as Rjrasva in Rig Veda. Apart from this, many Avestan historical characters appear in Rig Veda. To know Avestan Kings and Zarathushtra (Jarutha) himself, it was essential that the Vedic people were inhabited in the close proximity of Avestan geography. (See chapter 5)

6. It is almost agreed by the scholars that bulk of the Rig Veda has been composed in the close vicinity or on the banks of the Saraswati river. It is not any kind of mythical cosmic river as some people might want to think. It is not coincidence that the river named Haraxvaiti flows through southern Afghanistan and is mentioned in both the religious scriptures with utmost reverence. Most of the rivers repeatedly mentioned in the Rig Veda such as Gomati, Kurram, Kubha, Suvastu, Sushoma etc are Afghan rivers located in the vicinity of the Haraxvaiti. River Rasa is identified with the Tigris river of east Mesopotamia. 7. If we agree that the Ghaggar-Hakra is the Rig Vedic Saraswati, then the question arises how to eliminate the problem of geographical location. About 800 to 1,000 miles distance could not have allowed any such intimate exchange of religious or linguistic concepts in ancient times. Another point to be considered is that no Vedic element is present in any of the site those are excavated in the Ghaggar basin or elsewhere. Besides, presuming the Ghaggar is the lost Saraswati still does not make it clear as to which tribes were inhabited between that vast tract and what was their culture and language. Moreover, most of the tribes, such as Parthians, Persians, Baluchis, Pakhtuns etc. mentioned in the Rig Veda are located in the regions of North-Western part of the Indian subcontinent and Iran-Afghanistan. The Rig Vedic people cannot be located elsewhere rather than somewhere between them in the same region. 8. Had the Ghaggar been Saraswati, it would have fallen in the domain of the Kuru kingdom where the Great War of Mahabharata took place. Interestingly, the Mahabharata does not at all mention Sudasa or battle of ten kings in which Purus were defeated. The supposed Bharata clan of Sudasa and Bharata (Son of Dushyanta) of Kuru lineage were two distinct families/persons. The Rig Veda nowhere mentions famous Kurukshetra through which the Saraswati is supposed to have flowed. Had the Ghaggar been the lost Saraswati and the Bharata clan of Sudasa ruled on the banks of most revered river Saraswati and in whose rein, the most sacred scriptures

had been composed, one would expect his mention in Mahabharata. But it is not the case. Rather, the names of five Rig Vedic tribes appear in the Mahabharata for personal names of the offsprings of Yayati, not as the names of the tribes. Interestingly ‘Pouru’, equivalent of Vedic ‘Puru’, appears as prefix of the many proper names in Avesta. (E.g. Zarathustra’s fathers name was Pourushaspa.) The only explanation to this can be that the Sudasa never ruled in the vicinity of the Kuru-Panchal. The Mahabharata story of a Panchalya, who routed the Samvarana, may have been the Sudasa, as inferred by Raj Pruthi 21cannot be relied upon because the Sudasa had not only defeated the Purukutsa of Puru clan alone but other tribal kings as well in the same battle to which the Mahabharata does not mention while recording Samvarana’s event.F In addition, the geography of the Panchala kingdom is not at all in the vicinity of the Ghaggar river, rather, it again is far east from the banks of the Ghaggar. The Mahabharata genealogies are restricted to the regions where the distinct Puru/Kuru clan (descendents of Nahusha) ruled and not the Sudasa. Hence, there was no need to mention the Sudasa or his predecessors or successors in the Puru/Kuru lineage in Mahabharata. Most probably, the later writers of the Mahabharata had borrowed the names of Yayati’s sons such as Puru, Anu, Druhyu (From Sharmistha) Yadu and Turvasu (From Devyani) from the Rig Vedic tribal names to bridge the missing or forgotten link in the genealogy. In reality, there cannot be any possible relationship of these tribe-names with the personal names of Yayati’s sons, unless they were borrowed directly from the Rig Veda. If we try to assume that, the Yayati’s sons, establishing different kingdoms, formed the Rig Vedic tribes, we do not get any such support from the Mahabharata. Yayati had cursed his other sons except Puru when they declined to transfer their youth to him. (1.84, Mahabharata)

Moreover, we need here to see what Rig Veda says about YaduTurvasas. The Rig Veda describes that the Yadu and Turvasus are coming from long distances. (RV 1.36.18, 7.45.1) If the Vedics were settled across the river Ghaggar, the known regions of at the least Yadus could not have been ‘far away’! Considering this, the Bharata/Puru lineage of Mahabharata would seem to be rather fictitious, fabricated unless the Kurus borrowed the Rig Vedic names right from personal names such as Nahusha, Yayati (composers of some Rig Vedic verses) to tribal names like Puru, Anu, and Druhyu etc. or the names were, too common to have been used by all other societies including the Vedics and others in different regional forms. The statement may sound quite bold. However, one would not find it so if we seriously consider that there is nothing to show any connection between the Vedic Puru or Purukutsa and Puru, the Son of Yayati of the Mahabharata. The Turvasas and Druhyus seem to have been vanished from the traditional historical account. Most interestingly, the Tritsus (Sudasa’s tribe or his alleys) also find no mention anywhere in the post-Vedic literature. It must be so because like most of the other tribes including the Tritsus or the Sudasa were not located in the Kuru-Panchal region i.e. the Ghaggar region and were not at all related to the Bharatas of the Mahabharata. This is why we find some namesakes in the Mahabharata but not at all related with the Rig Vedic history. To support this, we also have indirect evidence that the Rig Veda nowhere mentions other famous contemporary tribes of those times such as the Ikshvaku, the Satvatas, the Bhojas, and the Videhas etc, which flourished in the central-east regions.G In the Rig Veda, we find mention of about 48 or more tribes, which were either friends or foes with the Vedic people. Location of these tribes was mostly in the Northwestern parts of India and Iran-Afghanistan. Had the Rig Vedic geography been somewhere near the Ghaggar, which is touted as Saraswati, those tribes would find some mention here and there, being in close vicinity and all possibilities of interaction between them. Rather, we find frequent mentions of the tribes those were

located in north-western parts of India and Iran-Afghanistan. Since, it seems that, there is no mention of the tribes of Indian origin; we have to abandon the idea that the Vedic people ever were residents of the Ghaggar region. This makes clear that the Ghaggar could not have been Saraswati even on basis of the Mahabharata and Purana’s accounts. From above discussion on scientific explorations in the Ghaggar basin and other aspects as discussed above, it would be a blunder to connect the Ghaggar with Saraswati. In addition, we have raised serious doubts on the migration theories for spread of PIE languages. Rather, we find linguistic and religious closeness between just two societies, Avestan and Rig Vedic, which can be attributed to their geographical closeness. There is no any other contemporary civilisation to show close affinity as both the religious texts show. Anyway, both the scriptures do not indicate their original homeland being elsewhere. Deriving wishful meaning from the excavated remains and enforcing some kind of theory upon those societies is not desired from the modern academia. This makes it very difficult or almost impossible to relate the Ghaggar with the Vedic Saraswati, as geographical proofs rather go contrary to the Vedic myths as well. We cannot be in the agreement with the scholars those want to establish progenitors of the Indus culture were Vedics. Dr. Francesco Brighenti, an eminent Indologist, has rightly stated that "It seems that a new scientific consensus is emerging which neutralizes the pseudo-scientific argument about the ‘Mighty Saraswati’, used by Hindutva folks & their sympathizers to identify the Vedic Age with the period of the Indus Valley civilization.” 22 *

References: 1. ‘An Archaeological tour along the Ghaggar-Hakra River' by Sir Aurel Stein, Amalananda Ghosh, Swarajya Prakash Gupta, Pub.- Kusumanjali Prakashan,1989. 2. ‘RIGVEDIC SARASVATI: MYTH AND REALITY’, by Mr. Ashoke Mukherjee, (Breakthrough Vol. 9, No. 1, 2001) 3. ‘Geomorphological Constraints on the Ghaggar River Regime During the Mature Harappan Period’ by Hideaki Maemoku, Yorinao Shitaoka, Tsuneto Nagatomo, and Hiroshi Yagi in ‘Climates, Landscapes, and Civilizations’ (Volume 198), edited by Giosan, Liviu / Fuller, Dorian Q. / Nicoll, Kathleen / Flad, Rowan K. / Clift, Peter D., Pub.: Wiley, 2013, p. 97 – 106 4. Ibid 5. ‘Fluvial landscapes of the Harappan civilization’ by Liviu Giosan et al., first presented in Proceedings of National Academy of Science in March 2012. (Available online at http://www.academia.edu/149269/Fluvial_Landscapes_of_the_ Harappan_Civilization.) 6. Ibid 7. ‘Explorations in the Ghaggar Basin’, by Vasant Shinde et al. in “Linguistics, Archaeology and the Human Past”, edited by Toshiki OSADA and Akinori UESUGI, 2008, p. 79 8. Ibid 9. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, By Jane McIntosh, pub.: ABC-CLIO, 2008, p. 94. 10. Ibid, p. 397 11. ' The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The IndoAryan Migration Debate”, by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 167-68 12. “Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati?”, by Jayant K. Tripathi, Barbara Bock, V. Rajamani and A. Eisenhauer, CURRENT SCIENC, (VOL. 87, NO. 8, 25 OCTOBER 2004). 13. “U-Pb zircon dating evidence for a Pleistocene Sarasvati River and capture of the Yamuna River” Peter D. Clift et al., published in “Geology”, (Geological Society of America), 40 (3), 211-214. (Online published in September 2011 at:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2012/01/23/G32840.1. abstract) 14. Report presented to a conference on “Climates, Past landscapes, and Civilizations” organized in March 2011 at Santa Fe, Published in “Science” magazine (Vol. 332) dated 1 April 2011. 15. ‘Environmental Change and the Indus Civilization’, by Osada Toshiki, Project leader, published online in Ecohistory, page 39, http://www.chikyu.ac.jp/rihn_13/archive/brochure/2010/yorane_2010_37-44.pdf 16. Suvrat Kher’s blog may be visited at : http://suvratk.blogspot.in/2012/02/yamuna-and-sutlej-stoppedflowing-into.html 17. ‘Is River Ghaggar, Saraswati? Geochemical Restraints’ contributed by Jayant K. Tripathi, Barbara Bock, V. Rajamani and A. Eisenhauer, in ‘CURRENT SCIENCE’ Vol. 87, No. 8, 25 October 2004. 18. ‘Is Rigveda pre-Harappan?’ by Nicholas Kazanas in ‘Sanskrit Studies’, vol. 2, ed. Wagish Shukla (New Delhi: D.K. Printworld, 2007. 19. ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati’, by Rajesh Kochhar, published in ‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’ (Volume 1), edited by Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999, p. 263. 20. ‘Further Notes on Avestan geography’, by Gherardo Gnoly in ‘Languages of Iran: Past and Present’, edited by Dieter Weber, Pub. Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 2005. 21. ‘Vedic Civilization’, edited by Raj Pruthi, Pub. Discovery Publishing House, 2004 Page 85-86. 22. Dr. Francesco Brighenti, remarks on the Yahoo Group ‘Indo-Eurasian Research’, can be accessed at: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/IndoEurasian_research/conversations/messages/15017

Notes: A. Mr. Mukherjee, in his paper RIGVEDIC SARASVATI: MYTH AND REALITY, lists the big claims made by the euphoric saffron scholars as under: “In fact also they claim: 1) Vedic culture is much older than Harappan civilization; 2) A settled agricultural population — the so-called Aryans — developed the Rigvedic culture on the banks of the river Sarasvati; 3) The river Sarasvati was an important and a very large river in the sub-Himalayan peninsula before the advent of the Harappan civilization, which gradually dried up; 4) The Harappan civilization was a continuation of the Vedic culture which in course of time developed from a village culture into an urban culture; 5) It is, therefore, wrong to ethnically differentiate between the two cultures; they belong to the same ethnic group of people — namely, the ‘Aryans’; 6) The ancient Indian civilization should not be termed Indus Valley Civilization, it should better be referred to as the Sarasvati Civilization, or, at most as the Sarasvati Sindhu Civilization; etc. etc.’’ However, he refutes these claims in view of the empirical proofs those go entirely against above mentioned claims. (Available at: http://www.breakthrough-india.org/archives/saraswati.pdf) B. In recent decades, many books claiming the Ghaggar to be the mythical Saraswati river have been published. Some of them are – 1) ‘Saraswati: The River that Disappeared’ by K. S. Waldia, Universities Press, 2002, 2) ‘Sarasvati: River’ by Shrinivasan Kalyanraman, Babasaheb Smarak Apte Samiti, 2003, 3) ‘Sarasvati River and the Vedic Civilization: History, Science, and Politics’, by Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram, Aditya Prakashan, 2006. Besides, a number of articles have been published in vernacular and English media. C. Like Kazanas, other Vedicist scholars have also attempted to stretch back Rig Vedic era to pre-Harappan times. However, further back one stretches the timeline of the Rig Veda, serious

problemsw do occur to which Vedicists give dumb ear. If Rig Vedic date is to be placed prior to 3000 BC, following anomalies must be answered honestly: 1. It is clear that the Indus culture was bull-centric whereas Vedic culture was 2.

horse-centric. How and when did such sudden shift occurred and why? No geological proof suggests that after 12000 BCE Ghaggar was ever a perennial mighty river. Under such circumstances, can the Vedas be as old as 12000 BCE or of even earlier date? Ghaggars river bed has been shallow even before the Holocene. If so, how the Saraswati river’s Rig Vedic descriptions could ever be matched with the Ghaggar of either the past or present?

Vedas could be as older as possible to the heartfelt satisfaction of the Vedicist scholars, but then they have to find there “naditame” river somewhere else, as Ghaggar couldn’t have been Saraswati of Rig Veda even in the remotest era.

D. The identifications of these rivers has been attempted by many scholars. The brief account is presented bellow; Parusni: There is no unanimity about the identification of the river Parusni. This river in Rig Veda is also called Mahanadi. (RV 8.74.15). Pischel suggests the word “Parus” is derived from the flocks of wool, not from bends of river, as understood by Nirukta or from the reeds as Roth suggests. Hopkins had suggested that the Yamuna could be another name of the Parusni whereas Geldner suggests that the Parusni is mere a tributary to Yamuna. Actually, as Pischel suggests that wool (urna) is connected with Parusni river, hence “Parus”, flocks “Urna” Wool would mean flocks of the wool. (‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects, Volume 1’, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell & Arthur Berriedale Keith, Indian edition, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 499-500.) Pischel suggests, Parusni was named from richness of its sheep and as Gandhara ewes were famous, this would indicate that in all probabilities this was a river from Gandhara region. (Ibid, p.41.) If this is the case, the river could be associated the people where sheep rearing for wool was a major business of the people residing across its banks. The place, again could have been in Helmand

Basin or Swat valley. Equating this river with Ravi may not be correct. 2. Vitasta: Macdonell asserts that the Vitasta does not appear except Nadistuti hymn in Rig Veda. It is the Hydaspes to Alexander’s historians and is reproduced by Ptolemy as Bidaspes. Muslim historians have corrupted its form as Bihat or Wihat which survives in Kashmiri form of Veth. (‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, Volume 2, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell & Arthur Berriedale Keith, Indian edition, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 295) This also may suggest that the forced identification of the Vitasta with Jhelum may not be correct. 3. Asikni was known to Greeks as Akesines, Asikni means ‘black’, suggests Macdonell, but he does not explain how the name Asikni could have been corrupted or changed to Chenab?. (‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, Volume 1, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell &Arthur Berriedale Keith, pub. Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 1995, p. 47.) Chenab literally means Moon River, said to be a corrupt form of the Chandrabhaga. In short, we have no strong proof to identify above rivers with any of the river of the Indus system. E. There is one “Sarsuti’, an insignificant rivulet among many those feed into Ghaggar. Its being Vedic Saraswati is beyond any probability. None of the river or streams in the Ghaggar system carries Vedic name except this, making identification even impossible. The name to a rivulet must have been given at very later course of the time by the local people. However Briyant remarks that,” “Over sixty hymns referring to Sarasvati in the Rgveda, many of which are specifically dedicated to it, attest to its importance in the world of the Vedic poets. An invocation in R.V. 10.75.5, which lists the rivers in geographically correct order from east to west, situates Sarasvati between the Yamuna and the Sutudri (Sutlej). However, although the other rivers in the list are all still presently extant in the north of the Indian subcontinent, nothing is to be found of the mighty Sarasvati today except for an insignificant stream in the foothills of

the Himalayas that preserves its name.” (‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2001, Page 164). Since, as we have seen, identity of some other rivers too is doubtful, Sarsuti cannot be the remnant of the Rig Vedic Saraswati’s corrupt form. F. Mahabharata (1.94) gives account of the Samvarana and Panchal king as under. (Trans. Mine) “When Samvarana, son of Ruksha, (of Puru dynasty) was ruling, the kingdom faced many natural calamities, such as epidemics and sever draughts, taking toll of the citizens life. As, under such calamitous condition, the kingdom was suffering, the king of Panchala kingdom gathered forces and attacked Bharatas. In this war Bharatas met with the ultimate defeat which forced Samvarana to flee with his wives, children and ministers to Indus region where he sought shelter on the banks of Indus down a mountain. He built a fort there and made it his abode for next thousand years.” (‘Sampurna Mahabharata’, Vol. 1, Originally translated from Sanskrit by Appashastri Rashivadekar, Prof. C. G. Ganu, R. B. Datar and K. N. Athalye, Edited by Prof. Bhalba Kelkar, pub.: Varada Books, third edition, 1986, p. 209) The war account of Samvarana with Panchala king of Mahabharata is sufficient enough to discard the notion that this war account anyway resembles with the battle of ten kings of Rig Veda. G. Some scholars want to identify “Ikshvaku” word appearing in the Rig Veda with Ikshvaku clan that ruled from Ayodhya. However, Ikshvaku is considered to be first king of Ayodhya. (Harivansh 1.10, Matsya Prana 12.15) Dr. S. V. Ketkar informs that this family was famous among “Suta” (Purana singers) tradition. Many scholars are of the opinion that the “Ikshvaku” word appearing in the Rig Veda is alternative name of the Sun. In Atharva Veda Ikshvaku name appears as a physician who could treat leprosy. (See Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, Vol. 1, edited by Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskrutikosh Mandala, third edition, 1997)

This will clear that the Ikshvaku, a ruling clan of India had no relation whatsoever with the Rig Vedic Ikshvaku.

3. Vedic and Indus-Ghaggar civilisation : A comparison While the Indian Vedic revisionist scholars are eagerly attempting to establish that the authors of the Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation (IGC) were none but the Vedic Indigenous Aryans, it is essential to verify this claim on religious as well as cultural grounds. We get a fair idea about their religious concepts, rituals, social order and overall culture of Vedic people from the Rig Veda. Though we are yet to decipher the Indus script, numerous excavated articles, figurines and images at various sites throw light on the basic idea of the IGC’s faiths and culture. Comparing the two will enable us understand whether the Vedic Aryans had any connection as progenitors or part of IndusGhaggar Civilisation (IGC) or they were a distinct socio-cultural group. Archaeologists and Indologists have examined the excavated material at Indus sites to understand the religious concepts of the Indus people. In addition, there have been many deliberations on whether the Indus religious concepts show any indications of its continuity. Let us begin with Indus images, figurines and cult objects reported to be found at the IGC.

Proto-Shiva This seal depicting a person with horned headdress sitting in yogic posture was among many others found in the remains of the IndusGhaggar Civilisation. Sir John Marshall was the first one to propose in 1931 that this is the image of proto-Shiva and most of the scholars believe in his identification. He had stated, “My reasons for the identification are four. In the first place, the figure has three faces and that Siva was portrayed with three as well as with more usual five faces, there are abundant examples to prove. Secondly, the head is crowned with the horns of a bull and the trisula are characteristic emblems of Siva. Thirdly, the figure is in a typical yoga attitude, and Siva was and still is, regarded as a Mahayogi—the prince of Yogis. Fourthly, he is surrounded by animals, and Siva is par excellence the ‘Lord of Animals’ (Pasupati)—of the wild animals of the jungle, according to the Vedic meaning of the word pasu, no less than that of domesticated cattle.” 1 However, many others have raised questions about the identification made by Marshall. For example, Hiltebeitel identified this horned figure as Mahishasur (Buffalo demon); S R Rao identified it as Fire God (Agni) and Sullivan as the Goddess. There is a dispute as to whether this figure has three faces like the Trimurti, as observed by Marshall. Sullivan opines the image does not have erect phallus but it shows a part of girdle as found in other female figurines. 2 The Pashupati seals, too, depict headdress same as is in the present image. The headdress of the female figurines or of those, which are identified as goddesses are entirely different from the headdress of Shiva or Pashupati images, many of the female headdresses are shown pannier-shaped. Some also have tried to identify the headdress with Trishul as well. “The seated deity is generally showed wearing buffalo’s or Bull’s horns, often forming a three pronged headdress with a pipal branch as the central part: This may be the origin of trisula (trident), later an attribute of Shiva,” opines Jane McIntosh. 3

However, there is no doubt among the scholars that the person in the image is seating in the Yogic posture. Without going in to much detail of the various opinions of the scholars, let us examine the image independently and the myths associated with Shiva to evaluate whether the image belongs to the proto-Shiva. One must remember here that the Indian mythologists agree in unison that benevolent Lord Shiva was the one who first introduced the Yoga to the humankind. He has been called Yogishvar or Mahayogi because not only he created Yoga; but he himself is an eternal Yogi! On his head, we can see a hornlike headdress. The horn is winged in the shape of the crescent moon at both the sides. Presently, a single crescent moon hanging beside Shiva’s head is depicted in the images of Shiva. It seems that over the time, with changes in iconography, the horn might have developed to the crescent moon placed differently in artistic manner, while adding other attributes such as serpent in neck. It is obvious that the image does not reflect Agni (fire God) in any way. In fact, the Vedic literature nowhere speaks of Agni as a master of Yoga. Moreover, the term ‘Yoga’ is entirely missing from the Rig Veda.4 The figure also cannot be of a Goddess because ample of female figurines found in IVC can be classified distinctly in looks and attire. We find variety of designs of the headdress, especially, in mother goddess and other figurines, but those are certainly not horned headdresses. Moreover, as the image does not resemble to that of a female deity and there seems no girdle at all around the waist of the image, it cannot be of a feminine deity. In addition to that, no female deity in India tradition is ascribed to Yoga whereas Shiva’s main symbol is his being ‘utthit linga’ (ithyphallic) and epithet Mahayogi. Therefore the debate, whether the image is ithyphallic or whether it shows girdle of the feminine deity instead of phallus is unnecessary. The image is ithyphallic. Another proof that clearly indicates the above image could be only of proto-Shiva is evident from the terracotta Shivlingam found at

Kalibangan site, carbon dated back to 2,600 BC. Same kind of Shivlingams are worshipped even today at thousands of Shiva shrines spread throughout the country. Besides, there are finds of many of separate carved stones representing the phallic and female sexual organs, confirming that the worship of mother goddess (Shakti) and proto-Shiva was being conducted separately. These separate stones representing the phallic and female sexual organs were unified later on in the Shivalingam form. Also, we must not overlook that according to linguists, the word Shiva finds its origin in the Dravidian term ‘Shivan’, which means red colored. The word ‘Shiva’ does not find its origin in the Sanskrit or Vedic language in absence of etymology. 5 The seal, famous as Pashupati seal, depicts a male figure sitting in Yogic posture surrounded by the animal, praising the Lord. Shiva’s one epithet is Pashupati, Lord of the animal. A sect in Shaiva religion, which worships Shiva in the ‘Lord of Animal’ form, is called ‘Pashupata’. He is said to be the protector of Pashu (that includes the humankind as well.) It is noteworthy here that famous Shiva temple in Nepal is also called ‘Pashupati Nath’. Though some Vedic scholars have tried to connect Shiva with Vedic Rudra and have attempted to ascribe this image to the Vedic Rudra to assert their claim. However, the fact remains that the Vedic Rudra is characteristically entirely different deity than Shiva. Rudra is not worshipped in phallic form anywhere. Rather, the Vedic Rudra is mostly associated with the fire sacrifice, Shiva is not. The difference in the two deities does not end here. Let us understand how the Vedic literature depicts the character of Rudra. The Vedic literature depicts Rudra as: A) Having golden complexion, Vedic Rudra is as handsome as the supreme Vedic God Indra. He wears a golden necklace and holds a golden axe. He helps the Vedic people in finding their lost cattle. However, there is no mention of his headdress in the Rig Veda.

B) In some Rig Vedic descriptions, Rudra is said to be an older than oldest. (Tavstamah tavasam). C) Rudra’s father is Prajapati. (Maitrayani Sanhita, 6:1-9). In a mythical story, Rudra is said to have killed Prajapati. (Aitareya Brahmina- 3.13.9) D) Main epithet of Rudra is ‘Agni’ (Fire). E) In Agnichayana (a kind of fire sacrifice) to keep the fire kindled, butter is constantly poured in the fire pit, while chanting ‘Shatarudriya’ (Hymns addressed to Rudra) requesting him to immerse in the fire. F) Rudra is not a single entity but is enumerated from 11 to 60 in different texts of Vedic literature. Hence, Rudra represents a group of deities bearing the same name. Often, he is also called the father of Maruts, another group of Vedic Gods. G) Rudrasavarni, 12th Manu, is said to be son of Rudra. H) Rudra is nowhere associated with Yoga. I)

There are only three verses dedicated to Rudra in Rig Veda. In a way, Rudra was a minor god of the Vedic people.

J)

Rudra is depicted as destroyer of fiends in Rig Veda. (RV 2.33.10) Dogs and wolves are the pets of Rudra. (Atharva Veda 11.2.2) In Pashupati seal, we do not find both the animals making it impossible to identify this image with Rudra. Rather, Shiva is depicted in the mythologies as. Bhutnatha, (Lord of fiends), not enemy of them. 6 & 7

Considering this, there is opinion of scholars like Kuiper that the Rudra has possibly a non-Aryan origin. 8 Some scholars believe that the Rudra cult was assimilated in the Vedic stream from non-Vedic stratum later on during the period of Rig Vedic compositions. A Considering the above description and myths surrounding the Vedic Rudra, one can ascertain that they nowhere match with the myths

and iconography related to Shiva. Shiva is ajanma, (eternal) having no birth or father. Indeed, Shiva is a concept of creation, preservation and destruction of the universe that is worshiped in phallic form, as a symbol of creation. Hence, Marshall’s identification of the image that it is of proto-Shiva having three faces and in ithyphallic position, as described by Indian mythologies in regards with Shiva, is most reliable than of the others. Many phallic type stone objects and ring stones representing female organs found at the Indus sites, which suggest Linga and Yoni worship of IGC people, also support this fact. We find the continuity of the Lingam worship culture in Shaivait religion even today. Moreover, the term Linga does not belong to the Vedic Sanskrit. Mahadev Chakravarti observes, “Linguistic evidence indicates that the post-Vedic Hindus not only adopted the tradition/ cult of the linga from the pre-Vedic non-Aryans, but even the term itself is of Austric origin”. 9 Let us also not forget that the phallic worship was spread in the larger part of the world in ancient times because it was the most appropriate symbol of the fertility. It is needless to mention here that the Rig Vedic Rudra is not at all associated with the fertility. It shows clearly that the phallic cult or proto-Shaivait cult, which still prevails in the country, was dominant in IGC era too. The identity of the Pashupati or proto-Shiva image with Rudra, Mahishasura or any Goddess is farfetched and thus cannot be admissible. The find of terracotta Shivlingam image of Kalibangan wipes out the arguments of the scholars those want to associate Shiva with Vedic Rudra. Bull seals are so common in Indus civilisation that they show that the Indus civilisation was mostly bull centric. It is a proven fact that the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation was primarily an agrarian society. Even today, Bull has a special significance in the agrarian life, as he is most trusted and useful assistant of the farmers in agro-related tasks. The importance of the Bull to the Indus society could also be in the faith that he represents the male prowess.

Bulls are beautifully depicted on the Indus seals. It was but natural for Indus-Ghaggar agrarian people to give him a special position in their religious and social life. Even today, Bull is revered in the villages by the farmers with a special festival dedicated to him. The importance of bull in Indian culture does not end here. In front of every Shiva Temple, we can notice the idol of a seated bull and devotees pay tribute to it before entering the temple. Traditionally, the bull is depicted as vehicle of Shiva. It is evident from this that the tradition of Bull worship has its roots in the Indus-Ghaggar culture.

Mother Goddess Mother Goddess worship is as ancient as human history and was practiced in almost every corner of the world in ancient times. Ring stones suggesting feminine organs and female figurines with sexual marks are found abundantly in the IGC sites. That suggests that the mother goddess cult also was prevalent and even dominating in the IGC. Again, it is pertinent to note here that the headdress of the female figurines or images is not horned like of proto-Shiva or Pashupati images, but has distinct settings. From the Kalibangan terracotta Shivalingam, we can safely deduce that in the later course, both cults were unified in a single idol giving equal status to male and female organs.

Proto-Ganesha The Indus elephant-head with typical fan-shaped headdress, most probably used as a mask by the people in cult dances, which indicate the precursor of Ganesha cult existed in the IVC. The elephant head (now in Harappa museum) shows the traces of vermillion paint which are still visible. Moreover, the Ganesha idols are still painted with vermillion as a tradition. The find of the Monkey-God image also throws light on the prevalence of Hanumant (Maruti) worship in the IGC. Hanuman is still worshipped throughout the country. F E Pargiter suggests that the word ‘Hanuman’ has been the Sanskritised form of the Tamil word ‘Anmanti’ (The Male Monkey). 10 From these facts, we can deduce that the religious traditions of the IGC have flown to us with minor modifications in iconography and additions of numerous mythologies. We do not know for sure what Indus people called proto-Shiva, proto-Shakti, Hanuman and Ganesha but the present forms of the Shaivism, Shaktism and Ganesha worship shows clear link with the IGC religion including special reverence to Peepal tree. Dr RN Dandekar clearly states that, “…unlike the Vedic religion, the Indus religion was essentially iconolatrous, which feature, incidentally, is seen to have been shared with it by the Hinduism of later periods……Like the phallus cult, the Mother Goddess cult also must have been independent origin, but, in one of the phases of its development, namely, cult of ‘mothers’, it must have been organically associated with the Indus Valley Religion.” 11 There is suggestive evidence available that the IGC, too, must have called only Shiva to the Lingam and Yogic images, as we find one of the tribe names (from famous battle of ten kings) was Shiva. “Together came the Pakthas, the Bhalanas, the Alinas, the Sivas, the Visanins...” (RV 7.18.7) It means that the name Shiva existed in those times, too, indicating that the IGC called their most revered

deity by the name of Shiva and that was adopted as identity of some tribes or regions as well. Vishanins mean those wear horned headdress. This, too, suggests that the Vishanins possibly had a connection with the Indus civilisation. Both the words do not find root in IE languages. Even the word ‘Puja’ (worship) which is the main part of Hindu ritual does not find any place in either Rig Veda or root in the Sanskrit. 12 Dr Dandekar, too, opines that, “Indeed, sufficient evidence is available to warrant the supposition that the religion of proto-Siva had spread far and wide in pre-Vedic India-different aspects of the personality and character of that god having been emphasised in different parts of the country. In his proto-Dravidian aspect, for instance, the god of this religion was celebrated as a ‘red’ god and was actually called Siva.” 13 Thus, it seems there has been no discontinuation of the Indus religion with the modern people. The term “Shiva” must have very ancient origin; this is why, as we have seen in the first chapter, it finds its spread in many civilisations. Notwithstanding the disintegration of settlements in Indus-Ghaggar valley, the Shaivait tradition still remains highly prominent in the country. However, in the light of the above mentioned clear proof, one may wonder why even Indian scholars shy away from calling it Shaivait? Why they want to connect it with the Vedic culture when there is not a single shred of evidence suggesting that? The answer may be in their Vedic supremacist mindsets or else they would not have continued to neglect the vital proofs. Though the abundant finds of the female images and figurines led to many scholars believing that the Indus society was matriarchal, the claim cannot be proved beyond doubt. However, it would be safe to state that the women were assigned equal or more social prestige in the IGC times. Temples or places of public worship have not been found in IGC towns. But looking at the practice of keeping images of deities in household shrines that still is being followed, temples or public worship places wouldn’t have been necessity of those times.

Having discussed how the Shaivait phallic (linga-Yoni) cult was dominant in the IGC, now let us consider the religious ideas of Vedic people as described in Vedas.

Vedic religion While we have already discussed the religious elements found in the excavations at the Indus-Ghaggar sites, it would be equally important to see what the Vedic religion was and whether we find any traces of it in the IGC. We will discuss the religious concepts of the Rig Veda that later on evolved philosophically and ritualistically in the later period of Brahmanas. It is obvious from the mention of the first word ‘Agni’ in the first hymn of the Rig Veda that the Vedic rituals were fire (Agni) centric. Yajnya (fire sacrifice) and the various offerings through it to the abstract Vedic gods is the only medium to link human beings with the divine. Vedic ritual also prominently includes Soma (an intoxicating herb or ephedra) ritual. Indra is a major deity and about a quarter part of the Rig Veda is dedicated to the praise of Indra. He is demon slayer, destroyer of the fortified cities of the enemy, a warrior himself helping Vedic clans to win the wars, his favourite weapon is thunderbolt (vajra), he is destroyers of the dams and he is the king. (RV 8.48) Following the Soma (deified ephedrine drink), other major God is the Varuna. Varuna, on many occasions, has been coupled with Mitra as ‘Mitra-Varuna’. Varuna is the protector of truth and morality, god of the high-arched sky and ocean. Varuna’s main epithet in the Rig Veda is Asura. Mitra personifies the agreement or contract and he sustains earth and heaven. (RV 7.87, 3.59). Nasatya, Prajapati, Vishnu etc. are others include almost 645 gods from the Rig Vedic pantheon. Female deities are almost absent from the Rig Veda, except for deification of some natural elements. The female deities include Aditi (mother of Adityas), Ratri (nights), Prithvi (Earth), Saraswati (the river), Ushas (Dawn) and Vac (speech). Aditi gets more importance and is associated with Adityas as their mother. However, according to Griffith, the name Aditi is used in the Rig Veda in different contexts such as a female goddess, a name of the earth, another name of Agni and even as a name of the male god. Mostly, Aditi is depicted as the mother of Adityas and has a minor role to perform. It is often

suggested by scholars that the Vedic people were patriarchal treating women as a better half, subordinate to male. All the offerings were made through the fire ritual, yajnya, to praise the gods. Thus, the sacred fire altar attained such prominence that, even its construction and dismantling became a sacred ritual in later times, such as in Agnichyayana. However, except for this construction of the sacred fire altar, we do not find any reference to the idol worship. Rather idolatry appears to be prohibited in the Vedic religion. “Na tasya Pratima asti” (There is no image of Him.) [Yajurveda 32:3]. The word ‘Pratima’ has been interpreted by some as symbol, claiming that the symbolism is abundantly present in Rig Veda, such as of ‘Purusha’ in Purushsukta. However, symbolism does not mean ‘Pratima’ (image, embodiment) that always is artificial and a human creation. The God has no image because to Vedics He is formless and is to be worshiped through the oblations in sacred fire while chanting the praises of Him in systematic order was the way the Vedic rituals were conducted. Looking at the Rig Vedic hymns those were specifically meant for the fire-centric rituals and total absence of any reference to the idol worship, it is hard to infer that the Vedic people were idol worshipers. The Rig Veda also does not mention anywhere that the Vedic’s were phallic or feminine organ worshipers. There is not a single verse in praise of these sex organs. This does not mean that they did not know the people who were phallic worshipers. The Rig Veda seems completely hostile against the people worshiping ‘shisnadeva’ (Phallic God.) [4]The hymn 7.21.5 (RV) says, "None of the demonic spirits [who] do not worship [you] with knowledge, Oh most-mighty Indra (indra), have pressed forwards [against] us (no). May that excellent one triumph over the defiant ones in both directions also , may the children of the phallic gods not go after our lawful work ." Similarly the hymn 10.99.3 also clearly states,

[5] “Going to the battle, marching with easy gait, desiring the spoil, he set himself to the acquisition of all (wealth). Invincible, destroying the phallus- worshippers, he won by his prowess whatever wealth (was concealed in the city) with the hundred gates.” (Trs. Horace Hayman Wilson) Both the verses clearly speak about the people those were engaged in phallic worship and resided in the fortified cities, were bitter opponents and sometimes enemies of the Vedic people. Some scholars have attempted to translate ‘shisnadeva’ as unchaste, lewd (Griffith), vulgar or licentious deities. However, close examination of both the verses reveals that the verse 7.21.5 also speaks about ‘yatava’, those follow occult practices, as well. In addition, it refers to the people who do not respect or practice Vedas and who are the children of the Shisnadeva. Verse 10.99.3 clearly speaks about destruction of the city of hundred gates belonging to shisnadevan (Phallus worshippers). It also makes it clear that the Vedic people closely knew the phallic worshiping civilisation and had had some skirmishes with them. Translating ‘shisnadeva’ as unchaste, lewd, vulgar or licentious deities is meaningless and shows prejudice of the scholars. However, it would be important to see how Nirukta of Yaska interprets the verse 7.21.5. ”May he, the noble one, defy the manifold creatures, let phallus worshippers not penetrate our sanctuary. May he overpower them, i.e. the manifold creatures who are hostile to us. Let the phallus worshippers, i.e. the unchaste Sisna (phallus) is derived from (the root) snath (to pierce) not approach our sanctuary, i. e. our truth, or sacrifice.”-Nirukta 4.19. 14 Yaska catches on what both the verses clearly indicate - phallic worshippers to whom the Vedics were hostile and did not desire to have them come close to their society. Calling phallic worship ‘unchaste’ is the point of the view of the outsider observers and not of the people who knew ethos of it.

