Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - Printable Version

+- Forums (
+-- Forum: Indian History & Culture (
+--- Forum: Indian History (
+--- Thread: Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 (/showthread.php?tid=567)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2 - acharya - 10-28-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Oct 28 2008, 03:55 AM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Oct 28 2008, 03:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 27 2008, 07:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 27 2008, 07:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We want the thread for longer time

After 10 pages it will be difficult to save as single page format. May be can split it at ten pages for starting the next thread.

We keep it longer since these subjects are special subjects and are used for reference

We want more people to understand the flow of thought and comprehend the deep falsehood created on India. There is lot of material for first comers to understand.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 10-28-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Description Pencil

Why does AIT model still persist? Why do indologists not reconsider the fundamental premise of their theory? Though they have retracted the Aryan Invasion and have been forced to give up large scale migrations (to the point where, at present, one must imagine tiny bands of Aryan entrants to have silently crept into India, wiped out all records of their presence and interactions there, and then disappeared or died out without passing on their genes), they refuse to reformulate or even re-evaluate their basic assumption.
Why? What are the reason(s) governing indology's non-self-critical approach when dealing with counter-evidence from other sciences?
As we have seen, linguistics has historically been, and continues to be, motivated by concerns that are not always scientific. What motivations are driving IE linguistics and indology research today?
• Is it inertia? Are they unwilling to sift through the material that laid the foundations of IE research in the last 150 years of the field? Or are they, unlike real scientists [48], so sure of the inerrancy of their framework that they are unwilling to re-evaluate it, its assumptions and central premise?
• Has the IE world-view come to define the very identity of the west? Has their view of their past and their origins become so intimately tied up with the Indo-European framework? (See also [49])
• Are there other motivations propping up the IE framework today, just like there was during the period of British imperialism when the AIT served its purpose? [50]
Indians today need to reconsider whether they should so whole-heartedly base their entire world-view upon a model whose very premise remains unverified and unverifiable. [51]

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 10-29-2008

Myths of 19th Century Science: The Indo-European Invasions<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->"The theory of invasion is an invention. This invention is necessary because of a gratuitous assumption that the Indo-Germanic people are the purest of the modern representation of the original Aryan race. The theory is a perversion of scientific investigation. It is not allowed to evolve out of facts. On the contrary, the theory is preconceived and facts are selected to prove it. It falls to the ground at every point." – Dr. B. R. Ambedkar<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 10-31-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> > Cotton from the Sind (Indus) valley was sent to Mesopotamia and
> > land of the Greeks and they call cotton as Sindon, named after
> > Sind.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->> You seem to be echoing here K.D. Sethna's old hypothesis that Greek
> sindo:n 'fine woven cloth, fine linen, garment, blanket etc. made
> thereof' -- therefore, a word NOT meaning 'cotton'! -- was a loan
> from a putative Assyrian form sindhu referring to cotton from India
> (= Sindhu). Yet Sethna, after corresponding with the reputed
> Assyriologist S.N. Kramer, who told him that the attested Assyrian
> word is sintu 'some kind of fur or woolen stuff' and not sindhu,
> dropped this etymological hypothesis of his<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Did S.N. Kramer actually suggest that the assyrian script would
actually have to denote a voiced aspirate for the word to be an indic

lets remember voiced aspirates are unpronouncable outside India and if
such words were loaned then they would be substituted.

Perhaps an etymology for assyrian sintu can be established with some
amount of rigour that totally excludes any indic loan. But neither
your post nor the link suggest this at all.

Instead you mention the following:

Assyrian sintu 'some kind of woolen stuff'
greek sindo:n 'fine woven cloth, fine linen, garment, blanket etc'

S.N Kramer's objection is clearly not brought out here.

Both seem to suggest a cognate suspiciously close to a textile such as

Ofcourse Sindhis would never call cotton as sindhu just as mordern
kashmiris would never refer to cashmere apparel as such. Much as
Herodotus would not refer to all greeks as Ionians.

lets consider now:

<b>Hebrew sa:di:n 'linen untercloth, kind of shirt'
Assyrian sadinnu or sudinnu 'garment' a rectangular piece of linen
even mordern indic sADI, sARI</b>

this could easily be a separate cognate unrelated to sintu/sindhu.
In fact this only reinforces the argument that there are two separate
cognates and that greek sindon is unrelated to assyrian sudinnu or
hebrew sa:di:n

lastly lets consider the contrived argument that

although greek sindon is a semitic loan word from hebrew/assyrian, it
is actually cognate with sudinnu rather than with sintu to which it is
a closer phonetic match.

Rather than illustrate an example of what a critical tinker K.D.
Sethna is , it rather seems to suggest that either he is gullible or
rather willingly let a "white guy" pull the wool over his eyes(Pun
intended) to curry some hypothetical laurels.

Is Indus cotton in sight? quite possible but not conclusive. If the
word root in question had been of European origin its treatment would
follow a predictable trend that we know so well and not be subject to
any critical analysis!!<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Husky - 10-31-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Oct 31 2008, 09:37 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Oct 31 2008, 09:37 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->lets consider now:
<b>Hebrew sa:di:n 'linen untercloth, kind of shirt'
Assyrian sadinnu or sudinnu 'garment' a rectangular piece of linen
even mordern indic sADI, sARI</b>

this could easily be a separate cognate unrelated to