Even if we overlook the exaggerations or misinterpretation about phallic worship of the poets of the verses, it makes clear that the Vedic people were not the phallic worshippers of any kind. Moreover, there was hostility between the Vedics and the phallic worshipers. It is uncertain whether these phallic worshippers Rig Veda talks about belonged to IGC or to some other contemporary civilisation because the phallic worship was practiced in other regions on the globe as well in ancient times. Westropp states that, “This worship was so general as to have spread itself over a large part of the habitable globe; for it flourished for many ages in Egypt and Syria, Persia, Asia Minor, Greece and Italy; it was and is vigor in India and many parts of Africa, and was found in America on its discovery by the Spaniards.” 15 The phallic worship was divine enough to connect human with the Lord creator, Westropp further clarifies. Hence, we cannot ascribe any specific region or human society to have it introduced first but it could have been rather an independent phenomenon. Vedic verses could be talking about the phallic worshipers of Persia or India, to which is not certain from the Vedic verses. That the Indus society worshipped male and female sexual organs and their personified images is clear and undeniable from the excavated finds at the IGC. It is clear from the Rig Vedic texts that the Vedic people had organised their religion around the fire sacrifices and worshipped abstract deities. There is no slightest indication that the both societies shared anything, even if in every possibility they knew each other. Both the societies had different faiths, which clashed with each other. ‘The Phallus cult has no place in Vedic rituals. The God Phallus (Shisna Deva) is however mentioned in Rig Veda (7.21.5, 10.99.3) as well as in Nirukta (4.29) but its worship is banned.” Thus states Alain Daniélou.16 There is no reference to the Yoga in Rig Veda either. Rig Veda also refers to the ayajju, ayajvan, (those do not perform fire sacrifice), anindra (those who do not have god like Indra) anyavrata

(having different religious rites) etc. indicating how their religion was set around fire sacrifice and how they distinguished other societies they came across. Associating Vedic culture with the IGC thus becomes seriously problematic to the overenthusiastic Vedicist scholars. However, there are other aspects as well of the Indus and Vedic culture, which demands serious comparison to eliminate the partial views of the Vedicists those constantly attempt to put claim on the IGC.

Material Culture We have abundant physical proofs that show the peculiarities of Indus-Ghaggar valley society. We have Rig Veda for a proof in which Vedic social structure, their deities, their economy and their general awareness of the surrounding world is described at places. Let us compare the IGC and Vedic culture from the available sources. 1. None of the Veda mentions the abundantly found remains of Phallic and Mother Goddess worship practices at the Indus sites. Had the Vedic people been the progenitors of the Indus culture, naturally being part of phallic worship, certainly would also have made mentions of it in the Rig Veda apart from their religious ritual Yajnya. Rather, the Rig Veda seems to be hostile towards the phallic worshipers. The Rig Veda clearly makes distinction between sacrificers and non-sacrificers. (i.e. see RV 1.33) 2. No Indus seal depicts image of the fire sacrifice, which was soul of the Vedic cult. Rather, the images over the seals go contrary to the Vedic religious beliefs. 3. There is no slightest hint in the Rig Veda that the Vedics conducted trade with other civilisations. There is no mention of local or foreign trade commerce or even cognates for trade or trade related activities in the Rig Veda. Abundant proof is available from excavations in the IGC and other contemporary civilisations, from Iran to Mesopotamia, to prove that the IGC trade with them was by sea as well as surface routes. B 4. The Vedic society was mainly pastoral as evidenced from the Vedic literature. The cattle were their treasured possession and most of the prayers are for the abundant growth of the same. They knew the agriculture but it was their secondary occupation. There is no cognate for ‘Plough’ in Vedic Sanskrit but they used a loan word ‘Langal’ from other languages for plough. However, the IGC was mostly agrarian, industrial and mercantile society as evidenced from the excavations, unlike the Vedics. Rather, the Vedics show great jealousy of the Panis who were expert traders.

5. The Rig Veda has no mention of fired bricks, brick-paved roads, public baths or granaries that was integral part of almost every Indus settlement. Bricks find first mention in Yajur Veda, a later work and extensively in the Brahmanas.17 However, noted historian Dr. Ram Sharan Sharma stated, “…And yet all these features can be expected if its culture were urban. Fired bricks are a striking feature of the Harappans, and no Bronze Age civilisation can boast of them on such a large scale. But this important construction material is unknown to the Rig Veda. In the great British archaeologist Mortimer Wheeler's view, there is no granary in the pre-classical world comparable in terms of specialist design and monumental dignity to the examples from the two Indus cities. But because of the absence of urbanism, the Vedic people did not need granaries, and consequently, the Rig Veda has no term for granary.” 18 Had the Vedic Aryans be at the least part of the IGC, they would have cognates for the materials and structures in question. 6. The Vedic society was horse centered as evidenced from its numerous mentions in the Rig Veda with one verse dedicated to him. (RV 1.171) Many personal names are horse and chariot oriented. It was earlier assumed that the horse was unknown to the Indians until the Aryan invaders introduced them. However, this is not completely true. There are some proofs of the horse bones found in the Indian subcontinent dating back to early phase of the Harappan settlements and even prior to that, although belonging to the different species of horse. 19 7. This means the IGC, too, was not unaware of the horses though it carried not much significance in their culture. It is natural because the IGC was mostly agrarian and manufacturing/trading society where bull carried more importance to plow the fields and pull the loaded carts. This is obvious from the fact that to show reverence towards bull Indus people depicted him artistically on abundant seals whereas horse finds no place at all on any of the seal. Use of horses to them must have been scanty and hence, carried no major significance in their culture and hence, obviously, horse images would be redundant for them. C

The Vedic people were a mostly pastoral society and hence, their life being horse-centered does not come as surprise. Even in the life of modern day ranchers, horses carry significant importance. Abundant mentions of the horse with respect in the Rig Veda and the rite of horse sacrifice proves the same. No place for the horses in the IGC iconography does simply mean that the horses carried negligible significance in their civilisation unlike of the Vedic society. In fact, this clearly suggests that the Rig Vedics had no connection whatsoever with Indus Valley civilisation. Had it been the case horse would have found prominence in IGC’s early and later iconography. Moreover, the horse chariot issue has unnecessarily been over debated by the supporters of the AIT/AMT or OIT propagandists for the sake of proving their futile baseless theories. Even if there was no slightest indication of presence of horse in IGC, it wouldn’t prove for the lack of that knowledge they were subjugated by the people who knew horse and chariots! The suggestion was ridiculous because the vast territory of the IGC couldn’t have been overwhelmed by the intruders at one go! No matter, comparatively weak in absence of horse driven chariots, but there would be protests lasting for longer time. The advantage to IGC people was that they knew the local geographies very well whereas supposed intruder Aryans didn’t. Only horse and chariots wouldn’t help to win. And most importantly there is no slightest proof that the decline of the IGC was result of any vicious war won by the mighty invaders who had tamed the horses and used spoke-wheeled chariots! Even if considered peaceful migration of the Aryans in India, still the horse-chariot argument wouldn’t stand, because, it is well known and accepted fact that the Indus people were not isolated society but was well connected with the rest of the civilisations for trade and commerce. They, in all probabilities, wouldn’t have been ignorant of the horses. If useful, would have imported them from the known sources. Anyway, India has been well known for horse import from historical times. Horse presence couldn’t have been a criterion to prove presence of the Aryans. But its absence from Indus

iconography certainly proves there was no presence of Vedic Aryans in IGC. However, the horse-chariot debate has been overrated by the supremacist scholars to no avail. The images of unicorn are abundantly found in IGC on various seals. The one-horned animal, labelled as unicorn, could be rhinoceros known to the IGC people. Dr Ram Sharan Sharma opines, “…The term ganda or khadga is used for the rhinoceros in Sanskrit, and the term ekasrnga for both the unicorn and the rhinoceros, but none of these terms occurs in the Rig Veda.” 20 Vedic people seem to have been at constant wars from the Rig Vedic texts, using variety of arms and armors. At the Indus sites, the finds of arms are meager with no find of armors at all. The IGC cannot be regarded as a warring society the way the Vedic society was. Warring people would naturally have the warlike god, and we find him in the form of the Indra in Rig Veda who helps Vedic people win the wars. However, it is not justifiable to infer from the meager findings of the weapons that the Indus people were peace loving people. Most probably, either the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation was unified under a single rule or had established cordial relations with every city-state, minimising the war like occasions. Yet it is clear that the IGC was a prosperous civilisation and the peace that follows in prosperous period was fairly enjoyed by the IGC. Rather, it appears from the Rig Veda that the Vedic people were seekers of the wealth and all the time were engaged in the wars for wealth hunting, cattle being the treasured wealth to them. Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi states that Rig Vedic Aryans’ main profession seems to have been loot the cattle, food and lands of the Dasa, Dasyu and Panis. This condition certainly cannot be of the prosperous society, such as of IGC. 21 Students of the Indus civilisation know very well about the abundant finds of variety of the seals bearing assorted motifs and script at every site. These finds exhibit their cultural beliefs and their awareness of the script. There is a debate amongst the scholars whether the script appears on the seals represents language or they

are non-linguistic symbols.D However, none of such practice finds mention in the Rig Veda. There is even no cognate for writing or script in the Rig Veda. Here the suggestion is not that the Vedics did not know the script; it simply is that there is no mention of the seal making, motifs on it and the script. Had the Vedics been progenitors or part of the Indus-Ghaggar civilisation, there would have been some mention of the widely held practice that involves not only religious beliefs but also the commercial practices of the IGC. Plenty of ornament and other goods manufacturing sites have unearthed at the IGC sites. There is no mention in the Rig Veda of such manufacturing. Besides, there is no mention of harbors though Indus people had many of them, including artificial harbor like of Lothal. So much that scholars seriously doubt whether the Vedic Aryans even knew the sea or not. (The term Samudra in Rig Veda does not essentially mean the sea but it also means lake or pond at many instances.) Had the Vedic people migrated from India to the West, as some scholars try to suggest, and if they were progenitors of the IGC, the major question arises why they did not carry the script, Indus religious beliefs and archeological practices along with them? If socalled indigenous Aryans, if supposed, left the Indian territories long before the IGC was founded, the whole premise of their theories do collapse because it would be ridiculous and unsupported argument. Vedic people certainly did know the walled cities and the people residing in them. Attempts to prove Rig Veda pre-Harappan thus doesn’t help Vedicist scholars. The Rig Veda mentions destructions of several cities of Dasyus by Indra. These cities were made of stones (“Asmanmayi” RV 4.30.20) or of metal (“Ayasi”, RV 2.20.8, 4.26.3). We do not know for sure what Vedic people of Rig Vedic times meant by Ashman and Ayas, or to whose cities they were referring to because the Indus cities were built of fired bricks, not of the stones or metal of any kind thus does not fit in the Rig Vedic descriptions. In all probability, they were talking about the BMAC or other sites, not Indus-Ghaggar.

Dasas and Dasyus (Dahae and Dakhyu) were residents of ancient Iran. Therefore, in all probabilities, they could have been referring to the stone cities of them. Possibly, Ayas, too, was used alternatively for stone and metal for their hardness. Whatsoever might be the case, the Vedic people certainly did not reside in the walled cities or even towns; they were rather village dwellers and preferred to be so until the Brahmana era. 22 Fired bricks for fire altars came into the use in late Vedic times. This clearly suggests there was not any link of the Vedics with the IGC. Otherwise, they would have known some civil practices of the IGC. Rig Veda doesn’t know cotton or it does not have any cognate for it. IGC people were expert cotton weavers. The Rig Vedic people seem to have been using wool for clothing, but natural for the people living in extreme climatic conditions. IGC people were master architects. The drainage system and stepped Great Baths had central characteristic of the IGC. However, no such practice finds mention in the Rig Veda. These facts forced some indigenous Aryan theorists like Kazanas and others to place the Rig Vedic time prior to the emergence of the IGC.E However, we have seen in the previous chapter that in absence of the Rig Vedic Saraswati River in Indian geography do not make their claim valid. Vedic scholars can stretch back Rig Veda’s period to the Ice Age if they want to (and many enthusiastic amateur scholars already have attempted it!) but the Rig Vedic texts and other parallel evidence does not correspond to their claim of its being so antique. Looking at the discrepancies that arise from the closer look at the Vedic culture mentioned in the Vedas and the physical finds of the Indus sites, it is impossible to even imagine that the progenitors of the Indus civilisation were the Vedic Aryans. Even it is almost ridiculous to state that the Indus and the Vedic people came into any contact so much so to influence each other’s culture. However, to end with, we must discuss on the so called finds of hearths those are considered by few of the archaeologists to be

sacrificial fire altars thus making the claim the presence of the Indo Aryans in the IGC.

Fire altars Archaeologist, excavator at Lothal, Dr SR Rao, was one to claim that the fire pits for ritualistic purpose and not as domestic ovens. “It is obvious that they could not serve any other purpose than a ritualistic one.” He also had claimed that the some larger fire pits excavated near the smaller ones, meant for community fire worship. Close to a larger fire pit was a terracotta ‘ladle’ to which Rao thought to be used for pouring clarified butter into the sacrificial fire. From this, Rao precluded that the presence of the Indo-Aryans was in the final stages of occupation of the town. He stated that, “…it is not only in the final stages of Kalibangan but also in the early stages of Harappa culture at Lothal and Kalibangan that altars for fire worship and animal sacrifice were built and made use of.” 23 Similarly, some fire pits were recorded at other sites such as Banavali, Casal at Amri etc emboldened the archeologists to claim the Indo-Aryans’ presence in the IGC sites, which ultimately was made to mean that the residents of the IGC were Indo-Aryans. However, the identification of fire pits as fire altars was not received well by other archeologists and scholars. MK Dhavalikar had remarked that the fire pits could have been used for cooking and baking. He found them similar in size, plan and shape to his excavations at Inamgaon (Maharashtra.) For Dhavalikar, the clay stele in the centre of the pits, noted by excavators, “bears the striking resemblance with the clay tava …that is in use in Maharashtra. … which was obviously for baking bread.” Finally he concludes that, “since the Kalibangan fire altars are identical in every respect with those in Inamgaon, their association with the religious beliefs of the people becomes doubtful.” 24 F If one looks at the so called fire altars as an independent observer and if he knows something of the Vedic practices of performing fire sacrifices, public or domestic, he will find they do not at all resemble any way with the Vedic ritualistic altars. Moreover, the fire altars could not be attached to each other, which makes it almost impossible to conduct ritual performance. They cannot be circular or

oblong as well. In the Vedic fire sacrificial rites, every direction carries special significance, and requires space to seat from all the sides. The hearths in the picture are so close to each other it does not indicate that it had any ritualistic purpose. Bryant opined on this hearth debate that, “One would also have to note that Lal's identification of these altars as Vedic seems to be primarily influenced by the fact that there were seven of them, thereby paralleling the number of hearths in various Vedic sacrifices. However, while this is correct, these sacrifices do not just consist of these seven hearths but include a variety of other hearths as well, none of which were unearthed in Kalibangan.” 25 Thus we can clearly see that the hearths found in Kalibangan and elsewhere cannot be connected with the Vedic ritualistic fire altars.”

Jane McIntosh comments on the hearth finds of IGC, “…..these bore some resemblance to the hearths used by the later inhabitants of the Deccan, which sometimes had a central clay support for the pots. This therefore begs the question whether the domestic ‘fire altars’ were in fact ordinary hearths or, conversely, whether all domestic hearths could have been used in family worship as well as cooking.” 26

This clearly shows that there is obvious doubt in the minds of the scholars whether to find sacrificial altars in the hearths or domestic ovens in the excavated structures. However, there is another identification of the Kalibangan fire pits has been forwarded by Archeologist BK Thapar, who states “Noteworthy structures exposed by the excavations consisted of (a) a 2m-wide brick-on-edge pavement and (b) a partially excavated house, showing several hearths, fire-pits, etc., pointing perhaps to its use as a metal-smith’s workshop.” 27 However, as Dhavalikar observes, we too have to agree that the fire pits were earthen ovens meant for cooking, roasting and baking. It actually attracts no necessity to attach it somehow with Vedic fire altars. The find of the ladle near the oven is but natural rather that connecting it with the Vedic sacrifices to pour the purified butter! As Thapar have thought them to be metal-smiths workshop, it, too, at the least in Kalibangan case, is a possibility because having

several hearths lined up in a house of an industrial city, its use for metal works too, may not come as a surprise. Besides, let me attract the readers to the fact that though Vedic and Avestan religion were fire centered, it does not mean at all that in the other civilisation fire did not carry any significance. Igniting fire has been the first thing human invented and it carried prominent importance in all the civilisations spread over the globe. Thus finding hearths anywhere does not mean at all that they were related with the Vedic or Avestan fire centric ritualistic practices. Those could have been used differently as well other than for cooking, even as a permanent camp-fire! But no Rig Vedic description supports this as nowhere it is mentioned that the sacrificial fire was used for cooking day to day meals as well! Hence, from the above discussion, we arrive at the only conclusion that the IGC did not bear any Aryan or Vedic element in its overall structure. Nor did the Vedic society seem to know anything closely about the IGC culture. Both were distinct cultures having different lifestyles and religious practices. The IGC timeline is almost certain because of carbon dating, but there is no conclusive material, written or archaeological proofs to determine the Vedic era. If looked at the various opinions about the Vedic age, we find the difference to be spanning from 25,000 BC to 1,500 years BC. This is not right science. The Vedic people seem to have come across the phallic worshipping people, but we are not sure whether they were the IGC people for phallic worship extended in the most part of the world. However, the modern revisionists try to establish the Vedic connection with the IGC, no matter how illogical and sometimes even foolish such an attempt might be, to recreate their history on flimsy ground just like the Europeans did while tracing up their own history in hypothetical PIE group of the people. This should be the matter of concern for the historians of the new generations.

Painted Grey Ware Culture We must discuss the Painted Grey Ware culture, dated back to the period from maximum of 1,400 BC until 600 BC, which was normally attributed to the invading people, mostly to the second wave of the Aryans. Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture, to some, indicates that there was a sudden change in the manufacturing process and pattern of the earthen wares in IGC regions. What Archeologist B. B. Lal says on this is as follows. “For reasons still not fully known to us, the Indus Civilization withered away. But the authors of the Painted Grey Ware Culture, clearly identifiable with the later Vedic Aryans (if not yet with the Rigvedic Aryans as well), are the ones who provide​d the seeds of philosophic thought for which India is known all over the world. And it was not mere spirituality that they bequeathed. Their contribution to material life is no less significant. The Painted Grey Ware people, with their iron technology, are the first to have brought about a revolution in the settlement pattern in the Ganges-Jamuna basin – the Madhyadesa of old. Their predecessors in this region, namely, the copper-hoard people, seem to have been merely sporadic occupants, leaving hardly any mark on the civilization to be. Further, it is the Painted Grey Ware period that brought northern India to the threshold of what is known as the second urbanization.” 28 The reason why I am quoting BB Lal here is that he changed his entire stance, after joining rightist wing after his retirement, and attempted to connect the IGC with the Vedic people. There was attempt to ascribe the PGW culture to the invading Aryans, second wave, who entered Indian subcontinent after so called tragic decline of the IGC. The basic assumption was that the Aryans knew iron and used it extensively in their weaponry. This assumption does not find any substantial proof in the Rig Veda, because the word ‘Ayas’ just means metal or even stone, not necessarily iron or copper. Kazanas, too, is opponent of this view for his purpose to stretch back the Rig Vedic era prior to Iron Age.29 One can see from the above quote of

BB Lal, how an archaeologist can blatantly make the unsustainable claims. However, the grey terracotta female figurines those have been excavated at Jakhera, identified as probable mother goddess images in PGW culture defeats Aryan element in it too! Another main aspect one should keep in mind that since in recent excavations, the late Harappan pottery and PGW were found together at Bhagvanpura, Dabheri (Haryana) and Manada (Jammu) without any breaks, it discards the idea of any invasion. In fact, the PGW culture just suggests gradual change in the pottery making patterns, nothing else. Allchin have questioned the term like ‘Painted Grey Ware Period’ or ‘Painted Grey Ware People’ as they were not entirely different from the late Harappans. The PGW sequence apparently comes after ‘Ochre Colored Pottery’ traditions followed by ‘Black and Red Burnished Ware’. 30 The PGW culture can only be attributed to the technological shifts of the society that is a common practice followed by the every civilisation. Such changes occur either due to the economical fluctuations or the change in fashions accompanied by new inventions, such as of iron. It is just insane to attribute such changes to the invaders or intruders unless there is any irrefutable proof of such invasion on archaeological grounds. The Rig Veda too, does not give any, nor the post-Vedic literature, then why so fanciful fairytale like ideas? To sum up, there seems no spiritual or materialistic connection between the IGC and the Vedic culture. We do not know for sure what the Vedic era was as there is no conclusive evidence to indicate it. We find close affiliation or similarities between the Avestan and the Vedic civilisation, but the Avestan age, too, is equally uncertain. We need to understand why it would be so? Why there are blatant claims on the IGC by the people whose origin is so uncertain? Let us probe further! *

References: 1. ‘The Indus Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective’, by Gregory L. Possehl, Pub.: AltaMira Press, ( U.S) 2002, p. 142. 2. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 163. 3. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane R McIntosh, Pub.: ABC-CLIO Inc., 2008, p. 283. 4. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’, by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 35. 5. Ibid. 6. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’ (Vol. 8), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 2000, p. 264-65. 7. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 93-94. 8. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi B.V., 1991, p. 14. 9. ‘The Concept of Rudra-Siva through the Ages’, by Mahadev Chakravarti, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, 1986, p. 130 10. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition 1996, p. 37-38. 11. ‘Hinduism’, by R. N. Dandekar, in ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’, Volume 2, edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: E. G. BrillLeiden, 1971, p. 245-46. 12. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 32. 13. ‘Hinduism’, by R. N. Dandekar, in ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’ (Vol. 2), edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: E. G. Brill-Leiden, 1971, p. 246. 14. ‘The Nighantu & The Nirukta, The oldest Indian Treaties on Etymology, Philology, and semantics’, By Laxman Saroop, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, New Delhi, Second reprint, 1967. 15. ‘Ancient Symbol Worship: Influence of the Phallic Idea in the Religions of Antiquity’, by Hodder Michael Westropp and Charles Staniland Wake, Pub.: J. W. Boutan, 1875, p. 21. 16. ‘The Phallus: Sacred Symbol of Male Creative Power’, by Alain Daniélou, Pub.: Bear & Co., 1995.

17.

18.

‘Collapse of the Aryan Invasion Theory” by Nicholas Kazanas, a paper presented in 2010 in a seminar, “How Deep are the Roots of Indian Civilization? : An Archeological and Historical Perspective” held at New Delhi. ‘The Indus and the Saraswati’, by Ram Sharan Sharma, (Available

online at: http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php? child=17&article=10) 19. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 169-73. 20. ‘The Indus and the Saraswati’, by Ram Sharan Sharma, (Available online at http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php? child=17&article=10) 21. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 41. 22. Ibid, page 33-34. 23. 'The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 160. 24. Ibid. 25. Ibid. 26. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC-CLIO, 2007, p. 279. 27. ‘PRE-INDUS AND EARLY INDUS CULTURES OF PAKISTAN AND INDIA’, by J.G. Shaffer and B.K. Thapar, p. 268. (Available online at: https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bankarticle/vol_I%20silk%20road_pre%20indus%20and%20early%20indus%20c ultures%20of%20pakistan%20and%20india.pdf) 28. ‘THE PAINTED GREY WARE CULTURE OF THE IRON AGE’, by B. B. Lal, in ‘History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Dawn of Civilization: Earliest Time to 700 BC’, (Vol. 1), edited by A. H. Dani, Pub.: UNESCO Publishing, 1992, p. 440. 29. ‘Rig Veda is Pre-Harappan’, by Nicholas Kazanas, June 2006, later published in ‘Sanskrit Studies’, (Vol. 2), edited by Wagish Shukla, D.K. Printworld, 2007. (Available online at: http://www.ifih.org/RigVedaIsPreHarappan.htm)

30.

‘ The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan’”by Bridget Allchin, pub.: Cambridge University Press, 1982, p. 318-21.

Notes: A. Etymology of the Rudra, as given by Yaska is, the one ‘who weeps or makes to weep.’ Vedic and Purana literature give several stories of his birth. As per the Aitareya Brahmna’s version, once Prajapati took incest for his daughter and taking form of the dove mated with her. All the gods got angry about this incestuous act, but none among them had enough power to punish Prajapati. Hence, they gathered whatever was fierce in them and made out body of Rudra from that to assign him the task of killing Prajapati. Rudra did so only after the gods conceded to his command that he will be the master of animals. (A.B.-3.13.9). Rudra’s weapons described in the Rig Veda are meant for killing animals (RV. 1.114.10) and hence, there are prayers to him for sparing the people, cows and horses from killing. (RV. 1.114.8) (Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, edited by Pt. Mahadev Shastri Joshi, Vol. 8, page 264-66) Rig Veda also nowhere mentions Uma, consort of Shiva. Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha points out, “Shaivait religions some features cannot be found in the Rudra worship of Vedics. Being a main distinct feature that the Shiva worship is always conducted in phallic form. Phallic worship is far ancient and its traces are found all over the globe……Still the question remains unanswered, why Shiva worship in phallic form? The answer is, Vedic Rudra was fearsome and destroyer, but Shiva, worshipped by the nonAryans, was the creator of the universe, cherisher and was associated with fertility of land and animals including human being. Naturally what else symbol could be appropriate to represent these qualities but phallus?” (Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha, Vol 9, page 308-9) The distinction was always clear between Vedic Rudra and Shiva, though the futile attempts were made to assimilate the both. B. There are arguments from Indian Homeland proponents that the Vedic people indeed knew sea and maritime trade. Archaeologist B. B. Lal too is one of them. In this regard, Ram Sharan Sharma stated, “Lal finds ‘ample

evidence... of sea trade’, and speaks of ‘tremendous wealth’ obtained from it. In support, he quotes a verse from the Ninth Book of the Rig Veda together with its translation by the 19th century British Sanskritist Griffith. The verse reads: ‘rayah samudranscaturo asmabhyam soma visvatah, apavasva sahasrinah’. The translation reads: ‘From every side, O Soma, for our profit, pour thou forth four seas filled full of riches thousandfold.’ We may add that the Ninth Book in which this verse occurs was solely devoted to Soma, and added to the main text later. Further, Griffith’s translation of asmabhyam as ‘for our profit’ creates an impression of profit arising out of trade; such a confusion is not created by Karl Friendrich Geldner, whose German translation of the Rg Veda (1951) is considered the most authoritative translation of the century. We should also note that the four seas are termed imaginary by Griffith.

“In this context the commentary of Sayana makes more sense. According to it, the sacrifice prays to Soma for the possession of the whole world bounded by the four seas. In any case there is no reference whatsoever to tremendous wealth derived from seatrade.” (Available online at: http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php? child=17&article=10) C. The Indian Vedicist scholars were rather busy in finding traces of the horse in IGC to establish Vedic connection with it. Shocking forgery of a horse seal was exposed by Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer. Noted historian, N. S. Rajaram and Natwar Jha, claimed to have read the Indus script and the language on the seals being late Vedic Sanskrit. To support the claim, Rajaram presented a blurry image of a “horse seal”, the first pictorial evidence ever claimed of Harappan horses. The claim of this find and decipherment of Indus script had made global headlines in 1999. However, within a fortnight, the image was proved by the above mentioned scholars as being a forgery and fraud. The image was created from a computer distortion of a “unicorn bull” seal. The claim of reading Harappa script too was proven to be fraudulent, thus making the laughing stock of Vedicist scholars. (See ‘Horseplay in Harappa : The Indus Valley Decipherment Hoax’, by Michael Witzel and Steve Farmer, Frontline, 13 Oct. 2000. Available online at: http://www.safarmer.com/frontline/horseplay.pdf)

D. Steve Farmer et al. (2004) claims in their paper ‘The Collapse of the Indus-Script Thesis:The Myth of a Literate Harappan Civilization’ (Steve Farmer, Richard Sproat, and Michael Witzel, 2004) that the Indus people were not a literate society as it has been claimed. The authors suggest that the Indus script appearing on the seals does not represent language but the non-linguistic-symbols those could have served key religious, political and social functions without encoding speech or serving as formal memory aids. The authors state, “All Indus inscriptions on every medium share one striking feature: extreme brevity. The longest on one surface has 17 symbols; less than 1/100 carry as many as 10. Many Indus inscriptions - if ‘inscription’ is really an appropriate term – contain only one or two symbol.” The claim is based on the logic that Indus sign frequencies prove that the Indus system was neither able to record speech nor it was intended to. (Available online at http://www.safarmer.com/fsw2.pdf) In reply to this claim Kenoyer et al. state that “….We, however, contend that given the development in the system of inscriptions over time as seen at Harappa and given the extensive use of the “signs” or “symbols” both formally and informally and on many media, making the distinction between a language-based script and not-so-tied-to-language symboling system is not particularly interesting distinction. In any event, in the absence of multi-lingual texts, and/or a successor symboling system or script there can be no widely accepted understanding what the symbols or signs of the “Indus script” actually meant to those who employed them and thus there can be no true resolution of this issue.” (‘Inscribed Objects from Harappa Excavations’, by J. Mark Kenoyer and Richard H. Meadow in ‘Corpus of Indus Seals’, (Vol. 3), ‘New Material, untraced Objects, and collections outside India and Pakistan’, edited by Asko Parpola, B. M. Pande and Petteri Koskikallio, Pub.: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 2010, footnote. Page XlIV) However, it seems Indian scholars as yet has not joined the debate. If the inscriptions are not the linguistic records and are just the symbols connoting some meaning to the people of those times, the

decipherment of those symbols will be almost impossible. In my opinion, looking at the number of symbols, about 400, they could have been representing the language and not ‘formal memory aid’ as Farmer et al. suggests. Memorising as many symbols that did not encode the speech would be a difficult situation, no matter many symbols are found being used just once on the so far excavated and studied seals. It would be wrong to assume people invented some symbols to be used for single time that did not carry any linguistic meaning. And, even if accepted that they are symbols not meant to encode speech, none of the Veda mentions such symboling system, hence again their supposed connection with IGC remains unsupported. E. Nicholas Kazanas argued that, “… the RV has no knowledge at all of many features that characterise the Harappan culture which began to emerge solidly c3000. Since the bulk of the RV must be assigned to a period before 3000 and since this is by general consensus stated to have been composed in Saptasindhu, then the Indo-Aryans or Vedic people were present in that location before 3000 and must therefore be regarded as indigenous by 1500, when, they are alleged to move in by the Aryan Invasion/Immigration Theory.” (‘Rig Veda is Pre-Harappan’, by Nicholas Kazanas, June 2006, p. 1, later published in ‘Sanskrit Studies’ (Vol. 2), edited by Wagish Shukla, D.K. Printworld, 2007) Similarly K. D. Sethna too had set period of Rig Veda to preHarappan era that has been echoed by scholars like Coenraad Elst, Talageri etc. It is agreed by these scholars decisively that there was no invasion of PIE speaking people to India and since there was no invasion they must be indigenous and if there is total absence of Harappan elements in the Rig Veda, Vedic times must be anterior to the beginning of Harappan civilization. The stand in itself is faulty because though Vedic people were not urban society, they were very well aware of its existence. They knew the fortified cities and had waged battles against the people living in them. They knew the traders and their riches. They despised them and yet occasionally had accepted gifts from them. They did not

know cotton just because the land Vedic people had inhibited (Helmand region) did not grow the cotton. Kazanas claims that horse was domesticated in India prior to 3000 BC. This argument is rather funny. Presence of the domesticated horses, anywhere for that matter, cannot be the argument to prove presence of Indo-Aryans at any rate. Rather this argument defeats his purpose because the IGC does not show any kind of prominence given to this animal; rather it is neglected even in iconography. The most revered animal by the IGC people was bull. If horses were known in 3000 BC to indigenous Aryans and if they were progenitors of the IGC, the most revered animal to them, the horse, would have found prominence in iconography of the IGC, not the bull! F. MK Dhawalikar states, “At Inamgaon, houses were of different sizes, ranging from 5X3 Meters to 7X5 meters. Big houses were divided by a small wall. Inside the every home was dug an oblong ditch to keep the fire. Not to let it extinguish by the blowing winds, the ditches were clay-lined. Same ditch, little larger in size, were found dug in the courtyards of the houses. In such ditches, made for the fire, centrally, flat stone were set, firm, to keep cooking pot on it.” (Trans mine.) (“Tamrapashanayuga”, by MK Dhavalikar, in “Maharashtra Rajya Gazetteer, Itihas: Prachin Kal (Khand 1), pub.: Darshanika Vibhag, Sanskrutik Karya Vibhag, Maharashtra Shasan, 2002, page 69-70) The finds of the IGC, those claimed to be sacred fire altars, actually do resemble with the domestic ovens of the ancient times. The habit seems to be of the Vedicist scholars, anything that relates with fire, no matter whether for potters or metal-smiths kilns, found are is vehemently been connected with fire-altars to anyhow prove the presence of Vedic people in IGC.

4. Geography of Rig Veda and Avesta There are two distinct theories, which deal with the origin of the Vedic people. One theory proposes the Aryan invasion or migration in India and other deals with indigenous Aryans migrating from India to the West. Though the Indian Urheimat Theory had its origin in the 18th century, it was put forth in renewed enthusiasm by scholar Koenraad Elst and has been enthusiastically promoted by Shrikant Talageri, Kalyanraman, David Frawly, NS Rajaram and others. It is also supported by the eminent scholars like Kazanas. A We have already discussed as to how the migration involving entire society or tribe deserting its original habitat is a wrongly founded hypothesis. It is not possible that a comparatively backward society like that of the Vedics, which supposedly immigrated to India to overwhelm a culturally advanced society like that of Indus and yet did not leave any archaeological or anthropological mark. The linguistic evidences that have been produced time and again to prove the migration theories are so fragile that they do not support any PIE language theory. We have also discussed in elaborate details as to whether the Ghaggar river could have been the Vedic Saraswati on the geological and Rig Vedic grounds. We have also noted that there is not even the slightest proof to connect the Ghaggar with the mighty Rig Vedic river Saraswati. On the same grounds, the Indian homeland theory, too, collapses. There is no proof of migrating Indigenous Aryans to spread out in the Western world as well! The Invasion theory has now been almost abandoned by the scholars because there is not even slightest evidence that can remotely prove the invading tribes subjugated the IGC and to establish their rule, to enforce their culture and languages overwhelmed their population.

As Allchins observes in regard with the invasion theories, “The intruders would have been able to rename the rivers only if they were conquerors with the power to impose this. And, of course, the same is true of their Vedic language: since no people would bother of their own free will to learn a difficult, inflected foreign language, unless they had much to gain by this, and since the Aryan immigrants had adopted the ‘material culture and lifestyle’ of the Harappans and consequently, had little or nothing to offer to the natives, the latter would have adopted the new language only under pressure. Hence, here again we discover that the substratum thinking is invasion and conquest." 1 Dr Nicholas Kazanas says, true in this regards, "…But invasion is the substratum of all such theories even if words like ‘migration’ are used. There could not have been an Aryan immigration because (apart from the fact that there is no archaeological evidence for this), the results would have been quite different. Immigrants do not impose their own demands or desires on the natives of the new country: they are grateful for being accepted, for having the use of lands and rivers for farming or pasturing and for any help they receive from the natives; in time it is they who adopt the language (and perhaps the religion) of the natives. You cannot have a migration with the results of an invasion." 2 Both the Allchins and Kazanas support what we have discussed in the first chapter of this book. In both cases, the scholars agree that there was no invasion in India. Applying the same logic, apparently, there could not have been migration of the indigenous Aryans from India to the West because we do not find any archaeological proof to support this theory. Outgoing hoards of Indigenous Aryans, too, could not have enforced their language and culture on the natives of the Western world for the same reasons, if at all they migrated. Hence, there was no migration in India of the Vedic tribes or there could not have been any migration of the indigenous Vedic Aryans to the West! We do not find any archaeological or cultural elements resembling to those of IGC or pre-IGC anywhere in the West. If

human beings move to another area in masses, they will naturally carry their culture along with their language. We do not find any proof to support the migration theory from either direction. Bryant discusses both the theories on linguistic basis and finally concludes, “… there is not likely to be more consensus in this regard among scholars in the present than there has been in the past.” 3 There cannot be the consensus because both the parties to the debate have stuck to the migration theories, from either direction. Dr Nicholas Kazanas, interestingly, wants to stretch back the time of Rigveda by almost one and half millennium to adjust his theory with the preconceived time when supposedly Satlej or Yamuna was feeding into the Ghaggar channel, i.e. the pre-Harappan era. However, unfortunately, as we have seen in the last chapters, geological surveys in the Ghaggar channels do not support his theory. Hence, the possibility of Vedic Aryans being indigenous can also be ruled out. In response to those who keep claiming that there was Aryan Invasion or migration in India, Kenoyer remarks, “….Although the overall socioeconomic organisation changed, continuities in technology, subsistence practices, settlement organisation, and some regional symbols show that the indigenous population was not displaced by invading hordes of Indo-Aryan speaking people. For many years, the 'invasions' or 'migrations' of these Indo-Aryan-speaking Vedic/Aryan tribes explained the decline of the Indus civilisation and the sudden rise of urbanisation in the Ganga-Yamuna Valley. This was based on simplistic models of culture change and an uncritical reading of Vedic texts....” 4 We must understand that all scholars do not support migrations of the Indo-Iranians from Andronovo culture. CC Lamberg-Karlovsky emphatically states, “There is absolutely no archaeological evidence for any variant of the Andronovo culture either reaching or influencing the cultures of Iran or Northern India in the second millennium. Not a single artifact of identifiable Andronovo type has

been recovered from the Iranian plateau, northern India or Pakistan.” 5

This is in line with our argument that the migration theories including peaceful trickle down from any direction need to be abandoned in the light of the material evidence. Lamberg-Karlovsky further confirms that the BMAC (Bactria-Margiana Archeological Complex) culture that was spread in Iran and Afghanistan was independent of other cultures of those times. The skeletal remains of BAMC sites and of Harappa, too, were profoundly different showing ethnic diversity of both the people. 6 This defeats the purpose of the Vedicist scholars who blatantly want to claim India to be Vedic Aryans homeland from where they dispersed to the West. Having stated and quoted as above, being choiceless, we see that the both sides of the migration debate mostly agree that at some stage, Indo-Iranians were situated in present day Afghanistan/Iran from where they took different paths. It means that at the least for a few centuries, from wherever they might have come, the so-called Indo-Iranians, as migrationist scholars claim, lived together in the regions of the Iran that included modern Afghanistan. The Indigenous Vedic Aryan theory, even if no migration attached to it, is problematic because the material evidence does not prove it. The language of the Avesta and the Rig Veda are quite close to each other. So much so, J. Harmatta observes, “In Antiquity, for example, the Avesta stood so near to the Vedic Sanskrit that by making use of the phonetic correspondences between the two, we can transpose whole Avestan sentences word by word, sound by sound, into Vedic Sanksrit.” 7 In my opinion, originally, the Rig Vedic dialect must have been quite closer, phonetically too, to that of the Gathas than the language we find in presently available Rig Vedic texts. The Rig Vedic language, from internal as well as external evidence, clearly appears to have gone through significant modifications before it was compiled to the

present form, which made Witzel to determine Rig Veda being less archaic over old Avesta. 8 However, despite the fact that the PIE language theory stands on the conjecture of single location origin and the subsequent migration, we have conclusive and irrefutable proof that there are striking similarities in the languages of the old Avesta and the Rig Veda, which is not to be found elsewhere except of few superficial resemblances. It is not a mere coincidence that the geography, too, is commonly shared by both the holy scriptures. Besides, there is no archaeological evidence available to prove that the Indo-Iranians came to their respective locations from any other place. Neither the Gatha’s, nor the Rig Veda support any other homeland. However, the linguistic closeness, striking similarities in personal names as well geographical names leaves us with no room to think but accept the fact that both the societies lived in the close proximity in that era from time unknown. It will be pertinent to attempt to fix the exact location from where Mazdayasni religion emerged to understand the possible location of the Vedic tribe(s). There can be little doubt that Avestan and Rig Vedic tribes were settled in close vicinity, having not only the provincially independent, but also similar dialects because of their geographical closeness. We must not forget here that the scholars usually connect the date of Avesta with the hypothetical movements of the so-called Aryans. Sixth century BCE date of Zoroaster that was fixed earlier based on generation calculations by the Zoroastrian priests, which was 258 years before the date of Alexander’s conquest of Persia, has now been mostly discarded. Other Greek sources indicate the date of the prophet to be 5,000 years before the Trojan War, i.e. 6,000 years BC. Based on the assumption that the PIE speakers entered Iran from Sintastha, Boyce dates the Gathas of Zoroaster as upper limit of 1,500 BCE to lowest limit of 1,100 BCE. Mary Boyce holds that, as cited by Bryant, the oldest Avestan texts do not mention the regions

west of the Iran and that they do not mention urban centres as well, indicating the prehistoric period. Boyce’s view does not help to stretch back the Avestan history. However, it proves that it is one of the oldest scriptures. 9 We must keep it in mind here that the scholars have debated the dates of the Avesta and the Rig Veda and there has been no consensus on it so far. Max Muller fixed the time of the Rig Veda at 1,200 BC. However, it has been questioned, debated and played with to suit individual theories, such as that of the Avesta. Likewise, of late, the time of Gathas, too, has been decided almost whimsically to prove Gathas were composed long after the time of early Rig Veda. Talageri is one such scholar.10 It is rather noteworthy that the exercises of dating of the Gathas and the Rig Veda are mostly hypothetical, unsubstantiated by any material proof, mostly based on the hypothetical date of separation of so-called Indo-Iranians. And this is why, in absence of definitive proofs, not only Vedic, but Iranian scholars, too, tend to stretch back the period as much as possible… with single motive to prove remote antiquity of their respective religion/culture. Naturally, there is disagreement over the period of both the scriptures. The most probable era of both the cultures could be contemporary with BAMC (Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex) period that ranges from 2,300 to 1,700 BCE. Some physical proofs of Avestan Haoma (Rig Vedic Soma) sacrificial practices are traced with the finds of the floral remains of leaves, grains which after due analysis were proved to be the remains of Ephedra, a mild intoxicating herb.Besides, the burial practices, fire altars, fire temples etc found at various BMAC sites are linked to the proto-Zoroastrian identity by the scholars. 11 Though some of the identifications are obscure to relate with Zoroastrians, we can safely conclude that the Zoroaster and his reintroduced religion prospered during sometime between middle of the BMAC phase, i.e. 1,500 till 1,200 BC among variety of the ethnicities that lived in the vast region

of ancient Iran and slightly contemporaneous with the early Rig Vedic era. B

Geography of Avesta The geography of the Avesta is not certain but various locations mentioned in the Avesta are within and outer boundaries of ancient Iran. Different scholars believe that the possible candidate for Airyanam Vaeja are either Hindukush, north of Syr Darya, northeastern parts of Iran or Afghan highlands etc where Zoroaster was born to Pourushaspa. Some scholars find the identity of Airyanam Vaeja to be most insoluble or simply that the land being mythical having no real existence. The land is thought to be most important to locate because it is considered the place where Zoroaster was born and delivered his first sermon. Whitney suggested in nineteenth century that, “Respecting the region in which the Avesta had its origin we may speak with more confidence: it was doubtless Bactria and its vicinity, the northeastern portion of the immense territory occupied by the Iranian people.” 12 Gherardo Gnoli states, “If we compare the first chapter of the VidÄ“vdÄ d with the passages of geographical interest that we come across mainly in the great yašts, we can conclude that the geographical area of Avesta was dominated by the Hindu Kush range at the centre, the western boundary being marked by the districts of Margiana, Areia, and Drangiana, the eastern one by the Indo-Iranian frontier regions such as Gandhara, Buner, the land of the ‘Seven Rivers’, Sogdiana and, possibly, Chorasmia (which, however, is at the extreme limits) mark the boundary to the north, Sistan and Baluchistan to the south.” 13 The late Avestan scriptures describe Airyanam Vaeja as bellow:“The Daraja river is in Eranvej, on the bank (bar) of which was the dwelling of Pourushasp, the father of Zartosht. Zartosht, when he brought the religion, first celebrated worship and expounded in

Eranvej, and Maidyok-mah received the religion from him.” (Eranvej is transformed from Airyanam Vaeja in middle Persian texts.) 14 Though, the exact location of Airyanam Vaeja is not certain, the verses are indicating undoubtedly that it was the birthplace of Zarathustra and the place where he delivered his first sermon. Touting it as an original homeland or first settlement of the IndoIranians while on move from South Russia would be a grave mistake as there is no proof to support such a theory. The Iranians could have been settled in the same region, as they are now, for thousands of years even before the Zoroaster preached his religion. Excavations at BMAC sites clearly suggest that the region was populated since well before 6,000 BCE. Small incoming or outgoing immigration (in any region for that matter) causing some mutual interactions and influence is not ruled out. However, it would not be logical to imply that it was the homeland or temporary settlement of the PIE people while on the move, because the same texts prove that it was not the homeland of the entire or some PIEs, but mere birthplace of the Prophet. We must also note that before Zoroaster preached his religion, historic religions to which he opposed and to which he reformed were already in existence. “3. About Ohrmazd's disclosing the religion first among mankind to Yim [Jamshed]; its non-acceptance by Yim [Jamshed] owing to attachment (asrunoih) to the religion of the ancients; and the acceptance of other things to develop, extend, and improve the world thereby. 4. About the reason of the needfulness of making the enclosure that Yim [Jamshed] made (var-i Yim kard), the command and instruction by Ohrmazd to Yim [Jamshed], the making by Yim [Jamshed] just as Ohrmazd commanded and instructed, and whatever is on the same subject.” (Nask 19: Vendidad [Jud-dew-dad] (legal) (44)). The Nask makes it clear for us that even before Ahurmazda religion was introduced to Yim (Sk. Yama), religion of the ancients did coexist.

If we look at the Avestan mythology, we find that Gaya Maretan was the first mortal person who became disciple of Ahur Mazda. (Farvardin Yasht, 13.87) He was succeeded by Hushang, Tahmuras and then by Yim. Later, it appears, Yim abandoned Mazda Yasni religion and became a sinner. (Gatha 32.8) This implies that various faiths such as of Daevas and phallic worshipers did exist simultaneously in Iran and neighboring regions in those times and their followers fought with each other for religious supremacy. It is evident from the Gathas that when Zoroaster was born, the Mazdayasni religion had already declined and he reformed it. Thus, finding provenance of any religion is almost impossible. Different faiths do emerge in various societies seeking followers but they do decline with the abandonment of faiths by the people on own accord or by force, depending on the socio-political environment. Cultural convergence and divergences is a constant process that continues in every region and society. This means that the Iranians were never on the move but had settled in respective regions following different faiths and fought with each other for religious and political supremacy from ancient times. Some faiths survived, some did not, but the process seems to have continued over a longer period when Zoroaster became the reformer of a declined religion. Some of the territories mentioned in Avesta have been identified as those situated within and border regions of Iran. Skajervo concludes from internal evidence that they were composed in north-eastern Iran and travelled from there to the South and Southwest. 15 However, even if considered that the Avesta gradually shaped up in different regions, it does not indicate the movement of the people. It merely shows how the tradition of compositions was taken up by the followers of the religion of different regions in course of the time depending on the patronages they received. Most of the religions

have evolved and spread in this manner. Except for Airyanam Vaejo, its neighbouring regions like Sukhdho, Mouru, Bakhdhim are identified with Sogdhd (north-western Tajikistan, Samarkand), Merv & Murghab (Turkmenistan) and Balkh (North Afghanistan) respectively. Being the Prophet’s birth place, if the land was glorified to the extent of its being first region created by the Lord, we should consider it to be the faithful poetic imagination instead of taking the climatic indications mentioned in the glory of the land as the factual truth. The King of Balkh (North Afghanistan), Vishtasp, was the first disciple of Zoroaster. (Farvardin Yasht 25.99) The legend goes that Zoroaster was killed by a Turanian in Balkh. Turia, which is enumerated as adjacent to the land of Airyanam Vaejo, is identified with Turan. In all, probabilities the Turvasas of Rig Veda could have been Turanians of the Avesta, coming from ‘far afar’ to assist them in the wars! Farvardin Yasht (9.38) mentions several wars with Turanians. Hence, in all probabilities, although Zoroaster must be roaming in nearby regions to spread his message in his lifetime, gathering disciples and patrons, he seems to have been associated more with Balkh for a long period in his life. Airyanam Vaeja can be a place within or from neighbouring regions of Balkh, but we cannot be so certain about which it was. Possibly, the Aryanist scholars were fascinated with the word ‘Ariya’ and therefore, they debated over it very seriously. Considering that Zoroaster was the noblest of the noble man to the Iranians, it is no surprise that his birthplace was extolled as ‘Ariyanam Vajea’ by his followers. Out of 16, the 10th land or regions enumerated by Zoroaster is Harahvaiti, (VENDIDAD: Fargard 1.12) which today is known after the Arabic corrupt form as Arghandab, a major tributary to Haetumant (modern day Helmand and enumerated by Zoroaster as

an 11th land created by the Lord). Among the regions enumerated is Hapta Hindava (Fargard 1.18) which normally all scholars have connected with Punjab, the basin of the Indus. However, let us not forget here that ‘Sindhu’ was not always meant to be the name of river. Alternatively, the term has also been used to denote the rivers. Rather for Hapta Hindava, observes P. O. Skajervo, “The seven rivers may have denoted the seven world-rivers, as suggested by an Avestan fragment in the Pahlavi commentary of Videvdad 1.19.” Skajervo emphatically states further, “…it is said in the Avesta : from dawn-side river to the evening-side river, as well as a passage in the hymn of Mithra, where the two hindus ‘rivers’ and the Ranha denotes the farthest point of the earth:….” 17 If serious consideration is to be given to this, the identity of Sapta Sindhu or Hapta Hindava cannot always be equated with Indus region, i.e. Punjab, such as in this case. The number seven seems to have acquired some kind of reverence for both the Avestan and Rig Vedic people. This is evidenced from the repetitive use of the term like Saptarshi (Seven Seers), Haft Keshvar (Seven Regions) etc. Hence, the identity of the Hapta Hindava or Saptasindhu (seven rivers) remains ambiguous. However, even if considered the identification with the region of seven rivers, i.e. Indus, this just would indicate that the farthest region towards southeast of Afghanistan known to Zoroaster (or Iranians) was Indus region. The Avesta does not mention any region beyond that of Indus, nor its mighty tributaries by name. The Rig Vedic tribes, too, knew no land beyond Indus and its western tributaries at the time while the Rig Veda was being composed. The river they lavishly praised was Saraswati, cognate of Harahvaiti of Vendidad, on whose bank the bulk of Rig Veda was composed and numerous fire sacrifices were performed. The Rig Veda mentions few names of the western tributaries of the Indus, unlike the Avesta, because they were closer to the Indus Valley, if not in the Indus

Valley itself! Hence, their knowing the names of the western tributaries of the Indus is no surprise. The Rig Vedic geography does not mention regions of far west, beyond Parshu. (Persia or the region of Parshu tribe, which seems dominant over the time than of Airyanam, i.e. Iran.) On the other hand, the Avestan geography does not go beyond Hapta Hindava. It also does not mention anywhere what it constituted of, which in a way clearly demarcates the northern geography of Avesta and the southern geography of Rig Veda. This also settles the problem of respective geographical positions of the people following a certain faith or mixture of the faiths, like the Vedics where we find the mixture of the both Daeva and Ahura (Deva and Asura) cultures/faiths in the form of Asur Varuna-Mitra and Indra (Daeva) worship, which contradicts the Avestan faith. This is an interesting mixture of the faiths that we find in single scripture contributed by the seers hailing from different background and tribes. On the contrary, the Avesta throughout follows the Asura (Ahura) faith, placing Daevas as demons in opposition with Ahur Mazda, Indra being one of them. Similarly, it is possible that other tribes, too, followed some or other faiths apart from Daeva and Asura like of Shisnadeva (phallic God). However, let us discuss first on the other aspects related with the present issue under discussion. While we can be certain enough to locate Avestan geography at north-east of the present day Afghanistan, the Rig Vedic geography needs to be precisely set. Let us first see what the regions, tribes and rivers Rig Veda mentions to understand the geography of Rig Veda. However, while doing so, one has to set aside the previous migration or any geographical theories related to it for the time being to understand the real geographical scenario.

Rivers in the Rig Veda 1. We find following rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda: Rasa : ( RV I. 112.12., VIII.72.13., V.41.15; 53.9., IX.41.6, X.75.6; 108.1, 2; 121.4.) – Rasa, which is frequently mentioned river after Saraswati and Sindhu, finds its mention in the Avesta as Ranha/Rangha. Ranha is the 16th land created by Ahur Mazda that constituted of the people having no chiefs. (Fargard 1.19). The Rig Veda lauds her as, “Duly to each one hath my laud been offered. Strong be Varutri with her powers to succour. May the great Mother Rasa here befriend us, straight-handed, with the princes, striving forward.” (RV 5.41.15) and “Wherewith ye made Rasa swell full with water-floods, and urged to victory the car without a horse; Where with Trisoka drove forth his recovered cows,-Come hither unto us, O Asvins, with those aids.” (RV 1.112.12.) From order of the enumeration of the 16 lands created by Ahur Mazda, some scholars think Ranha (Rasa) was close to Airyanam Vaejo.Hence, it could have been a river/land from western side. The corrupt form of the Rangha was ‘Arang’ in later times. ‘Encyclopedia Iranica’ explains, Arang or alternatively used as Arvand – Rud, (Rud for river) renders Avestan Ranha, which is cognate with the Scythian name Rhâ (RahÄ) transmitted by Ptolemy and with Old Indic RasA. Arvand-rud was the name designated by the Persians in middle Persian texts to the river Tigris. The previous identifications of Ranha with such as Oxus or Amu Darya have already been discarded. Hence, the scholars admit that it only could be the Tigris river from East Mesopotamia. Fereshteh Davaran also equates the river with Arang, also known as Tigris. 18 The Rig Veda, at times, mentions Rasa together with Krumu (Kurram) and Kubha (Kabul) (RV 5.53.9). On this basis, some scholars think that it could be connected with Indus, or it could be any mountainous river in the vicinity of Kabul and Kurram river.19

However, we cannot neglect the fact that the references to the Ranha in Avesta rather are of mythological forms. Witzel also treats the river as mythical. The Avesta describes the river as “….over the falls (River) Ranha, over the source of the (River) Ranha, over the border of this earth, over the middle of this earth, over wherever of the earth.” (Yasht 12) The description albeit sounds like mythical, but later text Bundahisn (21.1) describes the Arang (Tigris) river almost in the same fashion and as it being location of the lofty deities and abode of mythical Kar fish. According to the Avesta, the Ranha denotes the farthest point of the earth. It is quite likely that the list in Videvdad 1 intended to cover the entire known world, including its mythical limits, states P.O. Skjaervo. 20 Rig Vedic geography being in the close vicinity of the Avestans, it is no wonder that the farthest but a mighty, not well known but from the information either flowed to them from wanderers or was visited by some or other travellers from which Vedic society did describe her in mystical awe. Like Avesta, Rig Veda, too, describes the river as distant and mystic or mythical. “On every side, O Soma, flow round us with thy protecting stream, As Rasa flows around the world.” (RV 9.41.6) and “WHAT wish of Sarama hath brought her hither? The path leads far away to distant places. What charge hast thou for us? Where turns thy journey? How hast thou made thy way o'er Rasa's Waters.” (RV10.108.1). The Rig Vedic descriptions are not dissimilar to the Avestan descriptions of the river Ranha, suggesting it mighty but a distant and mythical river. In later Indian mythologies, ‘Rasa’ came to be termed as the underworld, i.e. Rasatal. The above deliberation confirms that the Vedic and Avestans are talking about the same river. It was distant to their known horizon and yet had mystified them to make her mentions in their sacred texts. This also confirms that the River Tigris is the Rasa/Ranha, which was a distant river to them.

Sarayu: (RV X.64.9, IV.30.18.,V.53.9): Sarayu river is identified with Avestan Horoiiyu (alternately called as Harayu or Hari-rud). Hari-rud originates from the Baba mountain range, part of the Hindukush mountain range. In western Afghanistan, it flows to the south of Herat. The river especially mentioned in Rig Veda is in context with slaying of Arna and Chitraratha at the hands of Indra on its bank. (RV IV.30.18). Gomati: (RV X.75.6., VIII.24.30.): Rig Vedic Gomati is identified with the Gomal (Gumal) river of the Afghanistan and Pakistan, originating at Ghazni to confluence with Indus near Dera Ismail Khan. Kubha: (RV V.53.9, X.75.6.): Kubha is identified with the Kabul river. It originates in the Sangalakh range of the Hindu Kush Mountains in Afghanistan. This river, too, is a western tributary of Indus river. Krumu: (RV V.53.9, X.75.6): Krumu is identified with the Kurram river of Afghanistan that, too, confluences with Indus. Arjikiya: (RV VIII.7.29; 64.11, X.65.23): Originating in Afghanistan, Arjikiya has been identified with river Haro which joins Indus in Pakistan. There have also been suggestions that Arjikiya be identified with Arghastan of Afghanistan, 21 Suvastu: (RV VIII.19.37): Identified with the river Swat that originates from Hindu Kush mountains to form a confluence with Kabul river. The Lower Swat Valley consists of many archaeological sites. YavyAvatI (RV VI.27.6): Witzel identifies this river with the Zhob river of the northern Baluchistan, 22 whereas Talageri identifies this river with Hariyupia or Drsadvati. Without going in to the identification debate, a fact should be noted that Zhob river is a tributary of the Gomal river of Afghanistan which is unanimously identified with Gomati river of the Rig Veda. The present name Zhob of the river originates from the Zhob city situated on her banks or alternatively has acquired the name from the Zab river of the Iraq. The name is Iranian in its origin and etymologically identical to those of the Little Zab and Great Zab rivers in Iraq and the Pamirs.

The verse in which Yavyavati is mentioned while enumerating the victories with aid of Indra does not indicate its either being closer or farther. Abhyavartin Caymana mentioned in the same hymn, destroying the enemy Varshikha, who belonged to Anu tribe as per some scholars. There is no dispute over the fact that Caymana of Rig Veda indeed was an Iranian character. Looking at the description mentioned above, the Zhob (Baluchistan) seems to be the most logical identification of Yavyavati. Trstama: This river has been identified with the Gilgit river. This river originates from Hindu Kush and confluences with Indus at the high altitude of about 10,000 feet. Kusava: Though the identification of the Kusava is disputed, many scholars identify the Kusava river with Kunar, which also is western tributary of the Indus, originating in Afghanistan. The Rig Vedic river names of the other tributaries of the Indus are tentatively identified as under: Susoma - Sohan GaurI – Panjikora Vitasta – Jhelam Asikni – Chenab Parusni – Ravi Vipas – Beas Sutudri – Satlej Let us note that the Rig Veda mentions Sutudri and Vipas as far away rivers, which the seer of the hymn seems to have traversed by wagon. “List quickly, Sisters, to the bard who cometh to you from far away with car and wagon. Bow lowly down; be easy to be traversed stay, Rivers, with your floods below our axles”. (RV 3.33.9). The geographical fact remains that the Vipas and Satlej rivers would be far away from the Helmand basin to reach, but certainly, not to the people living in the vicinity of Ghaggar.

However, identification of Vitasta, Asikni and Parusni remains ambiguous. (See note ‘D’ to chapter 2) The identification is mainly based on the Nadistuti hymns in which these rivers, too, have been enumerated. Vipas becoming Beas or Sutudri becoming Satlej in course of the time is but plausible but Vitasta to Jhelam or Asikni to Chenab or Parusni to Ravi name changes, no matter how in corrupt forms, seems to be unlikely. Historically, the name Ravi has been derived from river Iravati, but there is no supportive proof that the Iravati also was called as Parusni in the ancient times. Hence, the identification of these three Rig Vedic Rivers remains undecided. Most likely, these rivers could be Western minor tributaries of the Indus or the tributaries of Helmand itself. Sindhu: Sindhu is mentioned several times in the Rig Veda. Sindhu is generic word for the river or riverines. Hence, at every place, Sindhu does not denote to the Sindhu river. However, in Nadistuti, it appears that the Sindhu river has received more prominence over even Saraswati. Rather, it has occupied prominent position. As we have seen above that the ‘Sapta Sindhava’ also can mean any group of seven rivers and that could be identified with any river system, not necessarily with the river system of the Indus river. To be exact, the rivers in the Indus system are far more than what the word Sapta Sindhava (seven rivers) indicates. However, instead of entering into the debate over the identity of Sindhu, let us accept that the identification, as far as this hymn is concerned, is correct and it was but natural for Rig Vedic tribes to know this river since it was the nearest largest river from the place they were settled. Hence, knowing the river and its western tributaries comes as no surprise. Ganga and Yamuna: The name Ganga appears in the Rig Veda only twice, though Whitney opines that only once the name is addressed undoubtedly to the Ganga river. 23 Talageri is mistaken where he thinks the other name appearance is reference to Ganga river. The verse (RV. 6.45.31) in question talks about the ‘Gangyaah’ (son of Ganga, not river), Bubu, from whom the Rig Vedic seer had

received gifts. The river Ganga is believed to have been mentioned with her another name Jahnavi. ( I.116.19) However, Griffith translates the verse (1.116.19) as follows: “Ye, bringing wealth with rule, and life with offspring, life rich in noble heroes; O Nasatyas, accordant came with strength to Jahnu's children who offered you thrice every day your portion.” Shrikant Talageri does not accept this translation, though there is no reason why he should not. He harps that the Rig Vedic seers intend to name Ganga with its alternative name in this verse and not as the ‘Janhus children’.24 However, there is no dispute that the river Ganga could have been mentioned in the Rig Veda, in this hymn, as the farthermost known river like far west river Rasa (Tigris). Nadistuti hymn mentions Yamuna along with Ganga. Yamuna finds its mention in three verses. (RV V.52.17, VII.18.19, X.75.5). Most of the migrationist scholars tend to believe that the verses mentioning Ganga and Yamuna were compositions by the invading Vedic Aryans later on when they had almost settled in the Gangetic basin. Yamuna name derives from Yama (AV Yim), a celebrated deity from Rig Veda as well Avesta. The one important mention of Yamuna in Rig Veda is that Sudasa defeated Bheda on her banks immediately after his victory in battle of the ten kings. However, Griffith translates this verse 7.18 19 as: “Yamuna and the Trtsus aided Indra. There he stripped Bheda bare of all his treasures. The Ajas and the Sigrus and the Yaksus brought in to him as tribute heads of horses.” Though the translation is correct, it does not indicate Yamuna here being the river. Rather in the same book, hymn 7.33.3 in which the same incident of Bheda’s defeat is described.In this verse, the word Sindhu is used instead of Yamuna. Griffith translates here Sindhu as ‘river’, being it synonym for rivers as well. Again, in verse 7.83.4, the same episode is memorised but no mention of any river appears in it. In verse 5.52.17 (The mighty ones, the seven times seven, have singly given me hundred gifts. / I have obtained on Yamuna famed wealth in kine and wealth in steeds.) Yamuna is mentioned but is

equally ambiguous and in all probabilities could not possibly be Yamuna of India. Here, we find interesting juncture where there are three verses about the war. In one of them, ‘Yamuna’ is mentioned but not her banks or flow indicating its being river. In the second, the word Sindhu appears instead of Yamuna along with reference to her banks, but it is not clear whether it is the Sindhu river or just any river. In the third, no river is mentioned. In another verse, the word Yamuna appears but its geography is not clear. Nor it is clear that whether it is addressed to any river or not. So the question arises on whose banks Sudasa conquered Bheda? It creates serious anomaly in absence of definitive proof that the Yamuna mentioned in the verse 7.18.19 is intended as the present Yamuna river or just as name of some ambiguous female deity? Whether Sindhu mentioned in the verse 7.33.3 is just for the river or does it clearly intends to indicate the Sindhu river? Even if the Parusni is equated with Ravi, the distance between Ravi and Yamuna does not allow for war manoeuvre because it is not less than 300 to 400 miles full of mountainous terrain! Therefore, in all probability, the Sudasas victory over Bheda, unless this was a mythological war, did not take place at the present river Yamuna. It could have been any river of same name or the Sindhu river itself! There is no dispute amongst scholars that the Nadistuti (Tenth Mandala) is a work of later times whereas the seventh Mandala is considered being among oldest. The mention of Ganga and Yamuna together in the verse 10.75.5 only can be said with some certainty that it was the river names those flowed through India, which ealier might just have been known as the farthest rivers from their location. The mention in Nadistuti hymn, since it is considered to be a late composition when the Vedic tradition had travelled to India. However, it be noted here that the word ‘Ganga’, like Sindhu, also is a generic word for the river. In Indo-Chinese languages, too, similar words like Khang, Kijang or Jong are used for the rivers. The word Ganga could possibly have been derived from Austric and thus have

no Vedic dialect origin.25 Hence, we can assume that the Vedics did not name the Ganga but the name pre-existed when the Vedic tradition had travelled to India. The following map will show the respective geographical positions of the tributaries of the Indus river. Saraswati: As we have seen in the previous chapters that the Ghaggar cannot be the Rig Vedic river on any account, we have no alternative but to accept the Harahvaiti (Sk. Saraswati, now known as Aranghab), a major tributary to the river Helmand (Avestan name Haetumant, Sk. Setumant) as the Rig Vedic Sarasvati. Besides, the fact to be noted is that the most of the rivers mentioned in Rig Veda are of Afghan origin. Helmand, too, would have carried the same name as Harhvaiti along with Haetumant, which means ‘dammed’. The meaning of Saraswati is ‘full of ponds’. Rajesh Kochhar supports our deliberation. He states that, “There is an uncanny similarity between the Rigvedic description of Saraswati and Avestan description of Helmand. Rigveda (Rv 6.61.8) talks of Saraswati 'whose limitless unbroken flood, swift moving with a rapid rush, comes onward with tempestuous roar', while Yasht (10.67) refers to 'the bountiful, glorious Hetumant swelling its white waves rolling down its copious floods'. This suggests that the same river is meant in both the cases. If we identify naditama Saraswati with the Helmand, we can consistently account for all its attributes.” 26 C We have seen all important rivers mentioned in the Rig Veda. With this, we get the clue that all rivers, except Ganga-Yamuna and Rasa which are farthermost known regions/rivers to the Vedic people, all other rivers are within the close vicinity of Aranghab or Helmand river. For example, Rangha alias Tigris is located towards farther west of Afghanistan i.e. Mesopotamia. Ganga-Yamuna are the probable farthest eastern rivers known to the Vedics, but not to the Avestans. This was because settlements of the Avestans were towards the north of the Afghanistan whereas the Vedics were settled towards south Afghanistan. Under such circumstances, the knowledge of these rivers is not a surprise!

Frequently referred rivers of Rig Veda are not Ganga, Yamuna, or even the eastern tributaries of the Indus, but the Afghan origin rivers and western tributaries to the Indus. We will further see that the most of the events recorded by Rig Veda also took place on the western side of the Indus. This clearly indicates that the location of Vedics being closer to them and that the Vedics were settled close by the river Helmand that is central part of western and eastern rivers frequently mentioned in the Rig Veda. Many unidentifiable names of the rivers could be related to the tributaries of Helmand.

Tribes in the Rig Veda About 48 tribes or groups of the people have been mentioned in the Rig Veda in different contexts. Many of the tribes are identified with their respective locations whereas some yet remain unidentified as there seems no geographical continuity of those tribes because of their possible assimilation with the other tribes living in the close vicinity or their losing political or monarchal identity in course of the time. The Yadus, Turvasas, Anus, Druhyus and Purus are the main tribes frequently mentioned in the Rig Veda. It is a general understanding that The Rig Vedic composition underwent under the hypothetical Puru patronage, or to be precise Puru’s branch Bharata clan (subbranch Tritsu). Yadus and Turvasas are always mentioned together but they seem to be located at far distance from the Rig Vedic tribe, Rig Veda evidenced it thus…they were coming from far afar (RV I.36.18; VI.45.1) and from the further bank (RV V.31.8). However, though both tribes were located far afar, Rig Veda does not clearly mentions that both the tribes lived together in close vicinity, but mentioning them together implies their close geographical proximity. Though both the tribes have been mostly friendly with the Rig Vedic tribe, it does not indicate that the cordial alliance remained always the same. There are references in the Rig Veda that sometimes, they too, had turned foes which is apparent from verse VI.27.7; VII.18.6 and 19.8; IX.61.2. Hence, the federation of the five tribes, which is often referred as ‘Panchajana’, means that it was not case all the time. Rig Veda, though mentions ‘panchajana’ frequently, does not explicitly name the tribes. Hence, the identity of these panchajana tribes remains ambiguous. However, as far as the identity of the both is concerned, Talageri suggests that both, Yadu and Turvasa, were certainly not the Vedic Aryans. 27 Then who were they? Were the Yadus of Rig Veda same tribe mentioned in the Mahabharata? Had it been the case, there was no reason to call them Non-Vedic Aryans as they were sons of Yayati. However, Yadu and Turvasas of Rig Veda certainly are distinct tribes but located afar from the Vedic tribe.

Turvasas sometimes are mentioned as ‘Turva’ in Rig Veda (10.62.10). In later Indian tradition, the Turvasas seems to have been disappeared except their passing mention in Satapatha Brahmana. 28 Though, there is no certain identification of the tribe by either theorists, it seems that the Turvasas were none other than Turanians of Avesta, a historical tribe living in the region of Turan, which was always hostile to the Avestans. “The Yasht (13.143 & 144) lists the names of individuals who were the first "hearers and teachers" of Zarathushtra's teachings. …….The five nations mentioned are Airyana Vaeja (called Airyanam Dakhyunam in the Yasht) as well as four neighbouring lands. These four lands neighbouring Airyana Vaeja are Tuirya, Sairima, Saini and Dahi.” 29 From Yasht, it is clear that the Tuirya people were an ancient tribe and stayed in the Turan region. The word Turvayana occurs four times in Rig Veda as the name of the person to whom Indra helped to win against some enemy tribes. Griffith refers to Sayana and concludes that it could be the epithet of Divodasa. Likewise, some scholars think that Turanians, mentioned as Tuiryas in Avesta and may be that the Tuirya word was derived from the word Aierya in its contrast for their enmity. However, we find from the Rig Veda that the Turvasas (TurvaTurvayana), although hostile with Iranians, were mostly on friendly terms with Vedic people. Indra’s help to them winning the some wars indicate Vedic peoples could have participated in some wars that the Turvasas fought. Max Muller asserts, “Turvasa and his descendents, who represent the Turanians, are described in the later epic poems of India as cursed and deprived of their inheritance in India.” It is but natural after the battle of ten kings, Turanians (Turvasas) would have become despised people to the Vedic folks. 30

Turvasas also can be explained as ‘Tur+Vasa”, residents of ‘Tur’ region. The name ‘Turk’ also is derived from ‘Tur’, same like the term ‘Turan’ or ‘Tuirya’ of Avesta, making it clear that the Turvasas of the Rig Veda and Turanians of Avestan texts are one and the same people. Turan was land of the modern Turks, showing continuity of tribal identity of the Turs. 31

To the people settled in Helmand region, Turanians alias Turvasas, positioned in Turan, adjacent to Balkh, would be the people coming from far afar looking at the geographical distance. Macdonell agrees that the Turvasas advanced from West to participate in the battle of ten kings, 32 which does mean that their location was certainly towards west of the river Parusni, (not to be confused with Ravi) where the battle took place. Avesta mentions Tuirya (Turan) being the neighbouring land of Airyana Vaeja, with whom Zoroastrians were hostile, implies that the Turvasas of Rig Veda, with whom they were mostly on friendly terms, were none but Turanians. As far the Yadus, although mostly have been equated with Yadus of Mathura, it seems unlikely that they were inhibited there, though they too are said to be coming ‘from far afar’ with Turvasas. Both the tribes couldn’t have been, in every possibility, coming together from opposite directions! Macdonell states in this regard that, “the Turvasas and Yadus were two distinct though closely allied tribes.” 33 However, if Turvasas were coming from Turan, Yadus, too, must have been settled about them and not to the far opposite side like Mathura. We get an indicative proof from Rig Veda as followes: “A hundred thousand have I gained from Parsu, from Tirindira, And presents of the Yadavas.” (RV 8.6.46, Trans. Griffith) Parsus are identified with Persians. In this verse, it shows that the Yadus were close to Persians too! Looking at association of Turvasas and Yadus and in above verse, the composer praising Parsus and Yadavas in same breath for the donations received from them, it would seem that the Yadus of Rig Veda were settled somewhere between Turan and the habitat of Persian tribes.

Puru Tribe King Sudasa ousted an important tribe, the Puru, in the battle of ten kings with the help of his chief priest Vasishtha. Sudasa is said to be belonging to the Bharata clan, a sub-tribe or the part of Puru tribe. There are many seers in the Rig Veda those are named after Puru, such as Purumeelha Angirasa, Puru Atreya, and Puruhanma etc. However, it is clear that the Rig Vedic people (at the least during Sudasa clans reign) did not directly belong to the hypothetical Puru tribe. Rather, Puru seems to be a common name used for personal as well as for cities, towns and forts. Indra’s main epithet is ‘Purabhidya’, ‘Purandara’ that means destroyer of the cities and the forts. We find the same tradition is Avesta as well. Zoroaster’s father’s name was Pourushaspa. ‘Pouru’ was a prefix of the many Avestan personal names, such as Pouru-Bangha, Pouruchista, PouruDhakshiti, Pouru-Jira, Pouru-Dhakhsti, and so many others. There can be possible connection between Puru of the Rig Veda and Pouru of Avesta. Vedic Puru and Pouru of Avesta are the same, which means ‘Plenty’, ‘Many’ or ‘More’. Or “first man”. Sometimes, it also stands for ‘ancient’ and ‘predecessors’. The word Puratan, Purva for ancient could have been derived from ‘Puru’. According to Saul Levin, the word ‘Puru’ is of the basic vocabulary, is archaic, and is parallel with ‘Pouru’ of Avesta. 34 No wonder, the same word came to be used as ‘Purush’ for man and ‘Purandhri’ for female while becoming cognate for cities or towns where both genders lived together to whom the term ‘Poura’ was applied. Whether Rig Vedic Puru was a tribal name, or just an archaic epithet, or vocative case used for the men may be a question here. Macdonell asserts, “In several passages of the Rigveda, the Purus as a people seem to be meant.” 35 He further adds that from Rig Veda we note sudden disappearance of the Purus. However, certainly, from Rig Veda, it appears that the name was variably used as a tribal name, epithet and prefix of the personal names. Given due consideration to this, Puru from the lineage of Mahabharata

cannot be equated with either the Puru of Rig Veda or Pouru of Avesta. Surprisingly, Satapatha Brahmana explains Purus as Raksasas and Asuras. It only is in Mahabharata, Puru revives as a name of the son of Yayati and Sharmishtha. 36 In Rig Veda, though, Puru, as a tribe, is allied with Rig Vedic tribe sometimes but were chief adversaries during the battle of ten kings in which they were vanquished by Sudasa. Purus (if at all it was a tribe’s name) seems to be in the close vicinity of the Sudasa’s region. Traditionally, it is thought that the Puru tribe was later branched in many tribes, such as Bharata, Tritsu, Kushik etc, is not justifiable for Sudasa of the Tritsu clan cannot belong to Bharata or Puru tribe, because in all probabilities they were generic words, not tribal identities. Pakhta are identified with the Pakhtun tribe that still stays at Pakhtunistan and Bhalanas at Baluchistan or nearer to the Bolan Pass. Pakhtas find mention in the history of Herodotus as ‘Pactiyans’ informing us that they were located on the eastern frontier of Achaemenid Arachosia Satrapy from as early as 1st millennium BCE. 37 The present location of the Pakhtuns and Balochis, too, is as same as it was in the Rig Vedic times showing no displacement or migration for any reason. This also would indicate that there could not have been any reason for Vedic people to migrate in any direction too. The Shivas in all probability were the people living in the vicinity of the Indus, along western tributaries. While name of the tribe appearing clearly as ‘Shiva’ in the Rig Veda, hardly any attempt has been made by any scholar to relate with the IGC where abundant proofs has been found of Shiva worship. Rather, we find utter silence on the identification of this tribe or group of people when the scholars have taken so much of efforts to identify miscellaneous tribes. The Visanin tribe, though not identified so far, but since the term means ‘person wearing horned headdress’, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi identifies them with the people of IGC where the deity images of horned headdresses are found. 38 Alina is other tribe to which Talageri wants to identify with Hellenes when renowned scholars identify it with the people of Nuristan, a

province of Afghanistan or north-east of Kafiristan based on the accounts of the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang of seventh century AD. 39 This tribe was also amongst ten tribes those had assembled against Sudasa in the battle of ten kings. The tribe finds mention only once in Rig Veda 7.18.7. It is pertinent to note here that the Kafirs of Kafiristan were following ancient Hindu paganism till they were vanquished by Abdur Rahman in 19th century.40 There is no ambiguity over the identification that the Parthavas are Parthians whereas Parsu were the Persians. Though, the identity of Druhyus is disputed, there is almost an agreement that they belonged to Gandhar region. Gandhari (And as Gandharvas) tribe, too, is mentioned in the Rig Veda. However, its geography is not mentioned. The Gandhari tribe must have been settled in Gandhara region of present Kandahar, as Sanskrit G changes to K in Gandhari language, along with the Druhyus who later either merged with Gandhara people or lost prominence and their identity in the course of time. Druhyus also were one among the ten tribes that had assembled against Sudasa in the battle of 10 kings, whereas the Gandhari tribe seems to be neutral. Historically, the Gandhar kingdom was located in the Swat (RV Suvastu) and Kabul (RV Kubha) river valleys. The capital was Purushpur (modern Peshavar), derived from the word ‘Puru’, it seems this city’s name must have travelled to us from the oldest Vedic and Avestan tradition. The Bharata tribe, too, is another enigma. Though it has been attempted to relate this tribe with Sudasas (Tritsus) and Purus, the name Bharata does not appear in the Rig Veda as a name of any particular tribe whose existence can be shown independently. Bharata is mentioned in the Rig Veda in about 15 verses, but in at least four verses, the name Bharata appears as a synonym of Agni , at one place of Maruts and at some times of gods. At some places, the Bharatas are mentioned as insignificant, such as in RV 7.33.6. However, from Rig Veda, it seems that the term ‘Bharata’mostly is a generic term, like Puru, not specifically the name of any tribe. The seer Vishwamitra is said to be among sons of Bharata, the third Mandala of Rig Veda attributed to Vishwamitra and hence, it often is called Bharata book. The geography of Bharatas, as per Rig Veda,

was on Saraswati, Apaya and Drasadvati. (RV 3.23.4) Devasravas and and Devavata are mentioned in this hymn as Bharata chieftains, which may indicate that there could have been multiple tribes those identified themselves as Bharatas. The word Bharata is derived from root ‘bhru’, which means to provide for, to be maintained, cherished or one who protects. From this root ‘Bhrata’ (Brother), Bhartru, and so the Bharata words have been evolved, all mean the same.41 Hence, in this respect, like Arya, Bharata could have been the epithet to be addressed for friendly tribes including self, claiming as descendants of some mythical Bharata. The name ‘Bharata’ for the country thus seems to have been derived from root ‘Bhru’ to mean the land that provides is more logical than to relate it with the mythological kings of that name. Anus, mostly mentioned together with the Druhyus is another tribe mentioned in the Rig Veda, especially, as enemies who participated in the battle of 10 kings against Sudasa. Talageri wants to identify Anus with Iranians. The identification is based on his assumption that the Bhrigus were their priests and since Bhrigus are meant to be Atharvans of Avesta, the Anus must be the Avestan Iranians. 42 The identification is incorrect as Athravans of Avesta have nothing to do with the Atharvans of the Rig Veda or Atharvaveda, which we will see in detail in the following chapter. However, Rig Veda evidences that the Kavi Cayamana, Anu King, a participant in the battle of 10 kings, was of Parthian origin. (RV 7.18.8) Abhyavartin Cayamana, although not certain whether descendent of Kavi Cayamana or ancestor, also is mentioned in Rig Veda (6.27.8) as “Parthavanam” (Parthian) in friendly manner. The verse clearly indicates the Parthian origin of the Anu tribe that delved in the northern part of the ancient Iran. They certainly not were Iranians themselves as Iran was never the name of the tribe or people but region. Hence, we can deduce that Anu was a tribe that delved in Parthian regions. Druhyus (and in all probabilities the Anus, too,) are always, even in later Indian tradition, are associated with the North-West, i.e. Gandhar or beyond. Anu could be the personal name of the King of

the Druhyus as suggested by Edward Washburn Hopkins. In the same way, he suggests as well that, the Turvasa could be the name of Chieftain of the Yadus.43 However, this does not appear to be the case. The identification of the Druhyus with Druids has also been not accepted by the scholars. However, Rig Veda clearly indicates Parthian origin of the Anu tribe. Parthia, in Avesta mentioned as ‘Parthava’, was located towards north-western Iran, bordered by the Karakuram desert. Anu Tribe in all probabilities was settled in this region. Since Anus and Druhyus are mentioned always together, it does not mean that they were the same but were distinct tribes who were settled along traversable distance from the Rig Vedic tribes. The Gandhari tribe also is frequently mentioned in Rig Veda (also as Gandharva sometimes) is related with Gandhara region. The region must have acquired the name after this tribe because it could have been become powerful and had expanded its horizons in later times. Also, boundaries of the Gandhara of those times are not certain. It could have been name of the entire Helmand Valley, thus accommodating various tribes in that region, as we have discussed earlier in this chapter.

Panis Another tribe or the name of the people mentioned in the Rig Veda is of Panis. The references to the Panis are quite hostile. Still, we find in the Rig Veda that Vedic people were happy to accept gifts from the Panis in later times. (RV 6.45.31-32) Though it has been attempted to identify Panis with expert traders Phoenicians or Parni tribe, recorded by Strabo as living in east Iranian region.44 However, the Panis could be the name of the people who lived in IGC. Panis, as mentioned in the Rig Veda, were expert merchants and farmers producing massive food grains and used to store surplus produce. (RV 1.130.1, 2.31.3, 3.2.7) They were immensely rich, both the male and female used to wear variety of golden ornaments. (RV 1.44.1) The hatred for their richness and trade appears so many times in Rig Veda, such as in RV. 6.51.14, 6.53.5. Rig Veda describes them as opponents of sacrifices, without faith on Yajnyas, of nasal or rude speech, Godless and deceitful. (RV 7.6.3) 45 However, though, the Rig Vedic seers harboured a grudge against Panis, there is no instance of war between them. Panis mean traders (Vani) in later Indian tradition, too, as Yaska has defined in Nirukta. Sayana, too, confirms this etymology. 46 In a way, Rig Vedic description can be related to the mercantile community of the IGC. It should not come as a surprise as the Panis were traders and as the profession demanded, they must have been travelling with their merchandise across the regions crossing the settlements of Vedic tribes. The few finds of IGC seals and ivory in BMAC sites confirms the IGC trade with BMAC.47 On the decline of Sudasa’s Tritsu Clan, later Rig Vedic seers had to accept gifts from the Panis, which is evident from the RV 6.45. 31-32, where the Rig Vedic seer is praising a Pani named Bubu for his graciousness. Tritsu, a tribe that prospered under Sudasa and it seems much of the Rig Veda shaped up in this tribe’s patronage, lived on the banks of the Saraswati River, i.e. Helmand. Although, there is no certainty

in the identifications, about ten kings of his dynasty find mention in various contexts. Talageri designates them the Puru lineage, which seems to be improbable for all the listed kings.48 The scholars have attempted to connect Sudasa with the Bharatas who are said to be a branch of the Purus, as we have seen above, it does not seem to be the case. Earlier, we have seen that the Puru and Bharata was mostly a generic term or epithet, addressing Sudasa or his predecessors with these alternate epithets does not make Sudasa a part of the tribe. Rather in Indian ancient tradition, the name Puru and Bharata are clearly personal names, unrelated to any tribe. Like others, in the hymn 7.18 Sudasa’s, the ‘Tritsu’ clan has been mentioned in the episode of battle of 10 kings, showing its independent identity. It appears from the Rig Vedic accounts that the Tritsus were very powerful for some time in the Rig Vedic era, under which most of the Vedic tradition, too, shaped up. However, the tribe seems to have lost its prominence and independent political existence later. Hence, there is no mention of this tribe in the later tradition. The Rig Vedic tradition, too, in all probability was taken up by other tribal kings which seems obvious from the Danastutis. (Donor praises).

The Battle of Ten Kings After the mythical war of Indra with Vrutra, the most celebrated war that appears in Rig Veda is battle of 10 kings, which was fought on the banks of the river Parusni. Hypothetically, it is considered that his camp was on the eastern side of the Parusni whereas his enemies, such as Shivas, Anu, Drahyu, Parshu, Pakht, Bhalanas, Puru etc., had gathered towards the western side of the river. Parshus are identified with Persian people whereas Pakhtas are identified with present Pakhtun tribe. Shivas may be the people from the IGC. Bhalanas are identified with the people living in Bolan Pass region or Baluchistan. Anu tribe is identified with Parthians. Except a few unidentified tribes, it clearly seems that the rest of the tribes inhabited the present day Afghanistan, Iran and its bordering regions. If we have a look at the geographical location of the Parusni (thought to be present Ravi), to wage a war with King Sudasa, the enemy tribes would have to travel for longer distances, about 500 800 miles, even had to cross the vastness of Sindhu river to reach the banks of the Parusni. In addition, even if considered that the Tritsus were settled by Parusni, present Ravi, it is quite unlikely that Sudasa could have initiated such a serious enmity amongst the far away tribes those could have dared to travel such a vast distance to wage a devastating war against Sudasa. This makes identification of Parusni with Ravi improbable for the geography does not fit the overall scenario. First, let us turn to the possible cause of the war. It is assumed by the scholars that the rivalry between seer Vishwamitra and Vasishtha was the major cause behind this war. It is believed that Sudasa removed Vishwamitra from the post of chief priest. Hence, an anguished Vishwamitra left Sudasa to gather forces against him. However, to our surprise, we do not find any support to this assumption in Rig Veda as there is no mention of such event taking place.49 In all probabilities, the war was fought over religious issues as Rig Veda describes enemy as ‘ayajju’, non-sacrificers or over the political supremacy issue.

For waging war against a far away enemy, travelling from Persia, Parthia, Nooristan, Pakhtunistan, Balochistan etc., crossing the expanse of Indus and other rivers such as Jhelum, Chenab in itself is a wild thinking. In the first place, how Vishwamitra could gather forces, located in different and distant regions? If at all, he did so as some scholars tend to think, did he do that just to avenge his previous patron only because he had been fired? This is an unsupported assertion of the scholars that Vishwamitra was in any way responsible for the battle, as the Rig Veda does not speak of any such event. Considering that even if battle was related with religious hegemonic conflicts, how would such conflicts usurp with a tribe that is located at the distance of more than 500 miles? There cannot be any political reason as well to have any rhyme or reason to make enmity with a distant tribal king. This fact alone confirms that the present Ravi was not Parusni on whose bank the devastating war took place. D

After the defeat of enemies, what is the scenario? Defeated tribes were not annihilated. According to Rig Veda, the number of people who died in the war is 6,666. Though the figure could be speculative or exaggerated, the survivors of the war must have travelled back to their homeland after paying huge tributes. The Rig Veda (7.33) mentions that Tritsus under Sudasa received tribute from defeated kings like Ajas, Sigrus and Yaksus. RV 7.18.13 informs us that Indra destroyed the seven fortifications of the enemy and gave treasures of Anu to Sudasa. This verse indicates that Anus after defeat could travel back to their capital and Sudasa chased them from Parusni to the Anu settlements in Parthia with an aide of Indra, destroyed their fortifications and recovered tributes from Anu’s sons. This again would be a wild guess made only to support the superficial theories! For coming to the war and chasing the defeated enemy up to his capital, one needs to be in traversable vicinity of the enemy. Hence, Parusni cannot be equated with Ravi because pre and post war scenario does not allow this to happen in all probabilities. The migrationists have complicated this simple issue for their want of establishing migration of the Aryans from either direction. “Out of

India Theory” (OIT) supporters, such as Talageri, boldly infer the westward expansion of the Vedic Aryans from the east after this war, whereas the AIT or AMT (Aryan Invasion and Aryan Migration Theory) theorists from same incident conclude the eastward expansion of the Indo-European tribes. Since the basis of both the theories is wrong, they are using available proof conveniently without giving enough attention to the bare facts that whatsoever was the reason of the war, on whose banks, the war took place, that Parusni could not have been Ravi of Punjab! Ravi name derives from the original river name Iravati. It is not at all derived from Parusni. We do not know for certain which river was intended to Vedic people. However, due to lack of such an identification, we are left with no choice but to accept the fact that the river in question, Parusni, could have been any river that was located in the traversable distance of the enemy location in the vicinity of Helmand river. Religious or socio-economical or political conflicts take place normally with the people living in neighbouring regions. Wars for political supremacy are not new. Since the locations of the other tribes such as Parshu, Pakhta, Bhalanas, etc. are almost undisputed, it would be wise to assume that the location of Tritsu tribe was, too, just about them. The upper side of the Helmand possibly is the most likely identification of the location of Tritsu tribe. The Parusni river could be one of the tributaries of Helmand on whose bank, the enemy could gather from different directions to wage the war. Victorious kings and people do not abandon their habitat. Nor did the defeated as we find from the retaining the respective lands of the defeated tribes, like of Anus. Talageri’s suggestion that after this victory, Sudasa moved westwards of Ravi becomes ridiculous on this account. The essence of the war is the Tritsu tribe under Sudasa, after victory over all participant tribes, must have been attained fame in the known world of those times. Rather, after the victory in this and subsequent battles, Sudasa must have emerged as a hero of those times. The Rig Vedic compositions and the fire sacrifices must have attained respect and attraction among the neighbouring world to

which he had patronised. The glory must have travelled as a word of mouth to even the distant world to interest them in Sudas and his religion. Sudasa, too, must have taken efforts to spread his religion, as most of the patrons or prophets do. Zarathustra, too, spread his religion with the assistance of royal patronages. The Vedic religion must have stood opposite to the Persian faith after the battle, as Parshu was another tribe to meet with the defeat. This event could have blocked the Avestan spread to the south and south-east as an opposing faith stood strong to prohibit such entry. Hence, it clearly seems from the annals of the history that the Avestan faith spread westwards while Rig Vedic faith spread eastwards, albeit after some lapse of the time. The divergence of Vedic faith from Asur Varuna to Daeva Indra could have possible roots in the transitional phase that Vedic tradition met with after this most celebrated war. In a way, the war became a real landmark in the Vedic religious history that divided two faiths distinctly. Vedic shift was from common Asura (Ahura) worship to Daeva (Deva) worship through the distinct fire sacrificial practices. Whitney, too, seems to be surprised from this sudden shift. He states that, “This most interesting side of the ancient Indian religion exhibits itself in the Vedic hymns as already fading into oblivion; the process of degradation of Varuna, its principal representative, which has later striped him off his majestic attributes, and converted him into a mere god of ocean, is commenced; Indra on the one hand, is rising to a position of greater prominence and honor above him…..” 50 From Rig Vedic accounts, we understand that the clan of Sudasa, Tritsus, could not retain the same glorious position afterwards and in course of the time, declined so much so that the new contributors to Rig Veda were forced to accept patronage from the people for whom they had nourished hatred in previous times. Tritsus were erased from the pages of the history, as we find no references to them in later Vedic tradition that re-flourished in India. To sum up, Tritsu tribe resided in the vicinity of Avestan Harahvaiti (Sk. Sarasvati) where most of the Rig Veda was composed. After the decline of the Tritsu clan, new enthusiastic patrons and disciples took up the Rig Vedic tradition, may be because of political reasons or because of its disintegration. We will see in the next chapter how

this process could have taken place. Before that, we should see whether Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary or not. *

References: 1. ‘Origins of a Civilization’, by Allchin Bridget and F. Raymond Allchin, Pub.: Viking, 1997, p. 223. 2. ‘The AIT and scholarship’, by Nicholas Kazanas, July 2001 (Available online at http://www.omilosmeleton.gr/pdf/en/indology/AITandscholarship.pdf) 3. ‘ The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 156. 4. ‘The Indus Valley Tradition of Pakistan and Western India’, by Jonathan Mark Kenoyer, Pub.: “Journal of World Prehistory, 5 (4), p. 331–85, 1991. 5. ‘Archaeology & Language’, by C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky in, “Indo Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inferences in Indian History”, edited by Edwin F Bryant any Laurie L Patton, Pub.: Routledge, 2005, p. 155. 6. Ibid, p. 157-160. 7. ‘THE EMERGENCE OF INDO-IRANIANS: THE INDO IRANIAN LANGUAGES’, by J. Harmatta, History of Civilizations of Central Asia (Vol. 1), edited by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim MikhaÄlovich Masson, Pub.: UNESCO, p. 358. Available online at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledge-bankarticle/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20emergence%20of%20the%20indo%20i ranians,%20the%20indo%20iranian%20languages.pdf)

8. ‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in “The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History”, edited by Edwin Bryant, Pub.” Routledge, 2004, p. 367. 9. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The Indo-Aryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.” Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 130-132. 10. ‘Rigveda & the Avesta: The Final Evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.” Aditya Prakashan, 2008. 11. ‘The problem of the Aryans and Soma: Textual-linguistic and archeological evidence’, by Asko Parpola, in ‘The IndoAryans of Ancient South Asia : Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995, p. 371.

12.

‘Oriental Linguistic Studies - The Veda; The Avesta: The science of language’, by William Dwight Whitney, Pub.: Scribner, Armstrong, And Company, 1874, p. 166. 13. ‘Avestan Geography’, by Gherardo Gnoli, originally published in 1997. (Available online at http://www.iranicaon line.org/articles/avestan-geography)

14.

‘The Bundahishn (‘Creation’), or Knowledge from the Zand.’ Translated by EW West, from ‘Sacred Books of the East’, (Vol. 5), Pub.: Oxford University Press, 1897, See 20. 32, 32.3. 15. ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture: The IndoAryan Migration Debate’, by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Oxford University Press, p. 132. 16. ‘Aryan Homeland, Airyana Vaeja’, by K. E. Eduljee, (Available online at http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm) 17. ‘The Videvdad : its Ritual, Mythical Significance’, by P.O. Skjaervo in ‘The Age of the Parthians (The Idea of Iran)’, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, Pub.: I. B. Tauris, 2010, p. 111. 18. ‘Continuity in Iranian Identity: Resilience of a Cultural Heritage’, by Fereshteh Davaran, Pub.: Routledge NY, USA, 2010, p. 74. 19. ‘Avestan Geography’, by Gherardo Gnoli, originally published in 1997. (Available online at http://www.iranicaon line.org/articles/avestan-geography)

20.

‘The Videvdad : its Ritual, Mythical Significance’ , by P.O. Skjaervo in ‘The Age of the Parthians (The Idea of Iran)’, edited by Vesta Sarkhosh Curtis, Sarah Stewart, Pub.: I. B. Tauris, 2010, p. 110-11. 21. ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rgvedic River Sarasvati’, Rajesh Kochhar, in ‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’ (Vol. 1), edited by Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999, p. 263 22. ‘Rigvedic history: poets, chieftains and politics’, by Michael Witzel in ‘Language, Material Culture and Ethnicity.

The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia’, edited by George Erdosy, Pub.: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. 23. ‘Oriental Linguistic Studies - The Veda: The Avesta: The science of language’, by William Dwight Whitney, Pub.: Scribner, Armstrong, And Company, 1874, p. 24. 24. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000. 25. ‘Vaidik Sanskriticha Itihas’, Tarkateertha Lakshmanshastri Joshi, p. 30. 26. ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rigvedic River Sarasvati’, by Rajesh Kochhar, in ‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’ (Vol. 1), edited by Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs. 27. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’ by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 5. 28. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects (Vol. 1)’, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd.,1995, p. 316. 29. ‘Aryan Homeland in Avesta’, by K. E. Eduljee, (Available online at http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm) 30. ‘Lectures on the Science of Languages’, by Friedrich Max Muller, Pub.: Longmans, Green, And Company, 1861, p. 231. 31. ‘E. J. Brill’s First Encyclopedia of Islam: 1913-1936’, vol. 8, edited by M.Th. Houtsma, T.W. Arnold, R. Basset, R. Hartmann, A.J. Wensinck, H.A.R. Gibb, W. Heffening, and E. Lévi-Provençal , pub.: Brill-Leiden, p. 879-80.

32.

. “Vedic Index of Names and Subjects”, Volume 1, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub. Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, page 315-16. 33. Ibid 34. 'Semetic and Indo-European: Volume 1, The Principal Etymologies with Observations on Afro-Asiatic' by Saul Levin, pub.: John Benjamins Publishing, 1995, p. 181. 35. Vedic Index of Names and Subjects”, Volume 2, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.

Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, page 12. 36. Ibid, p. 12-13. 37. ‘The History of Herodotus’, Chapter 7, Translated by George Rawlinson. (Available online at http://www.piney.com/Heredotus7.html) 38. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’,by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition 1996, p. 32. 39. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, 1995, p. 39. 40. ‘Conflict in Afghanistan: a historical encyclopedia’, by Frank Clements, Ludwig W. Adamec, Pub.: ABC-CLIO, 2003, p. 139. 41. ‘Bharatiya Vivahsansthecha Itihas’, by Vi. Ka. Rajwade, new edition by Lokvadmay Griha, p. 29. 42. ‘The Rigveda and the Avesta: the final evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2008, p. 267. 43. ‘Problematic Passages in the Rig-Veda’, by Edward Washburn Hopkins in ‘Journal of the American Oriental Society’ (Vol. 15), Pub.: American Oriental Society, 1893, p. 252-283. 44. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’, by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, reprint 1995, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd, p. 472. 45. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 5), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, third edition, Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1996, p. 362-64. 46. Ibid p.362. 47. ‘The Making of Bronze Age Eurasia’, by Philip L. Kohl, Pub.: Cambridge University Press, 2007, p. 186–7. 48. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 5. 49. ‘Marathi Vishvakosha’ (Vol. 7), edited by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Maharashtra Rajya Sahitya Sanskriti Mandal, 1977, p. 744-45. 50. ‘Oriental and Linguistic Studies: The Veda; The Avesta; The science of languages’, by William Dwight Whitney, Pub.:

Scriber, Armstrong & Co. 1873, p. 44.

Notes: A. It appears that the eighteenth century European scholars wanted to disown every possible link with Biblical tradition in regards with the influence of Semitic culture on Europe and therefore they started finding their roots of the culture in more distant oriental source. For them, India turned out to be more favourable candidate than China for the so-called racial and linguistic affinities. However, by nineteenth century, India went out of favour because of Max Muller’s invasion theory and many proposals floating from European countries such as France, Germany etc. which claimed to be the original ‘Aryans’. Apparently, the attempts to find out original homeland elsewhere begun to avoid clashes within the Europe. However, as there is no consensus on homeland issue yet, Vedic sympathiser Dr. Coenraad Elst took cue from the eighteenth century proposal and published his book “Update on Aryan Invasion Debate” (1999, Aditya Prakashan). The book was a new ray of hope for the saffron ideologists who wanted to revive their claim. Ever since, the homeland quest has taken the political turns and twists, causing almost a war to decide, “Who is superior?” An example of this is the ‘Linguistic Aspects of the Indo-European Urheimat Question’, by Dr. Koenraad Elst which is available online at http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/aid/urheimat.html. B. Bactria-Marigiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) is a Bronze Age Civilisation, located in present day North Afghanistan, Eastern Turkmenistan, Southern Uzbekistan and Western Tajikistan. The civilization came into the light after 1970. However, it mostly remained unknown till 1990 to the rest of the world because of the Soviet rule. The region was occupied even before 6000 BC by the early farmers and the civilisation had flourished sometime around late 3rd – early 2nd BC. Extensive Archaeological excavations conducted at this site in Altyn Depe (Turkmenistan) reflect the early to late culture of the BMAC people. The excavations initially at Gonur and later at Togolok-21 and Togolok-1 resulted in unearthing the temples of

fire. Archaeologist V. Sarianidi identified these fire temples with Zoroastrians. In the same rooms, which were identified as Fire Temples, some seeds and stem impressions, which were identified with Ephedra or Cannabis, connected with Haoma (Soma) sacrifices of Zoroastrians, were also found. BMAC people lived in the brick-built fortified walled towns. The finds of female figurines prompted some scholars to believe the BMAC people could have been worshipping mother goddess. These people had a few horses, no chariots and did not practice Kurgan or Andronovo burial practices. Instead, the BMAC followed un-uniformed practices, such as cremation as well as burial. To know more about BMAC, one may read, “THE INDO-IRANIAN PROBLEM IN THE LIGHT OF THE LATEST EXCAVATIONS IN MARGIANA” by V. Sarianidi which can be accessed online at file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/SanjayS/My%20Docu ments/Downloads/43986-31341-1-PB.pdf. C. Kochhar argues that bulk of the Rig Veda was composed on the banks of the Helmand. He further suggests that the Ghaggar was already defunct when the Indo-Aryans encountered it; and that many rivers to the east of Sutlej (Sarasvati, Yamuna, Ganga, Gomati and Sarayu) were given the Rigvedic names for the sake of nostalgia. However, though Kochhar is right in his assessment that the bulk of Rig Veda was composed on the banks of the Helmand, his assessment that the Vedic Aryans migrated to India and renamed the local rivers out of nostalgia is not correct. So much the Vedic people were fond of the Saraswati River that they could not have renamed a seasonal and puny river like Ghaggar after it. The myth of disappearance of the river at Vinasana cannot be taken as factual records. It can be considered only as a metaphor for losing the company of a river much revered by the Rig Vedic seers. Though highly praised in Rig Veda, in new geographies, it could not have been possible to show its independent existence. Hence, the myth must have been created to explain its “disappearance.” In addition, the myths of the Puranas and Brahmanas about the disappearance of the Saraswati often

contradict each other. Interestingly, the traditional belief is that the Saraswati is an underground and thus invisible river which confluences with Ganga-Yamuna at Prayag (Allahabad). See- ‘Identity and Chronology of the Rgvedic River Sarasvati’, Rajesh Kochhar, in ‘Archaeology and Language III: Artefacts, Languages and Texts’, Volume 1, edited by Roger Blench, Matthew Spriggs, Page 266 and ‘Bharatiya Sanskritikosha’, Volume 9, edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, 3rd edition, Published by Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, 2000, Page 66971. D. Raj Pruthi states in this regards that “The Rig-veda represents the battle have been fought on the banks of Parushni. This location of the conflict, however, seems to be most difficult, if not quite impossible, if we consider the territories occupied by the different members of the confederacy at the period, according to traditional history. The Durhyus were occupying Gandhara at the time, and it is difficult to see how they could be interested in or affected by the conflicts of people far away from them. The Turvasas, as already stated, did not exist at that time and if they did exist, as suggested by Pargiter, it is difficult to comprehend how they marched off over 500 miles from the Karusha country to participate in the exploits of a remote king.” (‘Vedic Civilization’ by Raj Pruthi, Pub. Discovery Publishing House, 2004, p. 85) The information that above paragraph provides and the questions it poses, strengthens our case that the identification of Parushni with Ravi is not correct. Rather, coming to Ravi would be far distant for the Persians, Parthians, Turanians than that of other tribes. Hence the Parushni must have been any river of southern or central Afghanistan.

5. Are Avesta and Rig Veda Contemporary? In fact, what we have in hand to discuss overwhelmingly the IE linguistics is the scriptures of Vedic and Avestic religions. We find close similarities, in ritualistic practices as well as the language of both the religions. However, the dissimilarities on both the grounds, too, are not negligible. The common understanding among migrationist scholars has been that the Indo-Iranians were a major branch of the Indo-European language family. The two wave theory of Burrow 1, which is supported by Parpola 2, suggests that the first wave of the Indo-Aryans dispersed to Anatolia and India about 1500 BC and the later, by around 800 BC, the wave came to be called as ‘Iranian wave’. Indian Vedicist scholar Talageri has another suggestion. According to him, Iranians (Anu tribe) and Vedic Aryans (Bharata/Puru tribe) migrated from India towards Iran and that Avesta began to be composed after the time of middle Rig Vedic era.3 Hodivala postulates that both the scriptures are contemporary, dating back to 2,500 BC.4 J Harmatta suggests that at the end of second phase, proto-Indians had left for the south-east. Harmatta further states that “…On the basis of what has been said, it becomes clear that the migrations of the Proto-Indo-Iranians may have taken place in at least three successive periods and that they were of very different character.”5 In short, there is no agreement among the scholars of the past or present about the original homeland of the so-called PIE speakers, their exact time of the dispersals, the exact phases or waves they decided to migrate, its reasons and on when and where the Avesta and the Rig Veda were composed. The hypotheses merely are based on the imagined migrations from either direction. Almost all scholars have devised their theories to adjust supposed timelines and that, too, seems to be from imaginary date of domestication of the horses, i.e. 3,500 BC, to explain migrational directions of the socalled PIE people. We have seen in the first chapter that there could

not have been such a case, i.e., existence of PIE language speaking, closely-knit community and spread of their proto-language because of their subsequent migrations. Beside linguistics, normally, the stress of the scholars has been to consider Rig Veda being elder than Avesta, presuming the language of the Rig Veda being more archaic. But what is the proof to decide which language is archaic? If the language of Rig Veda is carefully studied, it appears that notwithstanding the claim that the Vedas have been preserved as it were from the date of its first composition, the Rig Veda has gone through substantial linguistic modifications. Witzel explains that the old Avesta of Zarathushtra is more archaic than the Rig Veda simply because the Iranian lacks the many innovations that characterise the language of Veda. 6 This does not at all mean that the date of Avesta is anterior to the Rig Veda. Rather, we will see in due course that both the scriptures, in their originality, were contemporary though the language and arrangement of the Rig Veda was modified, with new additions, to suite new environments in far later times. A Therefore, the myth that the Rig Veda has faithfully been preserved by oral tradition for generations, till it was committed to writing, needs a rethinking. The compositions of Rig Vedic hymns, too, continued for centuries before it was finally codified. We do not know for sure when exactly it was first codified and committed to writing. The dates are very vague and often have no more credence than being mere guesswork that extends for several centuries to millenniums. It does not conclusively occur that the Vedas were written in South India for first time in the second half of the 14th century AD. Even if we suppose the moderate period of Rig Vedic compositions from 1,500 to 1,000 BC, and that of it being reduced to written form after lapse of about 1,000-1,500 years without any change, it certainly remains a myth that needs serious reconsideration.

On the contrary, the facts with Avesta are altogether different. There is proof of it being written and later translated to Pahlavi to avoid any violent destruction. KE Edulji states that the first report of the written Avestan text comes from the Middle Persian language (Pahlavi) writer Arda Viraf, in his book, the Arda Viraf Nameh (3rd or 4th century CE). In it, as he writes that the Persian Achaemenian kings (c. 600 - 300 BCE) commissioned the commitment of the Avesta to writing on hides and deposited the texts in the royal library at Ishtakhr. "...the entire Avesta and Zand, written on hides with gold ink, were deposited in the archives at Stakhar Papakan (Ishtakhr, near Persepolis and Shiraz in Pars province)." Masudi gives the number of hides as 12,000. “This written version of Avesta would have been available for others to read and Martin Haug states that Hermippus, the philosopher of Smyrna (ca. 250 BCE), "…is reported by Pliny (Historia Naturalis XXX., 1) to have made very laborious investigation into all Zoroastrian books, which were said to comprise two million verses, and to have stated the contents of each book separately." Regrettably, Hermippus' work has since been lost.” 7 Edulji asserts. The mention of ‘two million verses’ is nothing but exaggeration. However, Pliny (AD 23-79) certainly was aware about the existence of written texts of Avesta. It seems that the Avesta was translated in other languages like Arabic, Pahlavi, too, using various scripts including cuneiform. We do not find such attempts or contemporary records about the existence of Rig Veda in the written form. Indeed, we do not find Vedas being known to the Western or Eastern world, simply because there is no explicit mention of it in any record or later epigraphs. Megasthanese (3rd Century BC), too, does not mention the existence of Vedas, though he describes social structure of that time at great length. 8 Oral tradition was not unknown to the Avestans. However, we see the difference between the language of Gathas and later works which can be classified as early, middle and younger. The language of the Rig Veda cannot be classified this way because it has

undergone substantial phonetic, syntactical and morphological modifications over the course of time after its original composition. However, such stages of chronological development in the language are almost absent, barring the instances of later interpolations, making one wonder that whether such modifications were done sometime later at once to make it more intelligible to contemporary generations? No language can remain uniform for such a vast span of the time as the Rig Vedic language does. However, leaving above enigmas aside for a while, let us investigate both the scriptures on account of whether the historical events and characters find place in both the books and determine whether the people following distinct religious practices, with few common features, knew each other or not!

Zarathushtra: Various attempts have been made to locate the name of the prophet in Rig Veda. Although, the name ‘Jarutha’ appears thrice in the bulk of the Rig Veda, some scholars seem inclined to reject the identification. However, let us not forget here that Zarathushtra is spelled differently in other languages, such as ‘Zoroaster’ in Greek. The other Persian versions spell the same as Zarathrost, Zaradust or Zaradrust etc. In Sanskrit, Zarathushtra is spelled as JarathuÅ›tra (in Neriyosangh’s Sanskrit translation of the Avesta). The etymology of the name given is Zarath (old) +Ustra (camel) or Zarath (driving or moving) + Ustra (Camel). Similarly, the word 'Zarath' also denotes the priest or singer. 9 Let us not forget here that the phoneme Z finds loss in Vedic language, turns to J, Zarath will thus come to be spelled as Jarath. With phonetic changes, while shortening the name Zarathushtra, the name can come to be spelled as Jarutha in Vedic dialect. Another supportive information we get as, “The name Jarutha is derived by Sayana from Vgr, to 'sing, saying; it means one who makes loud sound. ... form in its own way simply copied it from Vedic, for the Avestan Gen. form of hartr would, on the analogy of datr, be zarthro or *zarithro.” 10 Let us have a look at the Rig Vedic verses where Jarutha is mentioned and in what context. “Burn up all malice with those flames, O Agni, wherewith of old thou burntest up Jarutha, And drive away in silence pain and sickness.” (RV 7.1.7 Trans. By Griffith) “Vasistha, when enkindling thee, O Agni, hath slain Jarutha. Give us wealth in plenty. Sing praise in choral song, O JÄ tavedas. Ye Gods, preserve us evermore with blessings.” (RV 7.9.6 Trans. By Griffith) “Agni rejoiced the car of him who praised him, and from the waters, burnt away Jarutha. Agni saved Atri in the fiery cave and made

Nrmedha rich with troops of children.” (RV 10.80.3, Trans. By Griffith.) However, Macdonell defines Jarutha to denote a demon that was slain by Agni. He also refers to the Griffith and Ludwig those see in him (Jarutha), a foe slain in the battle in which Vasishtha was the priest.11 Hodivala after examining all the three verses states, “From the third passage, it is clear that Jarutha must have been some demon who lived in waters.” However, Hodivala examines further to conclude that Zarathushtra is mentioned in the Rig Veda as ‘Dasyu’ because he was frequently called as ‘Dakhyuma’ (equivalent to Rig Vedic Dasyu) and wherever, the word is used in plural form, i.e. Dasyus, it is addressed to his followers.12 Let us examine the verses mentioned above to find what they mean. All the three verses laud the deed of Agni for killing ‘Jarutha’ in fire. There is no mention anywhere in Rig Veda that Jarutha denotes a demon or foe. Rather, it seems odd to find mention of Jarutha’s thrice to describing only event of his death in the fire. Some scholars have associated Jarutha of Rig Veda with Zarathushtra of Avesta. Indian scholar PR Deshmukh states, “… From the above Richa we learn that Jarutha was killed by Vashishthas by crossing water…..The word Jarutha means a priest…..Jarutha may be a short form of Zartustra.”13 Apart from above two references, Jackson has given detailed accounts of Zarathushtra’s death gathered from various sources; some are listed briefly as below: 1. Early Greek tradition says that Zoroaster was perished by lightning or a flame from heaven. Latin tradition states that an angry star emitted a stream of fire in vengeance for his conjuring up the stars and burnt him to ashes. 2. Gregory of Tours (A.D. 538-593) records etymology of Zoroaster as ‘living star’ stating that the Persians worshipped him as a God because he was consumed by fire from heaven.

3. Chronicon Alexandrinum (A.D.629) states that while praying to the Orion, he was slain by a heavenly shaft and that his ashes were carefully kept by the Persians. 4. Suidas of Tenth century A.D. briefly records the prophet’s death by fire from heaven. 5. Orosius (A.D. 5th Century) informs that Ninus conquered Zoroaster and killed him in the battle. 6. Iranian tradition informs that the prophet died at the age of 77 years and 40 days and ascribes the death it to a Turanian named Bratrokresh. The name of the murderer occurs several times in the Avestan scriptures. 7. Datistan – I- Dinik, 72.8, states that among the most heinous sinners “one was Tur – e- Bratarvaksh, the Karap and heterodox wizard, by whom best of the man (i.e. Jharatusht) was put to death.” The similar account is given by Bundahishn naming the above cited assassin. 8. Dinkard III, chap. 343 lists the best and worst of men, naming Yam as the best of kings, and Zardušt as the best of priests, and Tur I Bratrokes, the karb “who made the body of Zardušt perish,” as the worst of heretics. (Karb stands for Old Avestan Karapan, despised priests of the enemy. The assassin in question in all probabilities was a priest-warrior.) Apart from Greek and Latin, Pahlavi-Parsi tradition is unanimous that the Zoroaster perished at the hands of Tur-i- Bratrokresh. Shahname, too, confirms the account of assassination of the Prophet by Turanian raiders, led by Arjaspa, at the fire-temple.14 “During the ritual service, Hyaona insurgents stabbed the 77-yearold Zarathushtra, slew his priests and burned the Avesta.” Thus states Mary Snodgrass.15 (Hyaona was the part of Turanian clan which was led by Zarathushtra’s staunch enemy Arjaspa.)

What we learn from above is Zarathushtra’s death was not natural. Most of the accounts agree that he was killed in the fire or he along with his priests was killed and later burnt in a fire temple, while he was praying. The assassin was a Turanian named Bratrokresh, may be a General, leading Turanian raiding party to Balkh. The news of the killing of the prophet must have spread across the adjoining regions adding imaginary details to it for they could not have possibly known the exact account of the Prophet’s death. Hence, some traditions, such as Greek, attributed the death to the ‘fire’ from heaven. Let us not forget here that the Greeks knew Zarathushtra as a magician, astrologer and even a sorcerer. However, Zoroastrians did not commemorate martyrdom of their Prophet because in all probability, the old tradition was more interested in his life and teachings than his physical death. Now, if we reread the Rig Vedic verses, we easily can correlate them with the other legends associated with the Zarathushtra’s death in fire, in all probability, an outcome of a war with Turanians to whom we have identified with Turvasas of Rig Veda, who were sometimes friendly with Rig Vedic tribe. It just cannot be a coincidence that most of the accounts in relation with Zarathushtra’s death approximately match with the Rig Vedic descriptions. Turanians, too, were friendly with Zarathushtra in the beginning which is evidenced by Zarathushtra himself in the Gathas as under: “Since through righteousness, the powerful children and grandchildren of the Turanian Fryana have risen to promote their world through serenity with zeal, Wise God has united them with good mind, in order to teach them what concerns their help.” (Gathas: 11-12) It just shows that the inter-tribal and inter-faith relationship bonds were not permanent. Turvasas had fought against Sudasa in Battle of Ten Kings though many a times they have shown intimate friendly relations with Vedics.

However, we cannot of course, attribute the death to Vasishtha, as no Rig Vedic verse suggests that the assassination of Zarathushtra was committed by Vasishtha. In the verses composed by him, he attributes the death to ‘Agni’, fire. In fact, in the verse RV 7.9.6, he seems to be rejoicing the death of enemy Jarutha. Looking at the rivalry between Rig Vedic and Avestan people, becoming Vasishtha overjoyous and reflecting it in the verses composed by him (or his family members) can be understood. Vasishtha seems to have recorded the incident in the peculiar Vedic style. The verse 10.80.3 seems to be of far later times which have added confusing element of Atri in it. As Hodivala’s inference that Zarathushtra is mentioned in Rig Veda as Dasyu is thus undoubtedly correct as during Zarathushtra’s life time, for sake of the rivalry, Vedic seers must have called him not by his personal name but contemptuous form of his epithet, Dasyu (Dakhyuma). There is other proof, too, to confirm beyond doubt that Zarathushtra was contemporaneous to the Rig Vedic seers which we will confirm further in the present chapter. To sum up conclusively, in all, Jarutha of Rig Veda can be none other than Zarathushtra of Avesta.

Vishtaspa: The first disciple of Zarathushtra after revelation was the king of Balkh (Greek version Bactria) Vishtaspa, a.k.a. Kavi Vishtaspa. Vishtaspa became the first disciple of Zarathushtra who not only patronised the resurrected religion but fought many battles for it. The legends go that Vishtaspa built many fire temples in his kingdom. Prior to adapting Mazdayasni religion, he must be adherent of one of other religions which existed and was practiced in those times. From Avestan accounts, it seems that though the Turanians helped Zarathushtra to reach Vishtaspas royal court, turned out to be foes as Vishtaspa abandoned old faith and became a disciple of Zarathushtra. In the Rig Veda, he is mentioned as ‘Istasva’ (1.122.13). Hodivala 16 notes that, as a rule the V followed by a vowel drop the V in Vedic language. Following this principle, and Sayanas translation, Hodivala translates the verse as: “The despicable Vishtaspa of the family of Vishtarashma (=Gushtaham), (and) these conquering chiefs harass the people.” The next verse, according to Hodivala, makes it clear that he was a wealthy prince or king whose wealth was sought by the composers of the hymn i.e. Kakshivan, Dairghatamas Ausijya etc. Talageri, like other scholars, too, agrees with the identification of Vishtaspa with Rig Vedic Istasva.17 Since Rig Vedic seers knew the patron of Zarathushtra, it makes obvious that they knew Zarathushtra as well!

Peshotan: The youngest son of Vishtaspa, also known as Chitro-mino (because he was living in the vicinity of the River Chitru-mian-rud) according to Bundehishn Ch. 29 and Dadestan.18 On verification of Bundehishn (ch. 29, verse 6), it seems Chitro-Mino is spelled as ‘Chatru-man-icha’ in Pahlavi. The verse while informing the Peshotan, son of Vishtaspa tells us that Chatru-man-icha was his other name. 19 The Rig Veda verse 4.30.17 states, “Arna and Citraratha, both Aryas, though, Indra slewest swift, on yonder side of Sarayu.” (Trans. Griffith) From this stanza, we get account of a war on the banks of river Sarayu (identified with Haroyu/Hari-rud) in which Arna and Chitraratha were killed. Chitraratha seems to be clearly corrupt Sanskrit form of Chitra-mino or Chatru-man-icha. Although, the identity of Arna remains uncertain, according to Hodivala, he could be brother of Vishtaspa. Verse makes it clear that both the slain enemies were Aryas and that Arna was someone of high rank, if not brother of Vishtaspa. The account of this war, Hodivala informs, is confirmed by Shahname. 20 Hence, the identity of Peshotan is thus clear that he was contemporary to Rig Veda and that he was at enemy side of not the Vedic people, but Turvasas and Yadus, which is clear from the verses describing the event, i.e. “So sapient Indra, Lord of Might, brought Turvasa and Yadu, those Who feared the flood, in safel o'er” (RV 4.30.16 ) “Arna and Citraratha, both Aryas, though, Indra slewest swift, on yonder side of Sarayu.” (RV 4.30.17) Both the verses clearly show that Turvasas and Yadus crossed the flooded river with the assistance or blessings of Indra to the side where Chitraratha and Arna were slain in the war. The Avestan

account, too, supports this as sworn enemies of the Vishtaspa were Turanians alias Turvasas and not the Rig Vedic tribe. Also, it proves our hypothesis that the Yadus of Rig Veda couldn’t have been Yadus of Mathura, because to become friendly tribes and have common enemies and friends, they must be located in the close vicinity.

Baetas: Also known as Jamaspa Baetas, son-in-law of Zarathushtra (Yast 13.127) a master of Astrology of those times. Rig Veda mentions Baetas as Vetasu in relation with a skirmish in the following verse. “The crafty Vetasu, the swift Dasni, and Tugra speedily with all his servants, Hath Indra, gladdening with strong assistance, forced near as it were to glorify the Mother.” (RV 6.20.8, Trans. Griffith) Hodivala suggests from previous and later verse of the above of Rig Veda that the Vetasu (Baetas) was defeated by Rjrasva (Arjaspa). Though, Tugra remains unidentifiable, it certainly is an Iranian name. The term ‘Dasni’ applied for Vetasu is either for his 10 servants or he being possessor of 10 magical powers (crafty) or is addressed to 10 sons of Vishtaspa who participated in this war. 21

Arjaspa Alternatively spelled as Arejat-aspa, he was chief of one of a Tribe Hyaona, delving in Turan or its bordering region to Balkh (Bactria). He was a sworn enemy of Vishtaspa after his conversion to Zoroastrian faith. Arjaspa fought many wars against Vishtaspa and killed many of his family members. Middle Persian text Ayadgar I Zareran (66, 67, 112, 113) states that Arjaspa was captured later, was mutilated and then was released. Shahnama informs us that Arjaspa had managed to flee after his capture.22 Arjaspa of Avesta is identified by many scholars as Rjrasva of Rig Veda. Rjrasva seems to be a close ally of Vedic people whose victories has been rejoiced and memorised by Rig Veda. First, the name of both persons, though spelled slightly different, mean one and the same i.e. one who has swift horses. Second, many of the battles those involve Rjrasva are also recorded in the Avestan texts. Also, his allies and close relations, too, find mention in both the texts. Rig Vedas major mention of Rjrasva is about Varsagira battle which Rig Veda recounts as: “The red and tawny mare, blaze-marked, high standing, celestial who, to bring Rjrasva riches, / Drew at the pole the chariot yoked with stallions, joyous, among the hosts of men was noted. “(RV 1.100.16) “The Varsagiras unto thee, O Indra, the Mighty One, sing forth this laud to please thee, Rjrasva with his fellows, Ambarisa, Suradhas, Sahadeva, Bhayamana.” (RV 1.100.17, Trans. Griffith) Apart from the identity of protagonist of this war Rjrasva, names of his companions, too, have been identified. Sahadeva is identified with Hushdiv who is mentioned by Shahnama as assisting Rjrasva from the rear in the war. Hodivala states that Avesta mentions Humayuka (RV Somaka) instead of Hushdiv, i.e. Sahadeva.23 The verse of Yast in the regard goes like this:

'He begged her of a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura Anahita! That I may overcome PeshoChangha the corpse-burier, Humayaka the worshipper of the Daevas, and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world.’ (Aban yast, 5.113) Here, the verse suggests the above prayer was made before the war. Hence, in all probabilities, he did not know who would be the participants of the war but seems to have mentioned those who were expected. Another participant in the war that Rig Veda mentions is Ambarisha, to whom Hodivala identifies, but little doubtfully, with Avestan Vidarafshnik, brother of Arjaspa as both the names mean one and the same, ‘one with beautiful garments’. Bhayamana is identified with Vandaremaini, father of Arjaspa, because both the terms mean ‘the fearless one’. Varsagira, since the term is applied to all the family members of Rjrasva, it is possible that it was Rjrasva’s family name. Although, Talageri seems satisfied with the identifications for his need to push his theory, he forgets Somaka and Sahadeva do not at all belong to the race of Sudasa for there is no corroborative proof. Let us see the verses of Yast those seem to have been composed prior to the war. “5.108. 'Unto her did the tall Kavi Vishtaspa offer up a sacrifice behind Lake Frazdanava, with a hundred male horses, a thousand oxen, ten thousand lambs. 5.109. 'He begged of her a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura Anahita! that I may overcome Tathravant, of the bad law, and Peshana, the worshipper of the Daevas and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world!" 5.113. 'He begged of her a boon, saying: "Grant me this, O good, most beneficent Ardvi Sura Anahita! that I may overcome Pesho-

Changha the corpse-burier, Humayaka the worshipper of the Daevas, and the wicked Arejat-aspa, in the battles of this world. 5.116. 'Unto her did Arejat-aspa and Vandaremaini offer up a sacrifice by the sea Vouru-Kasha, with a hundred male horses, a thousand oxen, ten thousand lambs.”24 For the sake of readers’ convenience, I have put names in questions in bold letters. It is quite clear that these are prayers and offerings prior to the expected war. The enemies are condemned because they are following Deva faith. Humayuka (Somaka) and Vandaremaini (Bhaymana) in the above verses have not been distinguished from the race of Arjaspa (Rjrasva). Though the Hushdiv (Sahadeva) is mentioned in Shahnama, he, too, does not show that the Hushdiv belonged to different tribes other than of Arjaspa. Even if the fact is proven from the Rig Vedic and Avestan accounts that the war and the participants were historical, it nowhere suggests the war included any tribe other than of Arjaspa (Rjrasva). The actual conflicts on religious issues that Avesta mentions mostly were between Turanians and Zoroastrians. The Avesta is clear on the fact that Turanians were Deva worshipers and hence, were wicked. Most importantly, what we clearly see from the above is that the Somaka alias Humayuka and Hushdiv alias Sahadeva were not the descendents of King Sudasa as some scholars like Talageri likes to believe they were! In the list of Puru kings, he includes Somaka and Sahadeva as descendents of Sudasa and places Varsagiras battle after the battle of 10 kings.25 However, Rjrasva, the main protagonist of the war, is not named in the bloodline of Sudasa at all because he did not have that origin! Looking at these facts, Aban Yast proves beyond doubt that the people mentioned as an enemy belonged to the family of Arjaspa and none of the Sudasas’ descendents or contemporaries led the war. [6]Most probably, Talageri is associating Somaka and Sahadeva with Sudasa dynasty by guessing that since Seer Vamadeva in

Danastutis (RV 4.15.7-10) mentions that Somaka is son of Sahadeva and that in the same hymn it is mentioned about Devavata and his son Srinjaya, it must have formed a bloodline. However, the purpose of the hymn should be noted. The hymn is composed in praise for the gifts received by Vamadeva for his performing sacrifices or prayers for ailing prince Somaka. While praising the donor prince Somaka, Vamadeva also is recounting Devavata and his son Srinjaya in relation with a myth that the “He who is kindled eastward for S á¹› ñjaya, DevÄ vata's son,…” (RV 4.15.4). The hymn does not intend in any way to show that Somaka and Sahadeva were descendents of Sudasa or were related any way with Srinjaya and Devavata, which makes Talageri’s claim baseless. Hodivala is hesitant while identifying Ambarisha with Vidarafshnic and Bhayamana with Vandaremaini, although the meaning of both the words is same but quite different in sound. However, looking at his confirmation of identification of Humayuka with Somaka to which Talageri, too, agrees, in my opinion there is no need of hesitation in confirming the identity of Ambarisha and Bhayamana as well because it just cannot be coincidence that the names bear the same meaning and that since there is no confusion of Arjaspa being Rjrasva and Humayuka being Somaka, the other participants mentioned in Aban Yast and Rig Veda, too, must be identical, mentioned in translated form in Rig Veda with sound change but maintaining same meaning! Rig Veda mentions this Varsagiras war in just two verses (1.100.1617) jumping to the other victories of Rjrasva over Dasyus like Shimyu and others mentioning them just here and there vaguely confirms our deliberation that Zarathushtra was more concerned about hostile Turanians than Rig Vedic people. This we have to take very seriously as Avesta does not mention any Rig Vedic king or their faiths as being a serious threat to his religion. Avestan accounts too treat Arjaspa (Rjrasva) as main enemy of Vishtaspa and Zoroaster.

The identification of Rig Vedic seer Nodhas Gautama with Nadhyaongha Gaotema who is mentioned in Farvardin Yast (Yt. 13.16), as a priest, who was defeated by Zarathustra in debate, makes our conclusion stronger that early Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary. This is the only instance where we find mention of Rig Vedic seer in Avesta. We must not forget here that the early Rig Vedic faith involved ‘Asura’ as a Supreme Lord in the form of Asura Varuna though in later course of the time, for reasons, became Deva oriented. We have seen in the earlier chapter that this shift has been occurred after the battle of 10 kings which involved Sudasa himself and not before that! Though, the Asura orientation was clear in both the religions the religious practices and philosophies significantly differed. RigVedic tribe/s settled down in southern part of Afghanistan, the enmity between the both, it seems, arose later, although, the hatred must have been brewing since the beginning. The defeat of Nodhas Gautama was in a debate, not in the war, may confirm the above fact. We also have seen that the real enmity was between Turanians and Avestans. The assassination of Zarathustra is attributed to a Turanian while Rig Vedic Vasishtha seems to be just happily mentioning the prophet’s death in the fire. After the death of Zarathustra and decline of the clan of Vishtaspa and Turanians, Vedics seems to have got the space to declare their supremacy. Sudasa rightly achieved that through the victory in the battle of 10 kings! Turanians, as we have identified with Turvasas, were occasionally friendly with Rig Vedic tribe/s. The friendliness between both the tribes must have been normal during the period of Varsagiras war. However, the war is summed up in only two verses in the Rig Veda, mostly because, Vedics did not participate it at all! The despicable mention of Zarathushtra’s patron Istasva (Vishtaspa) in Rig Veda (1.122.13) must have been occurred for their friendship with

Turvasas, (Turanians) who had enmity with Vishtaspa and his faith. Here, we may arrive to conclusion that the Battle of Ten Kings is a far later incidence in Rig Vedic history and not as early as some scholars like to think. Why Turvasas doubtlessly could only be Turanians of Avesta? The facts as stated in this chapter no way can indicate otherwise. Turvasa as a tribe is only mentioned whenever Turvasas along with Yadus had waged the wars along with the Vedics with common enemies. Rather in the battle of 10 kings, Yadu-Turvasas have fought against King Sudasa. We have seen all other tribes mentioned in Rig Veda are identified with the people living in either North-west part of India or Southern and northern Afghanistan and Iran. As for Yadus, though identity is not clear, one verse of Rig Veda informs us: “A hundred thousand have I gained from Parsu, from Tirindira, And presents of the Yadavas.” (RV 8.6.46) Parsus are undisputedly identified with Persians. The name Tirindira, too, is of Persian origin.26 Yadus are mentioned together with Persians in the above verse. From this verse, we find that Yadus and Persian tribes, too, were occasional donors of Rig Vedic seers, although, they may not be patrons of it. Most of the times, Yadus have been mentioned together with Turvasas in Rig Veda clearly stating ‘coming from afar’. It could be an indicator to find the location of Yadus in North Afghanistan or Iran, exactly which, may not be determined conclusively.B The battle we have discussed, recorded by Aban Yast and Rig Veda, was between Turanians and Zoroastrians and not between Rig Vedic tribe and Zoroastrians, as is believed by some. Now, let us have a look at other identifications made by the scholars whether they too are true or not.

Atharvan and Athravan The role of Athravan is highly important in the Zoroastrian religion as fire priests which, too, are based on fire rites, though of different kind than of Vedic rites. Athravan means fire-guardian; the attendant of the sacred fire in Zoroastrian temples; the proper word for a priest in the Avesta. His main religious duty is to perform Yasna (Sk. Yadnya, i.e. fire sacrifice) and protect sacred fire. Atharvan mentioned in Rig Veda have been tried to equate with Avestic Athravans and it seems to be serious problem. First, we must note here that the Atharvans in Vedic tradition, though they usually are associated with fire, their Veda (i.e. Atharva Veda) is not meant for fire sacrificial rituals at all. Rather, in structure, practice and content, it stands contrary to other fire sacrifice oriented Vedas. This was the very reason why Atharva Veda, till late times, did not receive recognition as fourth ‘Veda’. N. K.Singh states, “…But the Atharvanic literature consisting of the Samhitas of the two schools, wiz. Saunaka and Paippalada, the Gopath Brahmana and a number of Upanisadas attached to the Atharva Veda have their own religion and philosophy.” 27 In short, there is hardly any resemblance in religious practices or philosophy of both the Rig Vedic and Atharvan religions. The fact is since Atharva Veda never meant to be firesacrifice-oriented religion; it is not a surprise that it never received higher status, although, it got elevated as fourth Veda only after some interpolations, such as insertion of about 1/7th part of Rig Veda and associating mythical sages as authors with it! Still it be a question, how then ‘Atharva Veda’ had been associated with the Atharvans!

Atharvans of Rig Veda The name ‘Atharvan’ occurs 14 times in Rig Veda and is mentioned thrice in plural while it appears several times in Atharva Veda. Angirasas were sired by Seer Angira, as per mythology and Atharvas were offsprings of Seer Bhrigu, thus it makes a family, making Angira and Bhrigu blood brothers. But the Rig Vedic accounts are not clear about this. Though, the term Atharva is associated with fire, it has uncertain etymology. Atharvan is considered to be an ancient sage who introduced fire. 28 The verse RV 1.83.5 states that “Atharvan first by sacrifices laid the paths then, guardian of the Law, sprang up the loving Sun. / Usana Kavya straightway hither drove the kine. Let us with offerings honour Yama's deathless birth.” However, the introduction of the fire also is attributed to Matarisva, Bhrigu and even Angirasas in Rig Veda. The Athravan of Avesta is said to be evolved from ‘Atar’, fire. It also is assumed that the Atar got associated with Athravan by folk etymology. Rahurkar states that the Athravan of Avesta and Atharvan of Rig Veda are etymologically equivalent, meaning ‘fire priest’. 29 There also are claims that the Vedic Atharvan is a loan word from Iranians. 30 Etymology of Avestan ‘Athravan’, though remains disputed, however, its origin, as seen above, could be traced to Avestan ‘Atar’, which means ‘holy fire’ or just “fire”.31 Since the duty of Athravan was to protect fire, the term Athravan may have evolved from Atar to Athravan to denote, he, who protects the holy fire! We have to see how Athravans were regarded in Avestan religion. Heesterman informs, the social status of Athravan was as priestly servant of the kings and Magnates, which does not speak for their high status or spiritual authority. He also tells us that the Athravans were not blood related but were selected carefully as priests from different families. In later times, Magus (Magi or Magavan) replaced Athravans as priests, thus putting an end to the Athravan tradition.32

However, on the contrary, Atharvans of Rig and Atharva Veda was a priestly family of eminence claiming divine origin. Avestan ‘Athravan’, protector of fire, seems to be a pre-Avestan term. Rig Vedic people (or tribe of Atharvans which joined Vedic stream) seem to have borrowed (or inherited by the later entrants in Rig Vedic tradition) the term from Iranian to create a mythical person out of it. The Vedic word ‘Agni’ for fire is missing from Avesta, which means Iranians had separate term for fire, i.e. ‘Atar’. This is quite possible that fire worshippers, Atharvans, of another tribe delving in those regions later joined the Vedic tradition, keeping their identity distinct and exalted as Atharvans of divine origin. This can be proved from the very fact that the terms ‘Atharva’, ‘Angirasa’ and ‘Bhrigu’, all are associated with the fire and boasting of their remote and divine ancestry, keeping their independent identities and faiths distinguishable from others! Also, it is clear that these seer families got associated with Rig Vedic tradition in different times, Bhrigus, in all probability, being the last. This also means that Rig Veda was not composed under single patronage or by seer families of a single tribe. We have seen above that the Somaka and Sahadeva were not descendents of Sudasa. Some of his ancestors are identifiable from Rig Veda, but we do not get any evidence that after Sudasa’s era, who took over his reign and patronage of Rig Vedic religion, though from Danastutis (Praises of donors) we get indication that various tribes, alternatively, had patronised the Vedic seers. Apart from Rig Veda, we find Atharvans, Bhrigus and Angirasas too are associated with Atharva Veda. We have seen above that the Atharvan tradition is nowhere connected with Rig Vedic sacrificial practices and philosophies. Rather, it is an independent religion. Still, this association is surprising. C Atharva Veda was known alternatively as Atharvangiras and Bhrugvangiras Veda. As per Gopatha Brahmana, in the beginning, Atharva Veda and Angiras Veda were independent works. Some

scholars tend to believe both Vedas were combined together in later times or the Veda of Angirasas was lost in course of the time.33 However, it clearly seems that none of the celebrated seers actually could have been composer of this Veda, but in the later times, to elevate its status, these celebrated seer families were associated with it as their composers. This probability also can be justified as 1/7th part of the Rig Veda, too, was incorporated in it to provide sanctity to this work. To sum up, Rig Vedic Atharvan and Avestan Athravan couldn’t have any connection except for the application of the term. Although, Indian mythology relates Bhrigu, Angira as brothers, born of Brahma’s manly vigour and Atharvans and Angirasas as their offsprings, making them of common lineage, as Gopatha Brahmana narrates, couldn’t possibly have been the case. They were independent families having different faiths those very well reflect in their compositions of Rig Veda. 34

Angra and Angirasa Angra Mainyu of Zoroastrian faith is opposite to Lord Ahur Mazda as head of the demons and evil spirits, i.e. Daevas. It is clear that the Angra Mainyu is not a proper name but a term designated collectively for the evil forces. There have been attempts of co-relating Angra Mainyu of Avesta and Angirasa, prominent seer family of Rig Veda. Hodivala states that since Angirasas have not been spoken with any contempt, they may not have been inclined towards Zoroastrian religion. It is clear from his deliberation that in Gathas, he thinks, Zarathustra is addressing the Angirasas as enemies. In short, Hodivala believes Angirasas are none but Angras of Avesta.35 Shrikant Talageri also believes ‘Angra’ of Avesta are none but Angirasas of Vedic tradition, to prove his point that the main enemies of Iranians were Vedic people. However, his logic is slightly different as he states that since the priests of the Iranians were Athravans (equated with Bhrigu) and that the words Angra and Druj appears throughout in Avesta as epithets for demon enemies of Ahur Mazda and Zarathustra, Angirasas could be none but Angra of the Avesta. To him, Angra Mainyu is a term derived from the name of the Angirasas (Priests of the Vedic Aryans) out of hostility between the Vedic Aryans and the Iranians. Also, he claims that Avesta shows movement of a group from among the Bhrigus, Iranian priests, toward the side of Devas, i.e. Vedic people.36 However, this logic is not tenable because we have seen that there couldn’t have been any relationship between Atharvans of Rig Veda and Athravans of Avesta. For more clarity, let us go through the following points. 1. Angra Mainyu is not at all the proper name but is an epithet of the evil spirits or demons. Angra Mainyu in Avesta represents the destructive forces as against creative forces of Spenta Mainyu. (Yast, 13.12-13)

2. Ahur Mazda, for that matter, too, is not the proper name but represents Lord of wisdom or intellect. Ahur Mazda is creator of all entities but is also the father of the entities.37 3. In Avesta, Angra Mainyu is called the twin brother of the Holy Spirit and contrasted with Spenta Mainyu. He is all destroying Satan, the source of all evil in the world, and like Ahur Mazda, existed since the beginning of the world.38 4. In Rig Veda, Angirasas claim their race to semi-divine origin and are attendants of Agni. Also, this family was rather outside of the main Vedic tradition, as they do not seem prominent in books 2 to 4. Also, Angirasas were treated by poets (Vedic seers) as a real clan.39 5. If Angra is to be equated with Angirasas, who were fire priests of Rig Vedic tradition and Avesta, too, being a fire centric religious book, it is insane to think that Zarathushtra would make them, out of sheer enmity, an evil force to stand against almighty Ahur Mazda. 6. When ‘Angra’ term just represents ‘Evil’, ‘Angirasa’ name represents ‘Agni’ (fire), hence etymologically too, both the terms have different meanings showing no connection between the both.. D From the above brief, it is clear that to Avesta, ‘Angra’ is none but epithet of destructive spirit or forces, but how it can be connected with Rig Vedic Angirasas who were just a priestly family? Zoroaster in the Gathas composed by himself, does not use term Angra Mainyu for the person or group of persons but for the evil, destructive spirits or minds. For good spirits, Zoroaster uses the term ‘Spenta Mainyu’. Avesta depicts the eternal conflict between good and bad spirits. Hence, considering Angra, epithet of Avesta, and the seer family Angirasas of Vedas one and the same would be a fatal mistake, such as made by Shrikant Talageri.

Bhrigu From Rig Veda, it appears that before Rig Veda came to being composed, progenitor Bhrigu had become a distant memory. ‘Bhrigu’ name derives from the root bhrk, meaning the blazing of the fire’ professed immense reverence towards the elements of fire on earth viz the life and warmth giving Sun and the Fire. However, some Sanskrit scholars believe that the root bhrk or bhraj and word Bhrigu may not have Sanskrit origin.40 The Bhrigu tradition is peculiar in their possessing different faiths and representing rival sides. (e.g. Shukracharya of Brigu clan is said to be Guru of Asuras.) From Rig Veda, it would mean that the original Bhrigu, Atharva or Angira, progenitors of respective clans, were not the historical persons but fire element personified and in later ages, came in to the use as proper name or family name by different people. Talageri wants to enforce his fanciful idea that the Bhrigus were associated with Anus, who, according to him, were Iranians. However, Macdonell states that “The Bhrigus were connected with this tribe (Anus) is much more doubtful. It rests on the sole fact that they are mentioned in one place together with Druhyus and not Anus.” (RV 7.18.4)41 [7]In fact, Bhrigus do not find any mention in Avesta. Thinking Athravans and Atharvans one and the same, Talageri has concocted his entire theory that the Anus were Iranians. In the battle of 10 kings, Bhrigu, too, was one of the participants against Sudasa. It is unclear from these hymns that whether Bhrigu was a name of the tribe or a family name. The war hymns (RV 7.18, 7.33) do not indicate anyway that the Bhrigus had participated in the war in the capacity of the priest of Anus (or any other tribe for that matter). Unlike Angirasa, who are dominant priests of Rig Veda, Bhrigus, though enemies of Rig Vedic tribe/s during battle of 10 kings, entered the Rig Vedic tradition much later.

Bhrigus, being earlier enemies of King Sudasa and forgetting their past rivalry joining the Rig Vedic tradition at later times only indicates that the clan of Sudasa had reached its end, may be after lapse of few or more generations and the Rig Vedics had found patrons in other tribes. Bhrigus must be belonging to some other adversary tribe during the period of Sudasa. There were far many tribes delving in the vast territories of ancient Iran (including modern day Afghanistan) which is evident from the Rig Veda and Avesta itself. We must not forget that it was not the conflict between Avestan and Vedic tribes alone, as scholars like to believe, because during that time, none of the both religions had become dominant enough to wipe out other faiths to leave these two religions to stand opposite each other. Though, the fundamental conceptual division of divine and evil forces was complete, the deities and demons representing it were different from people to people. Sometimes, the representation went opposite; as we see the worshipers of Daeva were despised by Zarathustra whereas the Turanians and some other tribes worshiped Daevas. In what form and with which names other tribes worshipped Devas, we do not know for certain as they are not explicitly named in either scripts. But we can guess from the Rig Veda that there were some tribes those did not perform fire sacrifices of any kind. There also were tribes who performed genital worship named despicably as Shisnadevans (worshipers of phallic god) in Rig Veda. There were few those followed occultism. Hence, some of the Devas must have been praised in the form of the idols or symbols and some in abstract form. Some tribe’s religion seems to be fire-centric, but essentially not same as Rig Vedic or Avestan. There were tribes, Ayajju, without sacrifice, Anyavrata, having different faith, but what was their faith also is not clear from Rig Veda. Rig Veda thus seems to have been composed by seers having different traditions and though, they became composers of the Rig Veda, their priorities of the deities and epithets have been drastically changed in the hymns they composed. The Rig Vedic tradition

clearly seems to have shifted from Asura to Deva. The decline of Varuna and rise of Indra, or many deities suddenly surfacing those were unknown to early Rig Veda only shows, how with changing patrons or admission of the seers belonging to distinct faiths and tribes in Rig Vedic tradition, has created colas of deities and ever changing priorities during the offerings. This is why in Rig Veda, we hardly find any consistency that is expected from a religious book. That could be called as weakness or can be lauded as a cosmopolitan nature of the Rig Veda!

Kavi Kavis of Avesta seems to be enemies of Zarathushtra. However, Kavi had been the epithet of many Avestan Kings, such as of Kavi Vishtaspa, who was the first patron of Zarathushtra. His mythical dynasty, too, is known as Kayanian (of Kavys). Still, it seems from Avesta that Kavis were called wicked, worthy enough to be hurled down, such as in Yasna 32.14 42 Talageri, in this regard, states, “However, the Kavis as a class are regularly condemned throughout the Avesta, right from the GAthAs of Zarathustra onwards, and it is clear that they are regarded as a race of priests who have joined the ranks of the enemies even before the period of Zarathustra himself.” 43 (Emphasis mine). Here, it clearly seems, Talageri is treating Kavis as a race of the priests. In addition, he blatantly claims that they attained the position of the enemies before Zarathustra, but he forgets, Zarathustra’s first patron was Kavi Vishtaspa! Malati Shendge states that the meaning of Vedic epithet Kavi emphasised the element of intelligent insight into the things whereas Kavi of Avesta means protector, guardian and ‘watch over’. Further, she states that the term Kavi acquired bad meaning on account of historical reasons. It came to be used for the princes/kings those were opposed to the Zoroastrian faith. The term later was used as ‘willfully blind’ as opposed to the Sanskrit sense. 44 From Avesta, we can clearly see the fact that Kavi was not a class of the priests, but an epithet of the kings and princes which goes contrary to what Talageri suggests. ‘Shaname’ informs Vishtaspa was last of the ruler of his (Kayanian) dynasty who had patronised Zarathushtra’s faith. Hence, using epithet Kavi to him in honour doesn’t come as surprise. We do not get any clue as to who were the patron kings after the death of Vishtaspa to Zoroastrian religion for Avesta is silent about it! In fact, however, it is clear that there was not any as the epithet Kavi became a despicable term addressed to

all kings those opposed to this faith. We mustn’t forget here that Zarathushtra was killed well before demise of Vishtaspa. Also, let us not forget here that Kavi Kavasha (also spelled as Kay Kaus in Pahlavi and confused with Kavi Usan) of Avesta was a mythical King. Among the enemies of King Sudasa in battle of 10 kings was Kavi Cayamana, who was of Parthian origin. (RV 7.18.8) This only does indicate that Kavi was an epithet of the Iranian/Parthian tribal kings, not necessary of the same ethnicity or adherents of same religion. What we gather from above is ‘Kavi’ of non-Vedic tradition of ancient Iran were mere title of the royals whereas, in the Vedic tradition, the epithet was used as poet/singer/intelligent/seer etc. and sometimes was used to address gods like Indra, Agni, Soma etc. Also, we can confirm from this that the relationship of the Vedics was fluctuating with the contemporary tribes of that region, as Parthians, once lauded friends, too had joined the battle of 10 kings against Sudasa. However, the term used by Avesta explicitly for royals and as after Kavi Vishtaspa, none came forward to their aid; the term seems to have become detestable. However, we can find such turns and shifts in the meaning of the terms in both the scriptures. Not necessarily, the conflicts recorded in the Rig Veda were just between Avestan and Vedic people. We have seen that the main rivals of the Zarathushtra were Turanians (Turvasas) and not Vedic people. In battle of 10 kings, we find all major tribes, such as Parthian, Persian, Turanian (Turvasas) Pakhtun etc had assembled together to defeat Sudasa, though, they failed in their endeavour. We have briefly discussed how the seers of different tribes must have joined the Vedic stream while carrying in their own myths and philosophies in case of the Bhrigus and Atharvans, there are another two enigmatic seer families, i.e. Kanvas and Agastyas, those show clearly their distinct origin.

Kanvas It seems Kanvas were an ethnically different group. They are explicitly described as dark brown (RV 10.31.11), distinguishing them from other seer families. It is believed by some scholars that the influx of non-Aryan beliefs in Rig Veda is owed to Kanvas. Kuiper states that “The case in the point of myth about an archer god, who cleaves a mountain with his arrow, kills the boar Emusa and gains access to the cooked rice-milk (Odana). The myth is grafted upon Indra-Vritra –myth, is mainly found in the eighth Mandala….” Further, Kuiper adds that the myth was introduced by Kanvas whose nonAryan origin is probable for several reasons. In Brahmana and Sutra period, Kanvas are even called as non-Brahmina. (A-bhrahmana). Moreover, the word Kanva does not fit into the structure of Vedic dialect! Kuiper further states that the magical practices were legitimated because of Kanvas in the Vedic tradition. Also, he states that all Kanvas did not aspire for the membership of the Aryan (i.e. Vedic) society. Those who stayed behind were naturally feared as dangerous sorcerers as is documented by the well-known hymn Saun. (II.25.3-5). Here, the Kanvas are described as people who drank blood and ate embryos. It is also argued that the Kanvas were of foreign origin because of the linguistic differences that makes their book apart from other family books. 45 Shrikant Talageri states that “The Atris and Kanvas are also relatively neutral families, but in a different sense from the Bhrgus and Agastyas…….: the Atris and Kanvas appear to have officiated as priests for, and composed Danastutis in praise of any king (irrespective of his tribal identity) who showered them with gifts.” 46 Here, we find that Kanvas certainly were not originally associated with the contemporary Vedic tribe. They had independent existence, so may be the case with Atris as well. When they joined Rig Vedic stream, though they followed the Vedic ritualistic tradition in that

course, they maintained their original independent identity through their compositions.

Agastya Probably, Agastya is the most enigmatic seer of Rig Veda whose character alone sets him apart from the early Rig Vedic seers. First of all, we have no certain etymology of his name. The forced etymology probably developed to explain his name through a fable of later times attributed to a deed of some other Agastya that he asked mountain Vindhya to prostrate before him thus restricting the ever rising height of the Vindhya…hence, his name is Agastya. This fable clearly is a creation of later times because Vedic dialect and later Sanskrit was unable to provide any etymology of this name. In Rig Veda, his alternative personal names are Manya (son of Mana) and Mandarya, (Rig. 7.33.13) which shows clearly that the Agastya was a family name. According to Vedic legend, he was son of Mitra-Varuna and brother of seer Vasishtha. The legend goes like this, once Mitra-Varuna had visited a sacrifice session where their sight fell on the heavenly courtesan Urvashi. A craving for her tempted them to ejaculate in an earthen pot from which Vasishtha and Agatsya took birth. 47 However, the legend is to explain mystic or unknown origin of both the seers because Agastya certainly is not considered to be a contemporary of Vasishtha. In Rig Veda, there are almost 26 hymns attributed to him. The hymns of the first Mandala, considered by scholars as one of the youngest book, open with hymns to Maruts and Indra, followed by abruptly inserted dialogue between Agastya and his wife Lopamudra and ends up with a charm against poisonous animals. These hymns are peculiar in nature and stand apart from the overall style of the Rig Veda. His other hymns are incorporated in the eighth Mandala. About his verses, states Jamison et al, “His hymns are stylistically creative, uses puns and verbal play, intricate similes, unexpected turns of phrases, syntactic innovations and striking imagery. He is also said to have contributed to development of Vedic ritual practices.” 48

Kuiper states that the myth of Agastya and Lopamudra cannot stem out of proto-Indo-Iranian culture. The name Agastya or Agasti itself is non-Aryan and probably points to the totemism, indicating his foreign origin, incidentally, the circumstances that the plant name Agasti is not attested in Sanskrit, but Dravidian. Further, he suggests that like Kanvas, Agastya’s figure was not fully Aryanised in Vedic times. 49 Kuiper’s Aryan and Non-Aryan division as far the languages or race is unwarranted as every tribe residing in those regions must have been speaking a variety of similar dialects but mixed with some of distinct vocabularies and epithets accumulated from the ancient past. Based on this to determine Agastya had Dravidian origin will be a bold hypothesis, though in the later times, his namesake or descendent have been associated with South India. However, it is clear that Agastya, too, did not belonged originally to the Vedic tribe.E Vedic tradition, in the course of the time could have adapted by various nearby tribes from whom some seer families originated like Kanvas, Agastyas and Bhrigus.

Brahmana mythologies and Iranian connection We have seen in the earlier chapters and above that the Vedic culture, religious practices and philosophy differed to a great extent with Indians (IGC) of those times, showing no influence on each other. Though, we are not certain exactly when Rig Veda was composed, it is clear from above that the Avesta and Rig Veda were contemporary works, having influence on each other, not only linguistic but ritualistic as well. We have also seen earlier in this chapter that both the histories, too, are quite close exhibiting their knowledge of the personalities from each other’s traditions. Only geographical closeness, needless to mention, was the major reason for such influences. The Brahmana literature, though considered to be younger, composed after compilation of Vedas, the mythologies they bear are certainly of old origin and most probably emerged in early times when Rig Vedic religion was shaping up in South Afghanistan. It is quite possible that while the Rig Vedic compositions were gradually taking place, for the need of methodising its ritualistic applications, some standardisation was required. Thus, Brahmanas must have as ancient roots as Rig Veda have, though they took final shape with additions and modifications in post-Rig Vedic times. The mythology related with Deva-Asura conflict that appears in Brahmana literature, clearly echoes its ethos of Rig Vedic people’s struggle with the Asura or Ahura worshippers of Iran, not necessarily with Zoroastrians alone. Let us not forget here that Asuras are treated as elder brothers of Devas, both being offsprings of Prajapati. It only shows the oneness of faith between ‘Asura’ oriented tribes in early times as we have seen that in the beginning Rig Vedic faith, too, was Asura oriented, though it did not despise Devas ever. This is obvious from the Asura epithet generously used for Vedic Gods like Varuna, Indra, and Agni. The shift from Asura to Deva orientation, most probably, seems to have occurred after the battle of 10 kings or little later.

Asuras of Brahmana are not as same as depicted in Indian mythologies. They are clearly shown performing sacrificial rituals, but, to them, of inferior nature. Asuras of Brahmanas or Vedas in no way are idol or phallic worshipers. Satapatha Brahmana’s narrative in regards with Asuras as being actual progenitors of fire sacrifices and how Devas dispossessed Asuras from it goes as following: “1.9.2.34. Now the gods and the Asuras, both of them sprung from Pragâpati, were contending about this sacrifice, (that is, their) father Pragâpati, the year. 'Ours it (he) shall be! ours it shall be,' they said. 1.9.2.35-Thereupon, the gods obtained possession of the whole of the sacrifice, and dispossessed those (Asuras) of it by (giving them) what was the worst part of the sacrifice, to wit, with the blood of the victim (they dispossessed them) of the animal sacrifice, and with the refuse of the rice of the haviryagña. 'May they be duly dispossessed of the sacrifice,' they thought for he indeed is duly dispossessed, who is dispossessed even while obtaining a (worthless) share. He, on the other hand, who is dispossessed without any share whatever, hopes for a while, and when it occurs to him, he says, 'What share hast thou given me?' Hence what share the gods set apart for those (Asuras), that same share he now makes over to them in pouring (the refuse of the rice) right under the black antelope skin. He thereby casts it into blind darkness, where there is no (sacrificial) fire. And in the same way he casts the blood of the victim into blind darkness, where there is no fire; thinking, 'Thou art the Rakshas' share!' For this reason they use not the gore of the victim (for sacrificial purposes), since it is the Rakshas' share.”50 It also is clear from above that the Asuras were progenitors of the fire sacrifice rites, which is again confirmed from the following verse of Satapatha Brahmana. “He said, 'How, then, wilt thou do it?' He then told him this:--At first, indeed, that Yagña (sacrifice, m.), the Sautrâmanî, was with the Asuras. He went forth towards the gods. He came to the waters, and the waters welcomed him, whence people welcome a better man

when he comes to them. They said to him, 'We pray thee, come, reverend sir!'” (SB, 12.9.) Here, we find two facts, one is that the followers of Ahur Mazda and some other Asura oriented tribes, too, conducted sacrificial rituals like of Vedic people, and second is, Vedic people wanted to boast how better was their rites than of the Asuras. May be that the preZoroastrian Ahura sacrificial practice was adapted by the Vedic with their own innovations. Since Asura cult had ancient roots, it is no wonder that the Asuras were treated as elder brothers and progenitors of the fire sacrifice. Malati Shendge suggests that “It is possible that the Asuras observed certain rites and devas created certain others on the basis of those of the Asuras.” 51 In a way, from above, another conjecture can emerge which we need to think on. Was this rivalry between the followers of the Zoroastrian and other Asura oriented faiths of those times alone or was it also the conflict between Asura and Deva worshipers of Rig Vedic tradition as well? There cannot be any doubt that the Rig Vedic tradition was Asura oriented in its early stage, which later went on in a drastically opposite direction of the previous one. Hence, we can safely state that the Vedics could have gone through the both, external as well as internal conflicts. This seems plausible because although, the epithet Asura was dropped in later times, the deities those were revered with that epithet, such as Varuna, remained, though in little degraded form, in later Rig Vedic texts. However, this is not the issue we need to go in depth here. We have to see whether the roots of Brahmana mythology belonged to the land where Asura faith was predominant and Vedicism was a branch of it, embracing Deva faith in later times. The myth that the Asuras and Devas were sons of the Prajapati and Asuras being elder suggests none other than this. India, too, had an uninterrupted tradition of Asura culture, but we do not find Asuras conducting any kind of fire-sacrifices! Chandogya Upanishada clearly states that “….who does not sacrifice, is contemptuously addressed as one of the Asura race.” Asuras here were rather enemies of the fire sacrifices and worshipers of Shiva.

(Bhagvad Purana, 8.1.17, 11.24.13). Indian Asura tradition seems to be conducting ancestor worship as well. (Vishnu Purana, 1.5.31-34.). Most of the Asuras obtained boons from Shiva. There are many stories of Asuras destructing Vedic fire sacrifices; many are enumerated in Puranas, Ramayana and Mahabharata. For example: Balakanda (Ramayana) elaborates how Rama protected sacrifices of Vishwamitra from Asuras. Shiva, in myths, is called ‘VedabAhya’ (outsider to Vedas.) and Smarari (destroyer of sacrifices). (Vayupurana, chapter 30) F Although later, many attempts were made to assimilate Shiva in Vedic tradition, by equating him with Rudra, mostly owing to his popularity failed because of the clear distinction in both, i.e. Rudra was authorised to receive share of sacrificial oblations, Shiva was not! (Maitrayani Samhita 2.9.1-2) However, it was natural for these attempts of later times to fail because the fact remained that Shiva has been and is traditionally God of the different, pre-Vedic religion of India. The myth associated with him clearly demarcates the division of the two religions, one being idolatrous, phallic worship centered and other being firecentered, worshippers of abstract gods. In Vedic mythologies, why Shiva’s main task as ‘destroyer’ would have been assigned, the answer must not surprise us, because it seems clear from the mythologies that he (his followers) was acclaimed as the destroyer of the sacrifices. As a matter of fact, the phallic form in which he is worshipped is a symbol of fertility… creation, not destruction, which we must understand. So, even if his symbol is of creation, he was shrewdly assigned the task of the destroyer! The distorted mythologies should not misguide us and importantly, Brahmana mythologies in no way involve or mention Shiva anywhere. This is why; many scholars tend to think Shiva is a Puranic god and assign date of later times for his emergence. However, the physical proofs found in Indus civilisation speak clearly otherwise.

This indicates how and why Indian mythology differs from the Brahmana’s mythology with regard to Asuras. Indian Asuras were never conducting fire sacrifices but were mostly worshippers of Shiva. This is the point where we need to segregate Asura myths of Veda/ Brahmanas and myths of Shiva/Shakti worshippers Asuras of India. Our known ancient religion and cultural tradition finds roots in Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation and not in the Vedic religion, which was introduced to India in quite later times. The Asura myths recorded in the Vedic texts, thus clearly seems to have been originated in ancient Iran. Although, the epithet Asura and Deva was common, almost from India to Greece, the characteristics of the both were very different, sometimes, drastically opposite or even mixed together as per the psyche or faiths of those societies. Just similarities between the epithets or terms in ancient languages cannot become the basis of determining the ethos of various cultures. Rather, we should be very careful rather than confused when we find superficial similarities in distinct cultures. With the similarities in the terms/epithets of different civilisations cannot be afforded to conclude similarities in the cultures.

Danava and Daityas The way myths associated with Asura in the Vedic literature has Iran origin; the myths surrounding Danava and Daityas, too, are associated with the same region. In Rig Veda Danu, (mother of Danavas, Demons) is mentioned in the verse 1.32.9 as mother of Vritra, a demon to whom Indra had slain. Later, in the mythologies, Danu was depicted as daughter of Daksha Prajapati. Danu also appears as a river name in Avesta. Rivers Danube, Don, Dnieper etc. has been attempted to equate with Avestan ‘Danu’ river. Speigel admits that word Danu in Veda and Avesta, one meaning enemy and the other river. Darmesteter takes Danu (in both Avestan and Vedic language) for cloud, water, or river.52 Vritra myth is quite ancient that repeatedly appears in the Rig Veda. Vritra/Danavas could be some ancient tribe residing on the banks of some river (Danu), to whom Indra (Rig Vedic tribes) defeated. The memory of early times seems to have proudely preserved in the Rig Vedic mythology. Daityas is another class of Vedic demons who are considered to be sons of Diti and Kashyapa. Vanghui Daitya in Avesta is a venerable river (Yast 1.21) which flowed through Arran (modern Aras, classical Araxes) or mythical Aieryanam Vaeja, birth place of the Zarathushtra. Here, we can surmise that the way Asuras became despicable, Daityas, name designated to the people/tribe who resided across Daitya river, too, became a hateful name out of enmity and constant conflicts. Danu in Rig Veda, as we have seen above, is name of water-demon Vritra’s mother. Since the generic term ‘Danu’ means water or river, Danavas, too, must be a tribe of ancient times, residing on some river’s banks. The repeated mentions of Vritra myth in the Rig Veda only shows that the enmity between Danavas and early Vedic people has ancient roots. So, we can correlate Vedic myths in relation with Danava, Daitya and Asura with the people those delved in the ancient Iran. Projecting perpetual enemy tribes in demonic forms is a human nature, but, however, we cannot connect those myths with the indigenous mythologies.

It also is clear from all the discussion that the Asuras were the last to join in as demonic class in Rig Vedic mythology. Looking at the bitter enmity between Deva and Asuras of Vedic mythology, we can clearly see the answer to the question why Rig Vedic religion (not people) was forced out to eastern territories to find new patrons and adherents as western side must have been blocked to the Vedic disciples by their Ahura worshiper enemies. The reflection of those bitter memories naturally has been preserved in the form of mythological battles and associated stories in Brahmanas. It seems, though there are no clear proofs to substantiate this statement, the later events clearly indicate that the followers of the Vedic religion in those lands were forcibly or willingly been converted by the Avestic or other Asuric, but powerful, kings, leaving no choice to the faithful adherents but to escape to the east for survival and preserve the religion. However, by calling Asuras as elder brothers of Devas, Vedic mythology faithfully preserves the historical fact that the Asura oriented tradition had been anterior to the Deva.

Which scripture is older? It is always difficult to conclusively decide which scripture is older in the absence of a definitive proof. Even if Avestan and Rig Vedic tradition is analysed, we even cannot state definitely that whether both the religions emerged in each other’s opposition. Zarathushtra certainly was not founder but reformer of the religion which was ancient but had declined in the course of the time. From Rig Veda, we get no clue as to whether it, too, was an attempt to resurrect some ancient faith in different manner or had it independent origin! Though, the Rig Veda shows its reverence to Asura tradition, at the least in the early times, it does not resemble with Zoroastrian faith in many respects. Although, some myths and deities are identical in both the scripts there are many others those either have independent roots or borrowings of basic elements from elsewhere with further independent developments. However, we will try to sum up on this issue keeping in mind what we have discussed in this chapter. To begin with, we are certain now that Rig Vedic seers knew Zarathushtra, his patron and enemies as well. They also knew about his death and how did he die. So safely, we can state that the Gathas, those are directly attributed to Zarathustra, were contemporary to the early compositions of Rig Veda, if not predating. We also safely can say that the whole bulk of the extant Rig Veda, excepting later interpolations, has been composed in southern Afghanistan in Helmand basin as there seems to be no shift in geography as the friends and enemies of the Rig Vedic tribes throughout, mostly, remains to be identifiable belonging to those territories. There seems no movement from India to west or from west to east as Western and Indian scholars like to believe to build up their theories. The dialects of both the scriptures (Gatha and Rig Veda) are as similar and distinct as we can expect from the languages of any adjoining regions. There are certain phonetic and morphological

changes in the language of the Rig Veda which makes it more modern over the language of Gathas. This is why we find a bulk of similar words in both the scriptures but some seems to have been used in different, sometimes opposite, senses. Many words sound different and yet they seem to be clear translations made in later times i.e. words or names may be different but meaning is same. Though, the language of Rig Veda phonetically and morphologically has been transformed while final compilation of the Rig Veda, still the resemblance with the language of Avesta is remarkable. This is because the geography of both the regions was close enough to have striking affinity in languages as well as mythologies including names of deities and demons. We have no traditional records available from other tribes of those regions, thus making it impossible to understand properly their faiths and ritualistic practices. However, we have hints from both the scriptures that different faiths prevailed in the vast territory of ancient Iran. Hence, distributing all the tribes between Zoroastrian and Vedic faith would be illogical as we have seen Zoroastrian religion was just emerging and had begun its spread through preaching and through bloodbath, while Rig Vedic religion, too, was at its infancy at that time. We have no conclusive proof as to what faith others were adhering to except mere guesswork based on the vague descriptions of the enemies that appears in both the scripts. There were people who did not sacrifice. There were people those worshipped Sisnadeva, phallic god. The tribal religions, it clearly seems, conflicted with each other to prove superiority. There were people those worshipped Maruts and Rudra independently which later became part of Vedic pantheon. This could have happened either with the mergers of other tribes with Vedic tribes or Vedic tradition flowed from one to other tribes in course of the time which kept on adding their beloved deities in Vedic pantheon, maintaining Vedic ritualistic practices unaltered. Agastya’s Indra-Marut hymns can be taken as a proof to indicate that within seer families, there were disputes over priorities of the gods to

whom sacrificial offerings were to be made. RV 1.165, 1.170 and 1.171hymns of Agastya shows how the struggle between Indra and Maruts (storm-gods) began over the share of offerings and how Agastya finally brokered peace between Maruts and Indra on this issue. It does indicate that the Maruts could be new deities introduced by some seer belonging to different tribe and faith, but still the share of sacrificial offerings of the Maruts was not yet fixed. Agastya (Mandarya-Manya) in these hymns plays a diplomatic role to reconciliate a conflict between the seers those preferred Indra and those who preferred their main, but newly introduced, deities like Maruts. The priorities of share naturally would differ in such cases. Seers coming from different traditions would naturally want to offer more to their beloved deities, no matter whether the established ritualistic rules of the share differed! Arising of the conflicts under such circumstances would be natural. Here, we find, Agastya successfully could reconcile the issue. It is clear from the development of Maruts in Rig Vedic tradition that they were assimilated and later were associated with Rudra, equally fierce deity, as their father. We can surmise from this that the new deities were being assimilated as the Rig Vedic tradition because of the seers hailing from different tribal religious traditions. Struggle was inevitable when such instances occurred; one is well preserved by Agastya hymns. In a way because of such assimilations, we find a huge pantheon of the Rig Vedic deities, although, many of them have conflicting characteristics. Hence, we can conclude that the Vedic tradition of compositions did not take place in a single tribe or under single patronage. The process must have continued by the seers hailing from different tribes, originally having different faiths and cultural backgrounds. In the 10th book of Rig Veda, too, we find new deities like Laxmi, Shraddha, Tarksha etc. appearing and the descriptions of deities like Prajapati and Vishvakarma changing. However, though the pantheon of the deities grew by this process over the time, the fire centric

sacrificial nature of the Vedic religion did not change, rather it became more organised and thus complex in the course of time.

Chronology of Rig Veda We find that various scholars have tried to decide the chronological order of compositions of hymns of Rig Veda. The efforts became necessary because what we have in hand today does not follow its original chronology, but a version that is edited, rearranged and divided in 10 books (Mandalas) as per the needs of the later editors. However, the normal agreement is the six family books (2 to 7) are the oldest core of the Rig Veda whereas other books are considered to be middle and younger books. If we look at the Rig Vedic compositions, we will find that every book can again be classified as old, middle and younger independently, because they, too, are not composed at one go, but several generations have contributed to them. Even the hymns are edited to suit the purpose of the editor to bring the final version in most possible orderly manner. Hence, many hymns are credited to several seers. It also becomes difficult to determine whether all the verses of the hymns were composed at once or was creation of different times. We find many Rig Vedic hymns consist of verses without any chronological order while recording the events, making it difficult to understand its real historical order. A We also have discussed in this chapter that the composition of the Rig Veda, as evident from Danastuti, was not accomplished under single patronage. Also, we have discussed how the seer families belonged to different clans/ tribes and followed different faiths and traditions before joining the Rig Vedic stream. Although, the Vedic religion and its ritualistic nature remained fire centric, new deities and mythologies of different sources kept on adding to the bulk of Rig Veda. Because of this, we can state that the Rig Veda in a way represents its cosmopolitan nature. However, we do not know for certain, which could be the first seer family that founded the Rig Vedic faith. We also do not know which

the earliest hymn is and who composed it. The Rig Vedic mythologies about their prominent seers, their supposed family members and descendents is so much so shrouded with the obscure and inconsistent legends, that we cannot be so sure whether the lineage of seer families is real or fabricated by the seers of later times to claim their divine and acclaimed bloodline. We know the names of the seer/s of the hymns from the Anukramanis, which is quite a late text. From Anukramanis (Katyayanas being oldest but its assigned date is about 500 BC to 300 BC) we come to know names of the seers who composed the hymns, and deity or deities to whom it is addressed. But it is doubtful whether it is historically correct in its totality. G Rather, such fabrications are not new in the Vedic tradition. The authorships of many scriptures of later times are attributed to mythical figures to provide them sanctity and authenticity. Hence, the division of the family books and non-family books, too, may not be as correct as generally thought about. From the history of both the religions, we can conclude that, even if we cannot definitely decide on which scripture is older, however, with some degree of certainty, we can say that both the traditions are almost contemporaneous. From accounts of the wars, it may appear that the main enemies of the Zoroastrians were Turvasas (Turanians) and not Rig Vedic tribe of early times. There certainly are traces of the sense of rivalry between the Avestan and Vedic tradition, which seems to have encouraged Rig Vedic seers to record victories of Turvasas over Zarathustra’s patron tribe, no matter whether in single verses. Turvasas in the later course of the time turned up to be enemies along with Yadus and others to engage Sudasa, Rig Vedic patron of that time, in the battle to prove him victorious. However, we have no clue as to what happened to his clan in later course of the time. From the wars those took place during lifetime of Zarathushtra, we have discussed above; we certainly can state that battle of ten kings

took place in later times, could possibly be after couple of centuries later. In the passage of almost 300 to 500 years, that took to compose the extant Rig Veda, we cannot expect that the first patron royal family, too, continued its dominance to support the religion over such vast span of time. From Avesta, we clearly see that after fall of Vishtaspa’s dynasty, the Avestan tradition was shifted elsewhere by the followers for want of patrons. Rig Vedic seers, too, from the Danastutis, appear to have receiving patronage and gifts from other tribes. Also, we must note here that when a religion spreads elsewhere, it is because of the faithful preachers. It doesn’t at all mean that the entire populace belonging to that particular religion has moved deserting their original habitat. We also can clearly see from the history that the people have abandoned the previous faiths to adopt new ones. Buddhism spread in nearby countries by this missionary process only. It will be insane to claim that the entire Indian Buddhist population had migrated to Sri Lanka, Tibet, China and other countries to enforce Buddhism upon them. Most importantly, many a times, some religion do become extinct at the place of its origin but prosper elsewhere! Buddhism again is a fine example for this. It could not sustain its existence and influence in the country of its origin for a long time. This, too, seems to have happened with Rig Vedic, fire-sacrifice oriented, religion. It could not survive in the land of its origin but was destined to receive patronage and followers from north India to begin with. The mythologies of Brahmana literature mostly are associated with the era of cultural conflicts between Asuric and Deva faiths when Rig Vedic religion was gradually shaping up in ancient Iran. Applying these myths in Indian historical or mythical context has already proved fatal. We need to carefully segregate the Vedic mythological elements from Indian mythology to know what our original roots were.

*

References: 1. ‘The Proto-Indo-Aryans’, by T. Burrow, published in Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain & Ireland, 1973, p. 123-40. 2. ‘The Formation of the Aryan Branch of Indo-European.’, By Asko Parpola in ‘Combining archaeological and linguistic aspects of the past. (World Archaeology: Archaeology and Language series, 3.)’, edited by Roger Blench and Matthew Spriggs, Pub.: Routledge, 1999, p. 180-207. 3. ‘Rigveda and Avesta: The Final Evidence’, by Shrikant Talageri, 2009. 4. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala,1913, p. 51. 5. ‘The Emergence of the Indo-Iranians: The Indo-Iranian Languages’ by J Harmatta,in ‘History of Civilizations of Central Asia’ (Vol. 1), edited by Ahmad Hasan Dani, Vadim MikhaÄlovich Masson, Pub.: UNESCO Publication, p. 368. 6. ‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History’, edited by Edwin Bryant and Laurie Patton, Pub.: Routledge, 2004, p. 361,367. 7. ‘Avestan, Iranian, Persian, Pahlavi, Pazand Scripts’, by K. E. Eduljee. (Available online at http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/languages/) 8. ‘Ancient India as Described by Megasthanese and Arrian’, by J. W. McGrindle, 1877, eBook. 9. ‘ZOROASTER: THE NAME’, by Rudiger Schmitt, Originally published on July 2002. (Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/zoroaster-i-the-name) 10. The Indian Historical Quarterly (Vol. 5), Issues 1-2, p. 269-70, 1985. 11. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 279. 12. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 1. 13. ‘Indus civilisation, Rigveda, and Hindu culture’, by P. R. Deshmukh, Pub. Saroj Prakasjan, 1982, p. 288-89. 14. ‘Zoroaster: The Prophet of Ancient Iran’, by A. V. Williams Jackson, Pub. The Macmillan Company for Columbia University Press,

1899, p. 124-132. 15. ‘Encyclopedia of the Literature of Empire’, by Mary Ellen Snodgrass, Pub.: Facts on File, INC, 2010, p. 20. 16. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 12. 17. ‘Rigveda : A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 6, sub-chapter ‘The Historical Identity of Iranians’. 18. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 15. 19. ‘Zand-Akasih, Iranian or Greater Bundahisn’, Tr. by Behramgore Tehmuras Anklesaria, Pub.: Rahnumae Mazdayasnan Sabha, 1956, p. 255. 20. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 16. 21. Ibid, p. 14. 22. ‘ARJASP’, by A. Tafazzoli, originally published December 1986. (Available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/arjasp) 23. ‘Zarathustra and his contemporaries in the Rigveda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 16. 24. ‘Aban yast’, translated by James Darmesteter, Pub. Sacred Books of the East, American Edition, 1898. 25. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 6, sub-titled as, ‘The Historical Identity of Iranians’. 26. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 310. 27. ‘Vedic Mythology’, by Nagendra Kr Singh, Pub.: APH Publishing Corporation, 1997, p. 1. 28. Ibid, p. 141. 29. ‘The Vedic Priests of the Fire-cult’, by V. G. Rahurkar, Pub.: Viveka Publications, 1982, p. 59. 30. ‘The Broken World of sacrifices: An essay in Ancient Indian Ritual’, by J. C. Heesterman, Pub.: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 143. 31. ‘Kalatatvakosa: A Lexicon of Fundamental Concepts of the Indian Arts’ (Vol. 3), edited by Bettina Bäumer, Kapila Vatsyayan, Pub.: Indira Gandhi National Center for Arts, New Delhi, 1996, p. 202.

32.

‘The Broken World of sacrifices: An essay in Ancient Indian Ritual’ by J. C. Heesterman, Pub.: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 143-44. 33. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 1), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 119. 34. Ibid. 35. ‘Zarathustra and his Contemporaries in the Rig Veda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 21-22. 36. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 5. 37. ‘The Religion of Ancient Iran’, by J. Duchesne Guillemin in ‘Historia Religionum, Volume 1, Religions of the Past’, edited by Claas Jouco Bleeker, Geo Widengren, Pub.: E.J. Brill, 1969, p. 335 38. ‘Encyclopaedia of Oriental Philosophy and Religion’ (Vol. 6), ‘Zoroastrianism’, edited by A. P. Mishra, Nagendra Kr Singh, Pub.” Global Vision Publishing House, 2007, p. 17. 39. ‘Encyclopaedia of Vedic Philosophy (Volume 5), edited by Subodh Kapoor, Pub.: Cosmo Publications, 2002, p. 1239-40. 40. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 6), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1998, p. 593. 41. ‘Vedic Index of Names and Subjects’ (Vol. 1), by Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, p. 22. 42. ‘Zarathustra and his Contemporaries in the Rig Veda’, by S. K. Hodivala, Pub.: S. K. Hodivala, 1913, p. 16-18. 43. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 6. 44. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav Publications, 1977, p. 75. 45. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi, 1991, p. 17-18. 46. ‘Rigveda: A Historical Analysis’, by Shrikant Talageri, Pub.: Aditya Prakashan, 2000, see chapter 5, subtitle ‘The RSis and Priestly families in the Rigveda’. 47. ‘Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha’ (Vol. 1), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 57. 48. ‘The Rigveda: The Earliest Religious Poetry of India’ (Vol. 1), by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton, Pub.: Oxford University Press,

2014, p. 360. 49. ‘Aryans in the Rigveda’, by Franciscus Bernardus Jacobus Kuiper, Pub.: Rodopi, 1991, p. 18-19. 50. ‘Satapatha Brahmana’, tras. By Julius Eggeling [1882]. (Available online at http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/index.htm) 51. ‘The Civilized Demons: The Harappans in Rigveda’, by Malati J. Shendge, Pub.: Abhinav Publications, 1977, p. 94. 52. ‘Vedic Hymns’, by F. Max Muller, Pub.: Psychology Press, Reprint 2001, p. 116.

Notes: A. While criticising Talageri’s book, ‘The Rigveda. A historical analysis’,

B.

(Aditya Prakashan 2000), Michael Witzel observes about Rig Veda, “….Incidentally, similar arrangements are also seen in the Pali canon of early Buddhist texts, and elsewhere in Indian texts. Analogous principles are also found in the Zoroaster's Gathas, pointing to formal links between Vedic and Avestan traditions that invite further investigation. Any deviation from this strict numerical arrangement has to be explained. The reason, as demonstrated again by Oldenberg, is that various hymns or sections of hymns have at later points been interpolated into the text. This is found especially often in hymns of unusual length: small individual collections of 3 verses (TRcas) or 2 verses (Pragathas) were added to certain hymns or were combined into a new hymn during the final standard RV redaction. This was carried out by Åšakalya in the late Brahmana period -- in other words, shortly before the time of the Buddha (c. 500/400 BCE). All such additions result in hymns that are too long and deviate from the strict pattern. Later on, after Åšakalya, more hymns, such as the ÅšrÄ«sÅ«kta, were added to the text, some of them clearly reflecting medieval ideas. They were gathered together in the Kashmir Khila collection -- and always stand out insofar as they are not found in Åšakalya's Padapaéha and reflect post-Rgvedic grammar and contents.” Witzel further provides the five stages through which we have the present redaction of the Rig Veda. We will see in the next chapter that the final redaction of the Rig Veda in present form must be even later than what Witzel thinks. (‘The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S.Talageri’, p. 6 – Available online at http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf) Yadus, mentioned always together with Turvasas and sometimes also with the Parsus, had made some scholars like Weber to think that it was an evidence of continual close relations between India and Iran. Macdonell, however, states that, “This is perfectly possible, but the evidence for it is rather slight.” We have seen how it would be impossible to consider Yadus of Rig Veda with the later famous clan of India for the geographies they have been mentioned in, does not allow to connect them with India. Rather in Rig Veda, Yadus appear to be a subordinate tribe aligned with Turvasas.

C.

D.

E.

Avesta does not mention this tribe. No Yadu chieftain finds mention in Rig Veda, though Rig Vedic seers seem to have receiving gifts from them. Origin of Mathura’s Yadavas must be found elsewhere, Rig Veda is not the right place. (See “Vedic Index of Names and Subjects”, Volume 1, By Arthur Anthony Macdonell, Arthur Berriedale Keith, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas Publishers Pvt. Ltd., reprint 1995, page 279. Atharva Veda was traditionally considered as ‘impure’ because it was of no use in fire sacrifices. Besides, it is commonly considered by the Indian scholars that the composition of this Veda is modern as compared with Rig Veda. However, Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi suggests that some hymns of this Veda could belong to pre-Rig Vedic times. Atharva Veda’s religion, not associated with fire rituals and distinct as this Veda speaks of the spirituality and Brahma Vidya, which elements are otherwise absent from Rig Veda. The Rig Vedic gods like Indra, Agni are demoted in this Veda, whose only task here remains is to destroy demons and fiends. Also overall collection of hymns of this Veda is arbitrary; artificial, follows no subject-wise system the way Rig Veda somehow follows. Assigning this work to Atharva, Angirasa and Bhrigu may not be correct for it does not fit into Rig Vedic character of the compositions of all these three seer clans. For more information, see, Bharatiya Sanskrutikosha (Vol. 1), edited by Pt. Mahadevshastri Joshi, pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandala, 1997, p. 119-23. Though the etymology of Angirasa is related with fire, it appears from the Gopatha Brahmana (Only Brahmana scripture associated with Atharva Veda) that the term ‘Angirasa’ evolved from ‘Anga-rasa’, which means he who born from sweat of Brahma. This etymology does not match with the fire origin of Angirasa. I especially use the term ‘Vedic Tribe’, not Puru or Bharata or Tritsu in particular because it clearly appears from the Rig Vedic accounts that the composition of the Rig Veda did not complete in the so-called Aryan society or under sole patronage of the hypothetical Puru tribe or its hypothetical offshoot tribes. There was no ‘Aryan’ society as such. Puru, Bharata or Tritsu tribe does not show its prolonged continuation of reign in any region for that matter. The seer families do not show any way that they belonged to any single tribe and uniformly, but over generations, composed Rig Veda. It can be assumed that the many seers were contemporary, however, it is clear from Rig Veda itself that they belonged to different locations and tribes.

F.

G.

We can see that the Bhrigus and Vishvamitra, though might not have physically participated in the famous battle of ten kings, certainly were not part of the Sudasa’s tribe. We find, in this battle, Purus too had fought against Sudasa. There can be listed many instances like this, those only makes it clear that the Rig Vedic compositions were multi-centered and among, sometimes, rival tribes and simultaneous. It seems that in later course, the extant corpus of the Rig Veda was gathered and rearranged and this is why we can find even compositions of the rival seer families belonging to different clans too are incorporated in the Rig Veda. What I want to suggest here the work of the Rig Veda is not the product of single homogeneous society and culture. It shows that in instance of Kanvas, ethnicities too differed. In all, Rig Veda is not at all propriety of a single tribe, but product of several tribes and of different times. The Danastuti hymns too are important indicator of this fact. Traditionally attributing the works of Rig Veda to hypothetical Bharata or Puru clan or their hypothetical offshoots may not be correct. Hence, from “Vedic tribe/s” we are not indicating a single society, which was responsible for this monumental work, but the tribe/s those kept on patronising from time to time the Rig Vedic compositions and religion. The story that Vayupurana narrates, makes it clear that the Shiva was not part of Vedic sacrificial rituals ever. The dialogue between Shiva and his consort Uma in Vayupurana goes like this. Uma asks, “Why have you not gone to attend sacrifice being conducted by Daksha?” Shiva replies, “Devas have pre-arranged this that I shall not get share of the offerings in sacrifices.” (Vayupurana: Chapter 30.111-13) As Shiva felt Uma getting upset over this, He emitted fire from his mouth, created Veerbhadra out of it and commanded him to destroy the sacrifice of Daksha. The narrative clearly explains through this myth a fact that the Shiva was not part of the Vedic faith and hence there was no question of making any offerings to him during sacrifices. Michael Witzel opines on ‘The Anukramanis’, while criticizing Talageri’s book, ‘The Rigveda. A historical analysis’, (Aditya Prakashan 2000), “As suggested earlier, in his ‘analysis’ of the RV, Talageri depends heavily on the Anukramanis -- late- and post-Vedic lists of RV poets (many of them clearly fictional), deities, and meters. These lists are closely related to other later and traditional sources, including the Puranas…… Talageri not only seems oblivious of these facts, but is unaware as well that competing versions of

the AnukramaÍÄ«s exist. Indeed, he makes the startling claim at the beginning of his book (p. 7) that “the Anukramanis were part and parcel of the Rigvedic text from the most ancient times" -- claiming further that these lists must lie at the grounds of any serious analysis of the text. Amateurish errors like this are compounded by the fact that the version of these lists that Talageri (unknowingly) depends on -- an early medieval redaction of lateVedic Katyayana's Sarvånukramani.” (‘The Incredible Wanderlust of the Rgvedic Tribes Exposed by S.Talageri”, p. 2. Available online at http://www.ejvs.laurasianacademy.com/ejvs0702/ejvs0702article.pdf)

6. How Vedic religion spread in India? “Something of this fear of the horse and of the thundering chariot, the ‘tank’ of the 2nd millennium BC is transparent in the famous horse 'Dadhikra' of the Puru king Trasadasya ("Tremble enemy" in RV 4.38.8) ........The first appearance of thundering chariots must have stricken the local population with terror similar to that experienced by the Aztecs and the Incas upon the arrival of the iron-clad, horse riding Spaniards.” 1 Thus wrote Witzel to support the Aryan invasion. Now, we have seen that there were no such happenings at all! There were no waves of migrating Indo-Aryans to overpopulate the already populated North India to enforce their culture and dialects on the already far advanced natives, who had their own dialects to communicate, own religion to follow, own script to communicate and had established a vast trade network covering half of the known world! There was no Aryanisation of north India and displacement of Dravidians to south. Neither were there outgoing waves of indigenous Vedics to spread out their dialect and culture to the west, as Vedicist scholars like to believe. We have discussed how both these theories are outcome of supremacist notions, which some scholars still like to nourish though they have no proof to substantiate them. There is no evidence that can remotely indicate Aryan or PIE invasion/migration in India. There is also not even the slightest proof to indicate indigenous Aryans migrating to the west. However, the fact remains that the Vedic religion found some space in North Indian regions, to begin with, to establish and prosper. No mass migration of Vedic Aryan tribes was required to cause such effect. Rather, from mythologies, it clearly emerges that the Vedic religion came to India very peacefully, causing no nuisance, carried

by handful of faithful disciples or descendants of the extant seer families. Having discussed this, let us turn to the present issue under discussion, how, in absence of migrations from either direction, Rig Vedic religion entered and spread in India?

The process We have seen that mass migrations are not necessary for the spread of the religion. Moreover, there are many instances of religions becoming extinct in the region of their origin but prospering elsewhere. We are not sure whether the Vedic religion was existent in the Helmand Valley or nearby regions when the Vedic religion was introduced to India. Nonetheless, we know from Rig Veda, the volatile and constant war-like situations erupting all the time in those regions. The possibility that some or other faith had overpowered the Vedic society of those times cannot be ruled out. Or else, the people might have shifted faith from Vedic to other on their own accord. After Sudasa’s victory over other 10 powerful tribes, the vanquished tribes could have regained power and avenged the Vedic society. Any situation could have prevailed. However, the fact remains that the religion lost ground in the area of its origin. As we have discussed in the earlier chapter that after the death of Kavi Vishtaspa, Zoroastrians, too, had great difficulty in finding new patrons. So much, that they started using abusive phrases for Kavis (Royal heads) of those times. They, too, had to find patrons out of the Bactria. After the great victory in the battle of 10 kings, though not recorded, we can safely guess that his fame must have spread along with his religion, thus becoming a prominent sect in those regions. We find from the religious history that the ambitious rival sect of those times was Avesatn (Mazdayasni). The decline of the Vedic religion, thus, can be connected with the rapid and aggressive spread of Avestan faith in later times. We see how the contemporary tribes like Parthians, Persians, Balochis, Turanians etc., those find mention in Rig Veda, had embraced to the Zoroastrian faith in later times.The myths of vicious Asuras could have been emerged in such time when the Vedics faced drastic opposition or even persecution. Such circumstances only could have forced the extant faithful disciples to move away to find refuge. However, before the Avestan faith gradually become prominent, we find Vedic people too were trying to spread their religion in those regions. We have discussed that the works of Brahmanas must have

been composed, though in rudimentary form, to customise the process of early fire sacrifices while Rig Veda was still being composed. No religion is formed to limit it to own tribe. They, too, were trying to convert others to their fold. A verse of Rig Veda clearly states “Oh Vajri, though hast made Aryas of Dasas” (RV10.49.3). Though they were hateful of the Dasas, the Vedic people did not seem to reject those who wanted to become members of their religion. We have seen the many seer families, which participated in Rig Vedic compositions, belonged to different tribes. They certainly did not belong to the Vedic faith before they embraced it. We have also seen the other tribal kings and people, such as Persians, Parthians and Panis like Bubu giving donations to the Vedic seers. Records of these donations we find in Danastutis. For example, from a King Rnancaya of the Rusama tribe, Seer Babhru Atri receives 4,000 cattle as a gift at the end of, probably, a grand Pravargya yagna. (RV 5.30.12-15) Similarly, Samvarana Prajapatya recounts receiving gifts from several kings, including the renowned Trasadasyu. (RV 5.033.08-10) Prabhuvasu Angiras seems to have received two dark red horses together with 300 cattle from a young person named Srutaratha. (RV 5.036.06) It is not clear whether Srutaratha was a king, prince or merely a rich person. Although, Trasadasyu, has been mentioned in Rig Veda several times, his tribal identity, whether he was Iksvaku, Bharata or Puru, is not clear. Similarly, the Rusama tribe remains unidentified. However, what these verses clearly show is that the Rig Vedic seers were receiving donations from other tribal kings and magnates either for spreading the religion after getting converted them to the Vedicism or in the form of the fees in return of the sacrifices performed for them if these donors were already members of the Vedic religion. This also means that the rise of Vedic religion and its subsequent spread or survival in the lands of the origin of the Vedics was not because of single royal patronages. Rather, there had been many patrons from the surrounding regions. This would also mean that crediting hypothetical Puru or Bharata tribe as only patron of the

Vedic religion is not correct. King Sudasa belonged to Tritsu tribe, not hypothetical Bharatas or Purus, as we have seen in earlier chapters. Looking at the vast span of time, i.e. 300 to 500 years, taken to accomplish the composition of Rig Veda, we cannot expect any dynasty to continue its reign unobtrusively for such a long period looking at the volatile political circumstances. Some such circumstances reflect in the Rig Veda itself. Hence, most possibly, during some time after decline of Sudasa’s Tritsu clan, Vedic tradition, too, would have suffered from the loss of patrons, rapid rise of Avestan religion being a main reason for such loss. The religious conflicts to establish supremacy over each other could also have resulted in extinction of some independent, but small cults, cherished by different tribes of that region. Vedics were most probably one of such faiths, as we do not find trace of its continuity in the lands of its origin. Rather, we have indicative proof to show that how faithful disciples marched to India to keep their religion alive.

Who were they? We can trace from the Vedic mythology that the bitterness between Devas and Asuras (i.e. Deva followers and Asura followers after the shift of Vedic priority from Asura to Deva) had reached to the extreme. Asuras had become invincible enemies of Devas. How Devas (Vedics) despised Asuras is evident from a myth from Satapatha Brahmana. It states, ‘Asuras were created from Prajapati’s digestive breath.’ Anyway, the enmity between Vedics and Asura followers must have been continued for a longer time and must have fought many battles apart from those mentioned in the Rig Veda. Aitareya Brahmana mentions many defeats of Devas at the hands of Asuras and how Devas finally found their way to the victory. (AB 1.14) As mythologies go in every religion, the final victory is always depicted of those to whom the particular societies revere. It does not necessarily describe the reality. We have seen that the Asuras, Daityas and Danavas, who are depicted in demonic forms, were, in reality, rival tribes of real people with whom the Vedic fought constantly. The fact must be that the Devas, i.e. Vedics were defeated finally in the land of their origin. Otherwise, there would not be any need for them to move the religious seat from one land to other. In the first chapter of Satapatha Brahmana, which is oldest of all, a proof is faithfully preserved that indicates how the Vedics found their first camp in North India. The myth goes: Videgh Mathava, residing on the banks of the Saraswati river, accompanied by his family priest Goutama Rahugana and Agni, symbol of Vedic culture, marched onwards. Through crossing the northern mountains (Uttaragiri), drying the rivers and burning the forests, he reached the Sadanira river. The legend tells that when Videgh Mathava asked Agni, where he should make his abode, the Agni told him to reside to the east of the river. (SB 1.4.1, 14-17) The myth, preserved by Brahmana, clearly indicates that from the banks of Saraswati, a group of the Vedic people had marched

towards a river to find refuge. The group marched through the northern mountains, those could only be Hindukush and rivers flowing through that region, to reach the uninhibited place to settle. A Modern scholars normally try to equate this river with Gandaki that flows from Nepal through India, finally feeding Ganga. However, from the Mahabharata’s accounts on this river, it could not be Gandaki but some other river flowing through Gandaki and Sarayu. Amarasinha of Amara Kosha asserts Sadanira to be synonym of Karatoya River, flowing through north of Bengal. Anyway, Sadanira means ‘abounding in water’, which can be applied to any river that is full of abundant water. The myth also indicates that the area across the river was swampy and inhabitable. 2 Thus, the invasionist scholars of those times from this myth had considered Aryan expansion from west to the east, occupying the lands and regions towards Gandaki River of Bihar (or Bengal), is not tenable. Here, we cannot overlook the archaeological evidence, which indicates that no new agricultural civilisation had arrived after 7,000 BC in the Gangetic plains. Jhusi site, at the confluence of Ganga-Yamuna, based on the radio-carbon dates, helps estimate existence of the Neolithic culture in 6th-7th millienim BC.3 Fuller suspects that the broad patterns of linguistic diversity and distribution were established in the Neolithic/Chalcolithic with the diffusion of agriculture and some dispersals of population.4 Also, there are established links between Harappa and Gangetic culture, in form of the similarities in making of the beads and pottery.5 In short, the region of Gangetic plains was quite populated from ancient times. The entry period of Vedic religion in India does not go back beyond 1,000 BC. Hence, attempting to identify Gandaki with Sadanira is incorrect, since by this time the political systems were already established in these regions, as evidenced by Brahmanas themselves! The fact remains that Videgha Mathava, from the Saraswati river, along with Vedic followers had come to India along with ‘Agni’ (sacred fire practices and Vedas) to find a place to permanently

settle. Since Ghaggar is not Saraswati as some scholars like to believe, he must have travelled from Helmand to Sadanira, which might have been a generic name temporarily given to some unknown river. Had it been a travel from Hemand to Gandaki, the distance would have been too far to traverse through the populated and advanced settlements. This also makes it impossible to identify the Sadanira River as Gandaki. Sadanira could be either the tributaries to Indus or some independent river in north-west India of those times. The myth does not suggest that the travel of Vedic people till Sadanira was a product of their military conquests. Indeed, it suggests peaceful migration of the Vedic folks. The burning of forests and drying up of rivers only suggests allegorically that they crossed many forests and rivers, avoiding populated areas, to find a place for settlement. They found it across Sadanira, unpopulated because it was marshy and swampy, cleared the dense forests about it to make the place habitable without inviting trouble or opposition from the already settled population in fertile lands. Thus, we can see that the entry of the Vedic adherents to India was not a celebration of any kind. Satapatha Brahmana mentions the regions and people of Gandhara, Sal, Kekay, Kuru, Panchala, Kosala, Videha and Srinjaya, those, except Gandhara, never appear in the bulk of Rig Veda.6 This indicates that the Vedic people had come to know the interior and political regions of North India during the post-Vedic era only. Absence of these regions in Rig Veda does not suggest otherwise. While enumeration different political regions of north India, Satapatha Brahmana is explicit enough to tell us that the regions were already populated and already had their political systems in place. This also clearly suggests us that the earlier geography of the Rig Veda had completely changed! These kingdoms were not established by the Vedic people. They already existed from prehistoric times. What we can derive is some local kings patronised Vedic followers in later times.

The myth indicates the travel of Vedic tradition to India by handful of people. It also tells us how they found an uninhibited, uncultivated marshy region on the bank of a river where they finally settled. We can surmise from the faithfully preserved myth that this could have been the first seat of Vedic religion somewhere in north India from where the later compositions and compilations of Vedic literature began. Most of the scholars have taken this myth as basis for suggestion of eastward migration of the Aryans from Saraswati river. What they tend to suggest that the after settling in Punjab, banks of the Saraswati (Ghaggar), they ventured the​ir advance towards Gandaki, which was led by Videgh Mathava. However, we have seen in the second chapter that Saraswati of Rig Veda was not at all situated in India. Hence, we have no alternative but to consider Vedic peoples entry in India from Helmand of southern Afghanistan. They found unpopulated, uncultivated marshy lands to settle temporarily and from there onwards, they rejuvenated their religion in the foreign lands! After settling down here, to promote the religion, it required to be institutionalised and such attempts were made.

Veda Vyasa The Vedic tradition attributes the credit of collecting and dividing the extant Vedas in four books to Veda Vyasa, alternatively called as Krishna Dvaipayana Vyasa. According to Vishnu Purana, (chapter 4) the Veda, which was first revealed by God to the seers, consisted of 100, 000 verses and had four divisions. The Vedas fell in obscurity later in course of the time and not only that these divisions were mixed up, but many portions of the Vedas were also lost. Hence, in the beginning of the Dvapara age, Krishna Dvaipayana initiated the Vedic study and classified the extant work accordingly to the four divisions. From his selected four principal disciples, he gave Rig Veda to Paila, Yajur Veda to Vaisampayana, Sama to Jaimini and Atharva Veda to Sumanta. The alternative myth is preserved by Brihadaranyakopanisada, which states Rig Veda originally consisted 12,000 verses, Yajur Veda 8000 verses and Sama Veda 4000 and this collection was made by Prajapati.7 Going by even this myth, we do not find these much verses in all the three Vedas. What we can deduce is whatever number of verses the original Vedas consisted of, most part of it was lost. Some people collected the extant texts from many sources, compiled and rearranged them subject wise. Indian tradition and even Indian religious scholars believe the above myths for there is no other explanation as to how the present redactions/schools of Vedas came into the existence. However, it is clear from the above myth of Vyasa that it has been interpolated in the later times with inclusion of the Atharva Veda in the list of the Vedas, which Purusha Sukta does not! Indeed, the above myth agrees that the original Veda was quite large, as large as consisting of 100,000 (or 24000) verses. We can see, if mythical elements and exaggerations are removed from the legend, it is telling a fact that Vedas had become obscure, losing its eminence in society in which it prevailed, which forced Veda Vyasa (or Prajapati) to collect whatever was available of it from different

sources to rearrange and classify in the four books. Hence, Talageri’s and other scholars’ classification of the Mandalas as oldest, older, middle and younger, and outlining the Vedic history accordingly may not be exactly correct. The myth, if believed, suggests that the collection and division of Vedas by Veda Vyasa must have been done before the final version of the Satapatha Brahmana. Satapatha Brahmana, which is said to be the oldest Brahmana, is traditionally affiliated with Shukla Yajurveda and if Yajurveda was already classified by Vyasa, the much part of the Satapatha Brahmana could be younger to the date of such classification. The scholars agree that the credit of compiling Atharva Veda cannot be given to Vyasa because there were only three Vedas.8 Purushasukta, too, does not mention Atharva Veda. We can safely say that the addition of the Atharva Veda in the myth is an interpolation of the later times. The division of the three Vedas is also peculiar. Samaveda is nothing but a reduced version of Rig Veda, having no distinctive lessons of its own. That way, it cannot be called as independent composition, but a careful selection of the Rig Vedic verses to sing during rituals. Yajurveda also is a compilation of certain Rig Vedic verses coupled with ritualistic formulas. Atharva Veda is book of the spells which clearly stands apart from the Vedic liturgical tradition, though, it contains 1/7 portion of Rig Veda. Atharva Veda could have been exalted to the position when a need arose to provide all-inclusive but distinct ritualistic and philosophical character to the Vedic religion. Vyasa is also credited to be the writer of Mahabharata and Puranas. However, this cannot be the case. If Vyasa is associated with Mahabharata at all, he was the author of 8,800 stanzas that used to be called as ‘Jaya’, not the 100, 000 stanzas epic ‘Mahabharata’. The later interpolations, additions by Sauti and Janamejaya have made present Mahabharata consisting of almost about 100,000

stanzas. The credit of all Puranas, too, is traditionally attributed to Vyasa, which cannot be the case in the reality. To provide sanctity to the works of the known or unknown authors of the past, Indian tradition has been applying such tactics long since. This would even apply to the few of seers of Rig Veda. This would also mean that the original task of the division of the Vedas was accomplished by some ancient person/s to whom later tradition had forgotten thus gave credit to mythical Vyasa. In Vishnu Purana, the phrase applied is ‘former Vyasas’, which may actually mean that the Vyasa was an institution rather than a person. Griffith, too, suggests that some institution to preserve and spread out Vedas must have been established under Kuru patronage. Whether Kurus or not, the early institution to collect, rearrange and classify must have been formed under some patronage. The necessity must have arisen only because in the lands of its origin, various seer families must have been scattered or went in hiding, because of the onslaught of enemy. Though Videgh Mathava could find passage to India, the need to collect extant parts must have arisen, because, we have seen that Videgh Mathava could not possibly carry entire Veda with him. After settling in northern part of the sub-continent, some immigrant disciples must have ventured back to find the family compositions and safely brought them back. In all possibility, they could not have gathered the entire compositions. Whatever they could source was compiled, edited and classified according to the subject. In later course, the task seems to have attributed to Veda Vyasa, a mythical personality. The present Vedas are an incomplete version for most of the part, it clearly seems, was lost because of the volatile circumstances and could not be retrieved. We are aware that Avesta, too, met with similar fate as three quarters of the corpus have been lost following Alexander’s conquest. Later, Parsi refugees, in mid-seventh to early 10th century, who had to abandon their land to escape from fanatical Muslim invaders in order to preserve their ancient faith, too, had hardly any

recollection of their original entry in India. “Quesse-Ye-Sanjan”, though oldest extant account of the event, written by priest Bahman Sanjana in 1599 CE, the story contains no date or reliable account of the migration. Still, there is debate whether the early Parsi migrants came to India by land or sea rout. The case with the religious scripts, always has been, they have not been careful in recording the historical accounts. We need to search the history from the mythological legends composed in typical forms!9 If we go back in the history, the evidences become obscure. However, Videgh Mathava’s legend clearly indicates the escape of Vedic people to India under some tragic circumstances. Apart from the myths associated with Vyasa and his being credited with phenomenal works, the myth of Videgh Mathava and division of the Vedas suggest us the following: 1. Videgh Mathava, in all probability, could not have brought the whole bulk of the Vedas those were composed by several seer families through the period of several centuries, along with him. He could bring with him only what his family had preserved. Later some disciples would have travelled back to locate existing heirs of the seer families to gather whatever was left with them. They needed to be rearranged and classified accordingly, bridging few anomalies or missing links by interpolations. The painstaking task must have been carried out by some institution to which tradition identifies with Veda Vyasa. 2. Who were the first patrons of the Vedic religion in India is uncertain, though Ghriffith suggests the Kuru’s could be the first. Let us not forget here that the Kurus or Purus of Kuru dynasty have no relation whatsoever with the Vedic Purus, as we have seen in the earlier chapters. 3. The Brahmanas give account of various north Indian political divisions. Except Gandhara, all others are completely absent in Rig Veda. This clearly indicates the shift in geography.

4. The myth of Videgh Mathava does not indicate movement of entire Vedic population from Helmad region to India. The fact must be noted that all tribes living in the adjoining regions of the Helmand and north-western India did not ever vacate their homelands despite many political and religious turmoils. Rather, their continuity with their ethnic/tribal/linguistic identities of the Rig Vedic time still can be easily observed, such of the Pakhtuns, Balochies, Parthians, Persians, Turanians etc. Similarly, the people belonging to the Vedic tribes, after decline of their traditional religion, must have clung to some other politically powerful faith and continued to live in the same region where they dwelt from ancient times. Since there is no evidence of mass exodus of any tribe to India, this clearly underlines the fact that the Vedic tradition had travelled to India with the faithful people like mythical Videgh Mathava and his associates/priests. This incident must have taken place not only for survival, but also to preserve the Vedic tradition. They found their first abode besides the banks of the Sadanira river from where it later branched out in form of the various schools.

Schools of Rig Veda We have seen above that the Veda Vyasa (or some institution under Kuru patronage as suggested by Griffith, rearranged the bulk of the available Vedas in four parts and taught each part to his four disciples. After accomplishing such phenomenal task, to propagate the religion, a system was required. To achieve this, early Vedics formed the different schools. The myths inform us as following: Paila was taught Rig Veda who again created two branches of it, teaching one to Bashkala and other to Indrapramati. From Indrapramati, it was serially received by Satyashrava, Satyahita and Satyashrava. (Bhagvat and Brahmand Purana) Further, Rig Veda branched out to 21 schools, as Patanjali in Mahabhashya notes. However, actually there were 27 schools of Rig Veda. Today, an edition of only Sakala branch is extant in its original pure form.10 Michael Witzel says, “The RV has been transmitted in one recension (the Sakha of Sakalya) while others (such as the BAskala text) have been lost or are only rumored about so far.” 11 However, Shaunaka is credited for uniting Shakala and Bashkala schools together, but the fact is Shakala and Bashkala recensions are still extant independently and are preserved with BORI, Pune. Difference between both is Bashkala recension contains Khilani Suktas, which Shakala does not have. Considering the present legend, which clearly suggests, the first preachers of the Vedic religion were carefully selected from the available pupils and were asked to establish different Vedic schools. Had Vedic tradition not originated at this point and had already been established, there was no necessity to create different schools to propagate Vedicism! Rather, this process shows how carefully, after compiling, editing and dividing the extant Vedic texts, efforts were made to select missioneries to propagate the religion. However, the task could not have been that easy to establish Vedic tradition in foreign lands with break up with the original linguistic

tradition, thus also necessitating need of the people to interpret the Vedas as well. Ram Gopal states, “It shows that, as no uninterrupted reliable tradition of Vedic interpretation was handed down along with the Vedic verses, the inheritors of these texts began to advance their own conjectures with regard to the scene of Vedas. Therefore, in absence of an authentic tradition of Vedic interpretation the tendency to surmises and read pre-conceived notions into the Veda led to the emergence of different schools of Vedic Interpretation.”12 We can surmise from opinions of scholars and myths that there were about 27 schools, which could have been spread in North India at different centres and in different times to propagate the Vedas and its religion. While doing so, the linguistic problems, too, were being faced to interpret Vedic texts for the break up with original linguistic tradition! This, again shows, the change in linguistic geography of the Vedic religion as well.

Schools of Atharva Veda Atharvan tradition clearly seems to be late entrant in India, as Purushasukta of Rig Veda doesn’t mention this Veda at all! Interestingly, we find many kings of later times to have preferred Atharvan priests over Rig Vedic priests. Atharva Veda came to be known as ‘Veda of the Purohitas’ (Royal Priests’ book). This Veda traditionally also was known as ‘Kshatra Veda’, Veda of the warriors. Atharvan priests also were warriors, actively participated in the wars and thus were called as warrior priests, Kshatra Brahmanas.13 The Bhrigu branch seems to have propagated this Veda independently establishing several branches in the north. The title of this Veda, although, they may not have composed it, could have been after them because descendents of this branch propagated it and popularised it. Bhrigukachchha (modern Bharoch) may have been their earliest seat in India. Patanjali of Mahabhashya and Shaunaka in Charanvyuha enumerate the nine early branches of these Vedas. They are, Paippal, Dant, Pradant, Snat, Sautra, Brahmadavan, Shaunaka, Devdarshani and Charanavidya. However, only two branches, namely Shaunaka and Paippalada, are extant. Shaunaka is said to be descendent of Bhrigu clan.14 This clearly shows that the three Vedas were being propagated independently by the Rig Vedic tradition through various schools and Atharva Veda was being propagated independently by Atharvan schools until both the traditions were amalgamated.

Shaunaka There are many Shaunakas in Vedic and non-Vedic history. It is said to be the family name, because the composer of second book of the Rig Veda Gritsamada, too, is Shaunaka. In the clan of the Bhrigus, a seer is also named as Shaunaka. The texts like RigvedaAnukramanika, Rig-Pratishakhya, Brihaddevata, Charanavyuha etc. are traditionally credited to him. The myth is that one Shaunaka united the Shakala and Bashkala recensions. In Mahabharata, Shaunaka is acclaimed for his expertise in Samkhya philosophy and Yoga. The still extant school of Atharvaveda is also credited to him. There also are another texts credited to him such as 5th Aranyaka of Aitareya Brahmina.15 In all, it only means that there were many Shaunakas belonging to the different traditions and at time, those were mingled together. Or, it was a fictitious person created out of Vedic myths to provide credibility to various texts composed/compiled by some minor groups of opposite faiths. We can see from above that there is one Shaunaka who promoted Atharva Veda along with others and another Shaunaka who was involved in the compilation/collection/writing of Rig Veda-related works. Atharvan Shaunaka, who could be descendent of Bhrigu clan or he got associated with it by virtue of accepting Bhrigu Gotra, promoted Atharva Veda. We have nothing much to say on the Shaunaka of Rig Vedic tradition except that he contributed heavily to it. However, Shaunaka of Mahabharata to whom Ugrashrava recites Mahabharata story, most possibly belonged to Bhrigu clan as his queries that Ugrashrava answers in the Adiparva are mostly related to the history of Bhrigus.

Agastya All scholars agree that the spread of Vedic religion in the south took place in far later times. The myth of the Vindhya Mountain bowing to Agastya is normally associated with the Vedic expansion towards South India. In South India, Agatsya is most revered seer to whom many Tamil texts including Tamil grammar are attributed. If mythological elements are removed from the stories related with Agastya, it is clear from the mythologies that he was the first person who introduced Vedic religion to South India. It does not seem that he was quite successful in those endeavors as Tamil mythologies rather associate him (and his wife Lopamudra) with Shiva, Sri-Vidya tantrik tradition and also as member of Tamil Sangam literary council.16 Agastya of Rig Veda, as we have seen in the previous chapters, was a family name and that the Agastyas originally did not belong to the Vedic tradition. His name, too, does not find any etymology in the Vedic language. Besides, there is no Rig Vedic or Atharvan school attributed to him. Another reference we get from Mahabharata that Lopamudra was the Princess of Vidarbha’s (Maharashtra) King to whom Agastya married. There are various hermitages of Agastya recorded in different texts, such as one being in Vidarbha (Bhandardara), another being near Nashik, at Panchavati and other in Malaya Mountain in South India. What we can deduce from this is that the Agastya who became missionary in South India could not possibly had been the composer of Rig Vedic hymns. In later course of the time, some Agastya, either descendent of the Rig Vedic Agastya or a namesake, along with his family took the task of spreading the Vedic message in South India. All his hermitages recorded belong to the southern part of the Vindhya Mountain and none in the north. Agastya is not enumerated in the list of famous Saptarshis (seven sages) but the bright southern star Canopus is named after him, indicating Agastya’s southern connection. Needless to mention here

that the Agastya could not have been a lonely traveller to South, but must have been accompanied by his family and disciples. South Indian Vedic tradition always has been composite of Vedic and Shaivaite tradition, which means though the Vedic religion was accepted and practiced by some, southern Vedic converts did not abandon old traditions. It seems a similar tradition emerged in North India as well to practice pre-Vedic tradition along with the Vedic faith, however maintaining Vedic glory over it. However, it seems that the spread of the Vedic religion was not easy in its early and middle times. Though some centres flourished under the royal patronage, some did not for the rejections. Satapatha Brahmana preserves the fact by informing us that the Asura race of the eastern regions (Prachyas), those spoke Mlechchha language, had their own priests and did not entertain Vedic rituals. Until Mahabharata time, this situation prevailed as eastern kingdoms those were called as Baleya Kshetra where five sons of King Bali ruled. Most of the Asura kings of India, though occasionally patronised the Vedic sacrifices, did not abandon their faith nor worshiped Vedic deities.17 It is clear from the mythological accounts that such opposition from central and southern Indian monarches as well too had to be faced by Vedic preachers. Aitareya Brahmina preserves a myth, which calls all the dynasties of south as ‘Shudras’, non adherents of vedic religion. We can surmise that the spread of th​e Vedic religion and thought was not that easy in the country. We have seen that the religious tradition of Indus-Ghaggar civilisation continued to be powerful in India till date. The reason as to why Vedic religion could not have become prominent and practiced by all seems to be hidden in the fact that the performing Vedic rituals were complicated, time consuming and costly affair. Though the Vedic rituals could create veneration and awe in the minds of the masses, they stuck to the traditional ways of idol worship, for its simplicity and ancient reverence towards it!

Vedic language scenario Though we are not aware exactly when so called Vyasa ventured to gather extant texts and divide Vedas to introduce the Vedic religion through his pupils to the foreign masses, it appears that the dialect of Rig Veda had become unintelligible. Brahmana texts tried to explain some verses in its way during Brahmana period. Of Sutra period, Yaska’s ‘Nirukta’ is an ancient book that attempts to explain meaning of Rig Vedic vocabulary. Yaska had before him, ‘Nighantu’, a small version explaining the meanings of the Rig Vedic words. It is said that there were about 17 commentators explaining meaning of Rig Vedic texts in Yaska’s time. Among which was scholar Kautsa who blatantly had declared that the Rig Veda is meaningless! Kautsa claimed that the science of etymology as a tool for comprehending the meaning of the scriptural texts was worthless because the Vedas had no meaning at all! Thus, in the opinion of Kautsa, the scriptural texts have been reduced to non-linguistic magical sounds.18 This does only mean that during Yaska’s era, Vedas had become unintelligible to its adherents and attempts to understand its meaning, rules of that language and pronunciation patterns had begun.19 Later, in the medieval period as well, the number of other commentaries were written on Rig Veda, including the commentaries by Skandasvamin (pre-Sayana, roughly of the Gupta period), Udgitha (preSayana), Venkata-Madhava (pre-Sayana, c. 10th to 12th centuries). Later, in 14th century Sayana, a brother of the minister Madhava of Vijayanagar Empire wrote an extensive commentary on Rig Veda, ‘Vedartha Prakasha’. However, when Western scholars began to understand Rig Veda based on his works, they found it quite unsatisfactory. Later, with comparative studies with the language of Avesta, many words came to be understood and helped them to understand the most of the meaning of Rig Vedic verses.20

The attempts to make phonetic, some grammatical changes with replacement of some local words while transliterating or contemporising it from time to time, to make it somewhat intelligible to local disciples seems to have utterly failed. It became impossible, it seems, because to replace much of original vocabulary it was necessary to have knowledge of their exact meaning, there couldn’t have been any option but to leave them unaltered, but with phonological modifications! The words, meaning of which they could understand, were translated. For example, Bhayamana, which is clear translation of the Avestan personal name Vandaremaini, both mean the same. Similarly, the personal name Ambarisha, too, is clear translation of the Avestan name Vidasafshnic. The change in Rig Vedic language is obvious from the fact that, Oldenberg informs us, “…after seeing that the older Brahmanas, they still contain pre-normalised Rig Vedic citations, the text in the following centuries underwent pronunciation revisions and standardisation.”21 Scholars also do agree that there are certain interpolations and corruptions in Rig Veda. This only will mean that while final codification, divisions and rearrangements of the hymns and verses of the Rig Veda, some portion was freshly inserted while some was removed. We start finding tropical Seasons, animal, plant, agricultural instrument references along with flora-fauna appearing in Rig Veda only because of this. Of interpolation purushasukta is a fine example, which, beyond doubt, has been proved to be the interpolation of far later times. Max Muller states “There can be little doubt, for instance, that the 90th hymn of the 10th book (Purusha Sukta) is modern both in its character and in its diction. (...) It mentions the three seasons in the order of the Vasanta, spring; Grishma, summer; and Sarad, autumn; it contains the only passage in the Rigveda where the four castes are enumerated. The evidence of language for the modern date of this composition is equally strong. Grishma, for instance, the name for the hot season, does not occur in any other hymn of the Rigveda;

and Vasanta also does not belong to the earliest vocabulary of the Vedic poets.”22 Colebrooke states, “That remarkable hymn (the Purusha Sukta) is in language, metre, and style, very different from the rest of the prayers with which it is associated. It has a decidedly more modern tone, and must have been composed after the Sanskrit language had been refined, and its grammar and rhythm perfected.” 23 We can understand why this hymn was necessary to incorporate in the Rig Veda at later times because the composers of this hymn were getting accommodated in Indian tropical weather and social system; they needed to redefine a couple of things to​ suite the local environment. However, except for such stray interpolations and additions, we can state safely that the original composition of the Rig Veda that had completed in the regions of the Helmand basin and had different linguistic pattern. The change in their original language by replacing vocabulary and phonological modification must have been required to adjust with the local linguistic environment. Colebrooke describes the process of the development as, “The internal evidence which it furnishes, serves to demonstrate the important fact, that the compilation of Vedas, in their present arrangement, took place after the Sanskrit tongue had advanced.” 24 Tarkateertha Laxman Shastri Joshi states that certain syllables, such as ‘Ta, Tha, Da, Dha, Na, La’, found in Vedas are completely absent from Iranian and Western languages. He further states that the composition of Rig Veda is of the era when Vedic language was further polished because of the interactions with Indian dialects. 25 Although, Tarkateertha has assumed Aryan invasion, he has no doubt that the language of Rig Veda was further improvised with the help of local dialects and is not original. I have shown that the composition of the Rig Veda was almost completed while Vedic people were settled in the Helmand Valley. The Rig Veda was not composed when Vedic language was improvised, as Tarkateertha

suggests, but rather, as it shows, original texts of Rig Veda were transliterated to meet with the linguistic need of the time! Shendge informs that, a myth that tells the language of Asuras was purified by Agni that Devas accepted as their own and brought in their use.26 It also suggests that a language purification process was undertaken by the Vedic people. Pramod Pathak in his thesis opines after examining hymns 10.71, 8.51.5 and 8.95.5 (RV) that the Vedic language was newly formulated language from the extant colloquial languages.27 Witzel clearly states that the language of old Avesta is more archaic than the language of Rig Veda because old Avesta simply lacks the many innovations that characterise Rig Veda’s innovations that are not found in the other IE languages. Defending his case that had Iranians, too, resided side by side with Vedic people in Punjab, as indigenous Aryan theory claims, such archaism ought to have been preserved in Punjab, but this is not the case.28 Leaving aside the debate over migration theories, what Witzel finds about the languages is more important. He clearly opines that the language of Avesta is more archaic than of Rig Veda. It is simply because Old Avesta remained linguistically unaltered which was not case with the Rig Veda. We have seen in the previous chapters that the old Avesta certainly is contemporary to Rig Veda. We have seen from the various opinions of the scholars that the original language of Rig Veda has gone through substantial modifications to suit changed linguistic environment. The remarkable fact is Vedic language or Sanskrit never had any ethno-socio-linguistic name. From Persian to Indian Prakrit languages, too, bear some or other name, either of the region or of their ethnicity. To Vedic dialect, Panini just refers as Bhasha (language) or Chandas (poetic meter). The same case applies with the Sanskrit as well, which simply means 'refined one’. It is not any kind of ethno-socio-linguistic name! May be it is because the new formulated language was built on using various source dialects

retaining some of the original forms too! Witzel call Vedic dialect less archaic mostly because of this. Hence, it seems that the original language of the Rig Veda must have been quite similar to the language of the Avesta, i.e. Old Persian with regional variance. A fact to be noted here that in the regions of Helmand basin, most of the people still speak Dari, a dialect of Persian and is an official language of Afghanistan. It shows the continuity of the language of the people still living in those regions. Let us not forget here that the Gathas of Zarathustra were composed in the Archaic Persian language, the case with Rig Veda, too, would be obviously same. Vedics too would have used archaic regional dialect of Persian prevalent in Helmand region! B Also, it would be apparent from above that the north-western dialects of that time, too, would not have been far different than of those spoken in Afghanistan for the geographical closeness. This is evident from the fact that the language of Gandhar, Gandhari, was closely related with Prakrit dialects which between the third century BCE and third century CE served as the literary language and lingua franca of the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent. Still, the language is spoken by the people of Khyber-Pakhtunkhva, northwestern frontier region of Pakistan, showing their linguistic continuity. We are aware that the Pakhtuns (Pakhtas) find their mention in the Rig Veda, which clearly means that there is no change even in tribal and regional identities of the people since then, though they have undergone many socio-political upheavals. Prakrits of India, like Gandhari, too, must have their ancient pre-Vedic origin. The net of Prakrit and old-Persian languages, having own innovations, must have been flourished long before when even original Rig Veda and Avesta were composed. The Indian northern vernaculars to the Vedic disciples, when they sought abode in India, could have been little difficult to understand, but could not have been totally unintelligible. The faithful preservation of the Vedic texts by oral tradition from the date the verses were composed, in which Indian scholars love to

believe, cannot be the case looking at the above description. Thinking the language of the Rig Veda is archaic, language of the gods, is a myth that carefully nourished by the Vedicist scholars. When exactly the proces​s of transliteration/modification began and completed cannot be determined exactly. Though the date of final edition of the Vedas is not certain, scholars have tried to place it somewhere between seventh century BC to fourth century BC. Griffith suggests Sakalas final redaction of the text could have taken place in the middle of first millennium BCE.29

Indian scenario We must have a look what was Indian scenario when Rig Vedic disciples appeared in India and after to understand its significance on Indian traditional religious practices. We have seen in the earlier chapters that Indus civilisation had gradually disintegrated because of the climatic changes. There is some proof that the urban centres could have suffered from epidemics, such as malaria and cholera because of the climatic changes.30 Although, there was a decline of the urban centres because the people abandoned them, the shift of the culture was from urbanisation to towns and village-like small settlements. The standard of living, too, seems to have gone down substantially. Archaeologists suggest massive reduction in density of the settlements. During this post-Harappan period, 1900/1800 BCE to 1300 BCE, throughout the greater Indus region, the majority of settlements were villages and campsites with small towns. During this phase number of settlements increased dramatically in Gujrat and the east.31 The emergence of Painted Grey Ware Culture (1400 B.C) can be attributed to this socio-economic slow-down. Periods given by archaeologists for the decline of Harappan civilisation and rise in the urban centres to the east and south of Harappan civilisation, suggest no displacement of the people from the concerned regions, but change in the settlement patterns because of the changed economic scenario. In about 2,000 BC since Mesopotamia experienced political and economical upheavals, Harappan trade with them seems to have severely affected. However, the rest of India maintained their distinct regional cultures with periodic shifts because of the technological advances. For example, although there were signs of urban decay, the cultural vibrancy did not suffer to a great extent. The first evidence from South Asia of production of the glass beads and bangles are found in post-Harappan phase, suggesting considerable technological advance of the Indian people. 32

From Indus civilisation and the other archaeological sites of central and south India of different times, it clearly appears that the Phallic and mother goddess worship was widely spread. Besides, finds at Indus-Ghaggar civilisation, at Daimabad, Maharashtra, (Savalda phase, 2300 /2200 BCE) have yielded a phallus in agate. Noted archaeologist Dilip Chakrabarti concludes from the find that, “… although one would hesitate to characterise it as a specific, textually mentioned type of Shivalinga, it is identical with the modern phallic stone denoting Shiva…” 33 We also have figurines of female with sex marks or heavy breasts and bulls (1,400 BC) from Inamgaon indicating continuity of the ancient religious practices of bull and mother goddess worship. Similarly, terracotta representation of a phallus of Chalcolithic era has been reported from Mahishdal of West Bengal. Finds at Navdatoli (Madhya Pradesh) clearly shows the worship of mother goddess.34 Similar phallic and mother goddess objects have been reported from southern parts of India. The physical finds clearly indicate that the genital worship was largely practiced by the Indians from ancient times. Possibly, there were other contemporary totemic cults also, like river, tree, various animals, serpents, Yaksas and sun-moon worship which seem later on were amalgamated with Shaivait tradition. Local village or family deities, too, were mingled with Shiva or Uma as their real forms or their reincarnations in later course of the time. However, the basic fabric of the worship remained intact. Except of stray mentions of Indra worship in the form of a festival ‘Indramaha’ dedicated to him in olden times, this has been out of practice since long ago. We find no influence of Vedic deities on Indian religious tradition. Rather, there are hardly any temples dedicated to any of Vedic deities.C As far as conducting fire sacrifices, we find only two epigraphic proofs from Shrunga and Satavahana dynasties. But, the descriptions of the sacrifices they conducted are in Prakrit, not in Sanskrit or Vedic dialect. However, there are many sacrifices

mentioned in Puranas and epics which is not a substantial proof to suggest its widespread practices.D On the contrary, the numismatic and epigraphic proofs (from seventh B.C. and onwards) clearly show that the Shaivait, Buddhist and Pancharatra traditions were popular. Rather, even on the coins, we do not find any symbol or image associated with Vedic tradition. Dr RN Dandekar in this regard states ​that, “The religion of protoSiva, which had thus taken deep roots in various parts of India, seems to have been temporarily overshadowed during the interlude when the Vedic Aryan religion had been firmly and rapidly extending its influence. But that pre-Vedic non-Aryan religion could not be altogether smothered or even ignored. Actually, the Vedic religion adapted –or rather, was constrained to adapt – within itself some of the features of that religion, though with evident hesitancy and reluctance.” 35 This does mean that the pre-Vedic Shaivait religion fundamentally was drastically different than the fire-centric Vedic religion which has continuously flowed to us. Vedicism, as Dandekar interpretes, was an interlude in Hindu tradition, which could not leave any significant mark on it. They just came as religious preachers, had attracted minor populace to their fold those after conversion propagated further that religion. Mostly, those who claim Vedic inheritance in India, are none other than a majority of converts and indigenous. The original disciples who came to India must have lost their ethnicity in course of the time. We have proofs from the north; during Painted Grey Ware (PGW) culture era too (approx. 1400 B.C. till 600 B.C) female figurines are excavated. This indicates Mother Goddess worship. No remains of sacrificial fire altars have surfaced during various excavations, although archaeologists like B. B. Lal attributed the PGW culture to the second wave of the intruding Aryans.36 However, there was no discontinuity between decline of IGC and rise of PGW culture, rather, it overlaps indicating gradual replacement of

the technologies. It shows no foreign elements penetrating to have substantial change in the pottery making style. In some sites, PGW pottery and Late Harappan pottery are contemporaneous.37 From BB Lal, we understand about the general lifestyle of the PGW people. They mostly were, during this phase, dependent on the agriculture, cattle and fishing hunting as the source of livelihood, as was during the prosperous Harappan era. The people had achieved expertise in manufacturing iron objects, besides traditional use of copper. Glass bangles found at Hastinapura site have proved beyond doubt the technological advance of the people of these times. From finds of Jakhera, it has come to the light the knowledge of geometry of the people. Drawings on the flat-face terracotta pieces demonstrate some knowledge of the concept of the circle, quad-rant, rectangle, etc. That these people also used scientific instruments such as the divider is clearly indicated by the intersecting circles incised on a potsherd found at Jakhera. A typical dinner set in the PGW consisting of the thali (dish), katora (bowl) and lota (drinking vessel) has been found that highlights the tradition followed, even today, in an average Indian household.38 Excavated sites in the south indicate that their economy, too, was normally based on animal husbandry and agriculture. The pottery of regional variety, too, has been found in the regions other than IGC sites dating back to 2,500 BC. The pottery patterns of Andhra Pradesh show close similarities with the pre-Malva culture. Some pottery belonging to the Neolithic phase recalling those of preHarappan Amri and Kalibangan also have been reported from some sites.39 This only indicates that though different linguistic groups, there was exchange of cultural ideas between north and south from ancient times. Although, we do not know for sure, what kind of socio-political organisations did exist during this period, looking at the somewhat static nature of Indian society, the country must have been distributed in 16 or little less Maha-Janapadas, occupied by small monarchs and Republic states in those times when Vedic tradition

entered India. The symbols used by Maha Janpadas on their punch marked coins are diverse in nature, clearly indicating that the every Mahajanapada bore unique symbol to represent identity of their region and had been retained over the time, at least from the seventh century BC till first century AD. The symbolism does not seem changed over the period of almost 800 years despite political upheavals. Of the symbols on the punch-marked coins, they moreover represent Gnosticism prevailing in the civilisation of those times along with Shiva-Shakti (fertility) worship. Presence of trident and arrows, weapons of Shiva, suggests the dominance of Shaivait religious practices. On the dynastic coins of the Kushana King, Vima Kadphises (first century AD) Shiva starts appearing in the human image form which practice was continued by Kanishka. (AD 127 to 150) Also, Buddha images and Buddhist symbolism, too, appears on the coins issued by various Indian and foreign kings and trading guilds. The languages used on the coins and all inscriptions of this period, too, are Prakrit dialects in Brahmi/Kharoshti scripts indicating no presence or dominance of Vedic dialect or Sanskrit. All the coins of this era, from seventh Century BC onwards, lack in any kind of Vedic symbolism indicating its insignificant dominance. We always have seen that the language of elite always is used in the inscriptions and on the coins. However, it does not seem the case at all with Sanskrit! Rather, we surprisingly find first Sanskrit inscription only appearing in as late as160 AD. We also find that the Sanskrit inscriptions gradually replacing Prakrit only after 3rd Century A.D.E Instead, from the Epigraphical hybrid Sanskrit and Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit, we find the gradual development of the Sanskrit language. This language, though touted as hybrid, is nothing but a mere a form of ‘mixed Sanskrit’ in which the original Prakrit has been incompletely Sanskritised, with the phonetic forms being changed to the refined (Sanskrit) versions, but the grammar of Prakrit being retained. For instance, Burrow shows, Prakrit bhikkhussa, the possessive singular of bhikkhu (monk, cognate with Sanskrit

bhikshu) is converted not to bhiksho as in Sanskrit but mechanically changed to bhishusya.40 This indicates how the Sanskrit of Panini was being developed from the Prakrit languages. Sanskrit cognate of Bhikkhu naturally is evolved gradually to the present form. Indian scholar Mahulkar explains; through the adverb ‘iha’, which is both Rig Vedic and classical Sanskrit, is borrowed first from preMiddle Indo-European (i.e. old Prakrit) which was present in Gandhari, Pali, Sauraseni, Maharashtri and Magadhi as ‘Idha”, and in Avesta, too, as ‘ida’, that languages start their course of life as Prakrits, languages of the people; and become in course of the time moulds of formalised literary expressions.41 We can understand that how a branch of the language independently develops in course of the time to suite the necessities of the religious texts, philosophies and sciences. We have seen how the original texts of the Rig Veda were transliterated in newly formulated Vedic dialect that had basis of the original close-toAvestan language in which they originally were composed. Hence, the myth that the Sanskrit is mother of all Prakrit languages is untrue. There is no material proof to support such notion except that the hypothetical classification of old, middle and younger IndoEuropean languages. The classification itself is unscientific and only is based upon the myth that the Vedas were preserved as it were from the date of its composition. Rig Vedic texts, too, do not support this hypothesis. It does mean that the Prakrit languages maintained their dominance over a long period. Even in pre-Vedic era, the Prakrit languages, from Maharashtri to Gandhari must have been spoken in their archaic form in their respective regions. We have ample proofs of the pre-existence of all these Prakrit languages and their continuity till date in those regions, which is not the case with Vedic or Sanskrit language. Rather, Prakrit languages seem to have become substratum for the development of the Vedic dialect. The proven Sanskrit literature, too, seems to have appeared only in 2nd century

AD in form of the Ashvaghosha’s (c. 80 to c. 150 CE) epic, “Buddhacharita”. All logics extended by the scholars to explain the complete absence of the material proof of their existence are futile because in same breath, they keep on claiming the Vedic dominance all over India in historical times. Had it been the case, Vedic dominance during that vast span of the time, would have been seen from at least a single specimen inscription to demonstrate the sign of the presence or dominance. It is thus illogical of the scholars to state that the Vedics, too, had almost forgotten Sanskrit and instead had adapted Prakrit. In that case, there is no explanation as to how that there is sudden explosion of Sanskrit inscriptions and inscribed copper plates, in north as well as in south, replacing Prakrit! It cannot be the case that all of sudden, entire Indian populace after 3rd century AD started understanding Sanskrit!42 The only logical explanation to this phenomenon could be attributed to the fact that the Sanskrit in its most advanced form was developed only after first century AD and gradually, became the official language of the courts and royal communication. Anyway, while North India was enjoying traditional cultural, religious and linguistic life without having influence of foreign elements to speak of, Dravidians, too, remained dominant in southern parts of India from ancient times, though, there is proof that they traded with northern regions like Malva. Although, Dravidians maintained their linguistic identity, exchange of vocabularies and culture in both the groups was but natural. The myth of Dravidian displacement from Indus Valley to the south has no locus standi in light of the available proofs. Hence, there is no need to elaborate on this issue.F

Shudra’s real identity Since the term has been, too, controversial, causing irreparable damage to Indian society and caused an outrage for its use in a derogatory manner for social suppression, indicating lowest status of the largest population since long time, we need to have a brief look at the reality. The most importantly word ‘Shudra’ appears in the only hymn, Purusha Sukta, which otherwise is completely absent from Rig Veda. Many attempts have been made by various scholars to find the real meaning of the Shudra and who were they. The people Dasa, Dasyus have been mentioned many a times in Rig Veda, though contemptuously for their different faith. But Purusha Sukta mentions, instead of Dasa-Dasyus, the Shudras, as name of a class of the people, that, too, in a hymn that has been proven to be a later composition. Surprisingly, in later Vedic texts, the term Dasa and Dasyus (equivalent to Iranian Daha, Dahyu), used in Vedas for the people, goes on vanishing and remains just as a suffix of the personal names or denotes the servants. They, Dasa/Dasyus, no longer remains to be a set of the people, whether rivals or not. Rather while speaking of fourth section of society, the people other than Vedics, the term Shudras have been applied in the Purushasukta. The sudden shift in the terminology, assigned for the class of the people clearly means that the Vedic had come across the new set of the people and needed a new terminology to address them. It also is clear that the Dasa/Dasyu people were left far behind by the time of this hymn was composed. Rather, the appearance of the term Shudra for people is in itself a proof that the Vedic geography had changed from Afghanistan to India. This also is evident because, we should note here that, the term ‘Shudra’ or its equivalent is not present in Avesta at all. What we find is Daha – Dahyu, equivalent to Dasa and Dasyus, in Avesta applied

to the people of the land or compatriots. To Rig Veda, they are people who adhered to the different faiths and thus were enemies. It would appear the term Shudra has been emerged from nowhere which have no meaning whatsoever! This sure creates a problem for the proponents of indigenous Aryan Theory as well. Also, let us not forget here that the term Shudra have no etymology, neither in the so-called IE languages nor in Dravidian languages. RK Pruthi suggests that perhaps Shudra was originally the name of nonAryan tribe.43 It may surprise us why then this tribe never came across the Vedic people to make its slightest mention in whole bulk of Rig Veda except for Purushsukta where suddenly it forms a major part of society? Rajwade suggests that the people those were taken in the personal service by the victorious Aryans were called as Shudras. According to him, the term was later applied to those all who were out of three Varnas. 44 Bhandarakar opines that the Shudras could be a tribe but afterwards came to signify anybody who was not a full-fledged Arya or a foreigner who has been partially assimilated by Arya culture. He further states that in Sutras Shudra denotes a person other than the member of three Varnas, i.e. Brahmina, Kshatriya and Vaishya.45 Interestingly, the term ‘Varna’ for class, too, is new Vedic innovation because it is absent, too, from Avestan scripts! If removed Aryan and replaced with Vedic, it will be clear from above opinions of the scholars that those all who were not Dasas or Dasyus or Vedics, those all lived in the Indian subcontinent, practised different religion, were Shudras for the Vedic people. The fact is, though in Purushasukta, Shudra seemingly is enumerated as fourth class of Vedic religion; it was never at all the case. If we carefully read the RV 10.90.12, it makes clear that, the head of Purusha became Brahmin, hands became Kshatriya, and thighs became Vaishya….but Shudras were born from his feet. The feet did not become Shudra, but the Shudras were produced from them. It

clearly indicates the distinction between Vedic and non-Vedics. (The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms was the Rajanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced. (RV 10.90.12, Trans. Griffith)) The term only would apply to Indian people, as Purushasukta is a very later composition that was inserted in Rig Veda. It mentions Indian seasons and uses the term Shudra for people first time and in the only verse. In later Vedic texts, we find the term appearing frequently to denote the people; those were not part of the Vedic religion. It could have been essential for the Vedics to name the people other than them or it was a term already in use to address the people of India. Those who were originally Vedics and those who were converted to Vedic religion and set in one of the three Varnas, authorised to Vedic recitals and ritualistic practices, were but naturally Vedics and part of three Varnas as Bhandarkar suggests. The rest of the masses, following their traditional religion seem to have been named as Shudras. Alternatively, it could be a term used by Indians to address themselves from ancient times, but then, the original term must have been phonetically quite different and Shudra could be the corrupt Vedic form, thus making it impossible to find its origin or any etymology. Vedic corruptions of other loan words are not new. It can be proved from one instance that Vedics in India pronounced corrupt form of the ancient country name ‘Meluha’ (Melukkha) as ‘Mlechchha’, which, later on lost its original meaning and became synonym of the people who spoke strange or foreign languages. 46 The same could have happened with ‘Shudra’ which in later course of the time became a derogatory term; originally, it couldn’t have been the case.G The fact is, we forget, Shudras were and are nonVedic class, practicing idolatry from ancient times which was banned in the Vedic religion. Shudras were not authorised to carry out Vedic rites or recitals because they did not need it for the sake of their own

distinct religion they had preserved and still is practiced by the majority. Another fact, which we should not overlook, is that the Vedic class had not vanquished the local population to enforce their languages and culture upon them, as many social activists like to believe. Rather, we see uninterrupted Indian tradition of the culture since minimum of 7,000 BC. RN Dandekar has explicitly said that there is no significant influence on the Indians those are practicing their religion since pre-Vedic times. The present Vedics cannot be blood linked with the original preachers those had come to India; those, too, must have lost their ethnicity after mingling with the Indian populace. We find there have been the Vedics in India of different ethnicities and language groups because they are one whose ancestors had embraced to the Vedic faith in remote past. There is no foreign blood or so-called Aryan element in them to boast of. The Vedic religion became dominant after medieval period for sociopolitical reasons. The fact remains that the two religions, Vedic and pre-Vedic, coined together under common umbrella name ‘Hindu’ were always and are distinct in practice, rituals and philosophy. The fact is that, although Vedics accepted idolatry gradually, they maintained their independent identity of religion with retaining all rights over Vedas, related literature and Vedic rites. This cannot be called as assimilation based on equal footings. The evil spell of many sociopsychological conditions, especially the birth-based inequality, are direct or indirect products of it. To sum up, Shudras were never a part of the Vedic society. They practiced an independent religion from ancient times. To Vedics, the way people like Dasa, Dasyus of Iran, those followed different religions and hence, looked upon contemptuously. Similarly, of India, Shudras, too, became a derogatory term in Vedic literature for the adherents of different religion, when they safely settled here and converted sufficient Shudras to their fold. The over-glorification of the Vedas and their divine origin, as we have seen in this chapter, has

been a carefully nourished myth and deserves rejection in totality. Rather, the matter of worry is the supremacist Vedicist scholars are on the move to discredit Shudras from their own cultural and religious inheritance, which needs immediate attention. The harm it has done, in the form of seeding an inferiority complex and a sense of inequality in the minds of non-Vedic masses, needs to be removed in the light of these bare facts! *

References: 1. ‘Early Indian History: Linguistic and Textual Parameters’, by Michael Witzel in The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, edited by George Erdosy (ed.), Pub.: Walter de Gryuter; Berlin, 1995, p. 114 including footnote.

2. ‘Original Sanskrit Texts on the Origin and History of the People of India – Their Religion, and Institutions (Vol. 2), edited by John Muir, third edition, 1874, p. 403-5. 3. ‘Plant macro-remains from Neolithic Jhusi in Ganga Plain: evidence for grain-based agriculture’, by Anil K. Pokharia, J. N. Pal and Alka Srivastava, Pub.: In ‘Current Science’ (Vol. 97, No. 4), August 2009. 4. ‘Agricultural Origins and Frontiers in South Asia: A Working Synthesis’, by Dorian Q. Fuller, published in ‘J World Prehistory’, December 2006, 20:1–86. 5. ‘Settlement Geography of the Punjab During the Early Historic and Medieval Periods : A GIS Approach’, by Mark A. Smith , pub.: ProQuest, 2007, p. 297. 6. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt.Mahadeva Shastri Joshi (Vol. 9), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskrutikosh Mandala, 2000, p. 210. 7. Ibid, p. 209. 8. ‘An introduction to epic philosophy’, edited by Subodh Kapoor, Pub.: Cosmo Publications, 2004, p. 454. 9. ‘Zoroastrianism: An Introduction’, by Jenny Rose, I.B. Tauris & Co. Ltd., reprint, 2012. 10. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeva Shastri Joshi (Vol.1), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 1997, page 712-713 11. ‘Vedas and Upaniá¹£ads’, by Michael Witzel, in ‘The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism’, edited by Gavin Flood, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005, p. 69. (Available online at: http://cincinnatitemple.com/articles/BlackwellCompanionToHind uism.pdf) 12. ‘History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation’, by Ram Gopal, Pub. Concept Publishing Company, 1983, p. 22.

13.

‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeo Shastri Joshi (Vol. 1), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 1997, p. 119-20. 14. Ibid 15. ‘Bharatiya Sanskruti Kosha’, edited by Pt. Mahadeo Shastri Joshi (Vol. 9), Pub.: Bharatiya Sanskruti Koshamandal, third edition, 2000, p. 439-40 16. ‘Encyclopedia of Hinduism’, edited by Constance Jones, James D. Ryan, Pub.: Facts of File, Inc., 2007, p. 13. 17. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Education Service, reprint, 1989, p. 35. 18. ‘Hindu World’, edited by Sushil Mittal & Gene Thursby, Pub.: Routledge, 2004. 19. ‘ Marathi Vishvakosha’ (Vol. 2), edited by Tarkateertha Laxman Shastri Joshi, Pub.: Maharashtra Rajya Sahity Sanskruti Mandal, p. 956. 20. Ibid, p. 956-57. 21. ‘Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture’, edited by J. P. Mallory Douglas and Q. Adams, Pub.: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 1997, p. 379. 22. ‘A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature’, by F. Max Muller, Pub.: Williams and Norgate, , 1859, p. 570-571. 23. ‘Miscellaneous Essays’ (Vol. 1), by Henry Thomas Colebrooke, see footnote, Pub.: W. H. Allen and Co., 1837, p. 309. 24. Ibid, Footnote, p. 309-310 25. ‘Vaidik Sanskruticha Vikas’ by Tarkateertha Laxmanshastri Joshi, Pub.: Pradnyapathashala Mandal, third edition, 1996, p. 33. 26. ‘The Language of the Harappans: From Akkadian to Sanskrit’, by Malati J Shendge, Abhinav Publications, 1997, p. 75. 27. ‘Rig Veda, Indus Culture and the Indo-Iranian Connections’, in ‘IRANIAN JOURNAL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDIES’, 1: 1 (2011), by Pramod V. Pathak

28.

‘Indocentrism’, by Michael Witzel in ‘The Indo-Aryan Controversy: Evidence and Inference in Indian History’, edited by Edwin Bryant, Pub.: Routledge, 2004, p. 367. 29. ‘The Rigveda’, R T H Griffith, 1896, p. 13. 30. ‘The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives’, by Jane McIntosh, Pub.: ABC- CLIO, 2008, p. 92. 31. Ibid, p. 91. 32. Ibid, p. 90-93. 33. ‘The Archeology of Hinduism’ by Dilip Chakrabarti in ‘Archeology and World Religion edited by Timothy Insoll, Pub: Routledge, 2001, p. 48. 34. Ibid, p. 47-48. 35. ‘Hinduism’ by R. N. Dandekar, ‘Historia Religionum: Religions of the Present’ (Vol. 2), edited by G. Widengren, Pub.: BRILL, 1971, p. 247. 36. ‘The Painted Grey Ware Culture of the Iron Age’, by B. B. Lal, p. 423-24. (Available online at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledgebankarticle/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20painted%20grey%20ware %20culture%20of%20the%20iron%20age.pdf) 37. ‘Reurbanization: The eastern Punjab and beyond. In Urban Form and Meaning in South Asia: The Shaping of Cities from Prehistoric to Precolonial Times’, by Shaffer, Jim, 1993, ed. H. Spodek and D.M. Srinivasan, 38. ‘The Painted Grey Ware Culture of the Iron Age’, by B. B. Lal, p. 423-24 (Available online at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledgebankarticle/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20painted%20grey%20ware %20culture%20of%20the%20iron%20age.pdf) 39. ‘Pre- and Protohistoric Andhra Pradesh up to 500 BC’, edited by M. L. K. Murty, 2003. 40. ‘The Sanskrit language’, by T Burrow, Pub.: Motilal Banarasidas, first Indian edition, 2001, p. 61. 41. ‘Pre-Paninian Linguistic Studies’, by D. D. Mahulkar, Pub.: Northern Book Center, 1990, p. 129.

42.

See http://asi.nic.in/asi_epigraphical_sans_language.asp 43. ‘Indian Caste System’, edited by R.K. Pruthi, Discovery Publishing House, 2004, p. 72. 44. ‘Radhamadhavavilas Champu’, Preface, edited by Vi. Ka. Rajwade, Pub.: Sarita Prakashan, reprint 2014, p. 130-31. 45. ‘Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture’, by D. R. Bhandarkar, Pub.: Asian Educational Services, Reprint, 1989, p. 12. 46. ‘The Indus Civilization’, by A. H. Dani and B. K. Thapar, p. 274. (Available online at https://en.unesco.org/silkroad/sites/silkroad/files/knowledgebankarticle/vol_I%20silk%20road_the%20indus%20civilization%20B IS.pdf)

Notes: A. The narrative of ‘Satapatha Brahmana’ goes like this: ‘1:4:1:11. He (the priest) began to invoke the latter with verses of the Rig-veda, 'We kindle thee at the sacrifice, O wise Agni, thee the radiant, the mighty caller to the sacrificial feast (Rig-veda V, 26, 3)!--O Videgha!' 1:4:1:12. He (the king) did not answer. (The priest went on), 'Upwards, O Agni, dart thy brilliant, shining rays, thy flames, thy beams (Rig-veda VIII, 44, 16)!--O Videgha-a-a!' 1:4:1:13. Still he did not answer. (The priest continued), 'Thee, O butter-sprinkled one, we invoke! (Rig-veda V, 26, 2);' so much he uttered, when at the very mentioning of butter, Agni Vaisvanara flashed forth from the (king's) mouth: he was unable to hold him back; he issued from his mouth, and fell down on this earth. 1:4:1:14. Mâthava, the Videgha, was at that time on the (river) Sarasvati. He (Agni) thence went burning along this earth towards the east; and Gotama Râhûgana and the Videgha Mathava followed after him as he was burning along. He burnt over (dried up) all these rivers. Now that (river), which is called 'Sadânîrâ,' flows from the northern (Himâlaya) mountain: that one he did not burn over. That one the Brâhmans did not cross in former times, thinking, 'it has not been burnt over by Agni Vaisvânara.' 1:4:1:15. Now-a-days, however, there are many Brâhmans to the east of it. At that time it (the land east of the Sadanira) was very uncultivated, very marshy, because it had not been tasted by Agni Vaisvânara. 1:4:1:16. Now-a-days, however, it is very cultivated, for the Brâhmans have caused (Agni) to taste it through sacrifices. Even in late summer that (river), as it were, rages along: so cold is it, not having been burnt over by Agni Vaisvânara.

1:4:1:17. Mathava, the Videgha, then said (to Agni), 'Where am I to abide?' 'To the east of this (river) be thy abode!' said he. Even now this (river) forms the boundary of the Kosalas and Videhas; for these are the Mathavas (or descendants of Mathava). 1:4:1:18. Gotama Râhûgana then said (to Mâthava), 'Why didst thou not answer when addressed by us?' He replied, 'Agni Vaisvânara was in my mouth; I did not reply, lest he should escape from my mouth.' 1:4:1:19. 'How then did this happen?'--'At the moment when thou didst utter the words, ‘(Thee), O butter-sprinkled one, we invoke!’ just then, at the mention of butter, Agni Vaisvânara flashed forth from my mouth; I was unable to hold him back, he issued from my mouth.' 1:4:1:20. That (word) in the sâmidhenîs, therefore, which contains butter (ghrita) is especially suitable for kindling (sam-indh); and by it he accordingly kindles him (Agni, the fire) and bestows vigour on this (sacrificer). 1:4:1:21. Now that (word) is ghritâkyâ, 'with the buttered (spoon).'-'He nears the gods, wishful of bliss.' Wishful of bliss, truly, is the sacrificer, since he wishes to approach the gods, to go to the gods: therefore he says, 'he nears the gods, wishful of bliss.' This (verse), which is addressed to Agni, is undefined (vague); and undefined, doubtless, is the 'All;' he thus commences (this holy work) with the All.’ If this read carefully, important facts appear from the translation. Videth Mathava had started his journey from Saraswati river (Helmand), not Ghaggar, as has been misinterpreted by the Eggeling. While this translation was committed, it was firmly believed that the Aryans had invaded into India and their first settlement was in Punjab. In second stage, in the form of Mathava, they expanded further in the uninhibited regions and populated them. However, the basis of this conjecture was wrong. Thus northern mountains (Uttar Giri) mentioned in this myth could not be Himalayas as Eggeling thinks. Instead, it must be Hindukush. Similarly, later Vedic tradition seems to have connected Videgh Mathava with Videha kingdom. It is clear that by the time this incident took place in the court of Videha king Janaka, the original history of the travel of

the preachers had become obscurred. After removing such misinterpretations and leaving aside the style of Vedic seers to attempt to connect with the Royal courts, we can see the clear truth that the Vedic people silently had entered India and found space to establish in course of the time. (See- Satapatha Brahmana Part 1 (SBE12), Translated by Julius Eggeling [1882], Pub. : Atlantic Publishers & Distributors. 1990, Page, 104-6) B. We find that the net of Prakrit languages was historically spread till Gandhara region. Regional variances are always expected those we find even today in Prakrit languages of different regions. Since Gandhari language was spoken in Gandhara region, close to the Helmand valley, the linguistic difference between the languages of people would not vary drastically. Even today, we find the Dari, a Persian dialect used by the people of South Afghanistan. We can safely assume that the archaic form of the present Dari must have been spoken in Helmand Valley where the Rig Veda shaped up. The similarities and dissimilarities in the languages are due to only the regional variances. In fact, we find presence of the Prakrit dialect in Bogazkoy treaty and the horse training book of Kikkuli, not Vedic dialect. Vedic dialect, because of the shift in the geography, clearly shows the influence of changed linguistic scenario and thus possess different linguistic pattern, which bear no name! C. Indramah, also known as ‘Indradhvajotsava’ (Flag-Festival of Indra) was being celebrated in Satvahana era too. Couple of Gathas of Hal Satvahana mentions this festival. The last mention of this festival occurs in ‘Sarasvati Kanthabharanam’ (5.314) of Bhoja. (Approximately 11th century AD) D. In regards with total absence of the Sanskrit epigraphs in the vast span of the time, i.e. 500 years, V.V. Mirashi states, “Though the Traivarnikas (three Vedic classes) had to study Vedas by residing at Guru’s home, it seems their knowledge of Sanskrit was limited.” He further states, “It is surprising that though Satavahanas conducted sacred fire sacrifices (Srauta Yadnyas), the inscriptions describing them are in Prakrit.” ( ‘Satvahana ani Paschimi Chatrap’, by Dr. V. V. Mirashi, Pub.: Maharashtra Rajya Sanskruti Mandal, 1979, p. 15152)

This may indicate absence of the Sanskrit in Satavahana era! The argument of Mirashi (or likeminded scholars) is not tenable because study of Vedas was not limited to the recitals of Vedic verses, but was coupled with study of grammar. Therefore, the claim that ‘limited knowledge of the Sanskrit’ cannot be justified. E. It is often thought that many kings patronised Prakrits because of the influence of Buddhism and hence there is absence of Sanskrit inscriptions. However, it was not the case. Ashoka’s inscriptions are not at all in Pali, the language of Buddhism. They are in regional Prakrits. The language on the

coins issued by regional trading guilds including Gandhara too is Prakrit. Sunga dynasty is said to be revivers of Vedicism, still the language on its coins or epigraphs is Prakrit. The foreign rulers, Scythian King Maues, who had expanded his kingdom till Gandhar, Kashmir and Taxila (150 BC) had issued bilingual coins, using Greek and Prakrit. Except for Kanishka, who extensively used Bactrian language on his coins, Spalahores and all other foreign rulers including Kushans too followed the same practice. These kings were not Buddhists. Rather almost all the foreign rulers had given equal position to Shiva images on their coins. Still there is absence of the Sanskrit. What we find is gradual progression of Prakrit words towards Sanskrit. For example, the epithet of king, we can see from the coins, have progressed in several steps, such as Rajne, Rajatirajasa, Rajadirajasa to final version Rajadhiraja. This shows development in the expression attaining polished form. We find rather hybrid Sanskrit (or Prakrit) emerging only after first century BC that gradually shaped up in the Rudradaman’s epigraph of 150 AD to Sanskrit. From third century onwards we find Sanskrit is gradually replacing Prakrits and after fourth/fifth century becoming only dominant epigraphic language in the country. F. Most of the scholars, owing to the Aryan Invasion Theory or migration theory had postulated that the Dravidians, who were occupants of the IGC, were forced out or displaced to the South. The linguists had based their argument on the shreds of some words those were supposed to be coming from Dravidian, para-Munda and some unknown language source. A lot of work done on this by Witzel and others prompted Asko Parpola to attempt deciphering the Indus script based on Dravidian and Mesopotamian languages. (‘Deciphering the Indus Script’ by Asko Parpola, 2009) However, only because some words (may be around 500) one does not find any etymology in Vedic dialect. It was a bold argument that the loanwords in the Rig Veda was outcome of the Vedic Aryans interaction with the natives and that the natives of the IGC were none but Dravidians. However, the facts are:

1. There was no invasion hence there could not have been defeat and displacement of the Dravidian people from the north to south. 2. Linguists like Southworth expresses that the words those does not fit into EU etymologies. Citing various examples he states, they could have been the borrowing from Dravidian or other indigenous languages. In short, the linguists are not certain to determine exactly to which language such ‘foreign’ words belong to. (‘Linguistic Archaeology of South Asia’, by Franklin C. Southworth, Pub.: Taylor & Francis, 2004, p. 69-70.) Witzel identifies about 383 words which are not of Indo-Aryan or IndoEuropean origin and he believes that the oldest stratum of these

loanwords in the Rig Veda is derived from Munda or related (and otherwise unknown) Austro-Asiatic languages which he designates as Para-Munda. However Southworth opines, “There are as yet a few definitive Munda or AA etymologies for these words, and of those that do exist, some still require rather tortuous argumentation.” (Ibid, p. 67-68) 3. Ahmad Hasan Dani also opines that there is no evidence of cultural continuity between the Indus and Dravidian cultures. Noted epigraphist Iravatham Mahadevan clearly stated in a lengthy interview, “There is no sense in saying that the people in Tamil Nadu are the inheritors of the Indus Valley culture. You could very well say that people living in Harappa or Mohenjo-daro today are even more likely to be the inheritors of that civilization.” (Iravatham Mahadevan interviewed by Omar Khan on January 17, 1998, published on www.harappa.com) What he says makes more sense in an absence of evidence to indicate displacement of Indus people to south. The people living in the IGC regions today rather strongly show their affinity in many cultural aspects with Indus civilization. 4. Mostly Dravidian scholarship’s sharp response is to the Aryan Invasion theory, claiming north India as their previous habitat. The Dravidian Nationalist scholars in return have used the AIT to claim their authorship over the IGC. The stray words of so-called Dravidian origin, however, do not substantiate any such claim. Hence capitalizing on Aryan invasion or migration theory has done no good to the both sides. Rather, it has severely damaged the thread of neutral scientific approaches. Therefore, we can safely conclude that the Dravidian displacement hypothesis is rather politically motivated than the attempts to make systematic unbiased researches to reach nearer to the truth. What we can agree upon is there have been substantial interactions between north and south since ancient times and thus the “Net of the Culture” have united North and the South!

G. Early Vedic literature, like Yajur Veda, Atharva Veda mentions Shudras respectfully. Let us see couple of examples:

Yajurved 18.48: O Lord! Provide enlightenment/ compassion to our Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras. Provide me also with the same enlightenment so that I can see the truth. Yajurved 20.17: Whatever crime we have committed against my village, forest or committee; whatever crime we have committed through our organs, whatever crime we have committed against Shudras and Vaishyas, whatever crime we have done in matters of Dharma, kindly forgive us relieve us from the tendency of the same. Yajurved 26.2: The way I gave this knowledge of Vedas for benefit of all humans, similarly you all also propagate the same for benefit of Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Shudras, Vaishyas, Women and even most downtrodden. The scholars and the wealthy people should ensure that they not deviate from this message of mine. Atharvaved 19.32.8: O Lord! May I be loved by everyone – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Shudra or Vaishya. May I be admired by everyone. Atharvaved 19.62.1: May all noble people admire me. May kings and Kshatriyas admire me. May all look at me with admiration. May the Shudras and Vaishyas admire me. This makes it clear that Vedic people had to respect and pray for the Shudras as well because the Vedics were mostly dependent on them, in the early times. This was land of the Shudras and their religion. Initially Vedics could not have afforded to initiate any contempt or enmity against them. However, as Vedic religion grew with the significant inclusion from the Shudra class to Vedic fold and availed patronages from various kings, gradually Vedic people must have started despising Shudras and thus it became a derogatory term. We have seen above this was not the case in early times.

[8] [9]



[1]Soft Return [2]Invalid Font [3]Invalid Font [4]Invalid Font [5]Soft Return [6]Invalid Font [7]Soft Return [8]Invalid Font [9]Hard Return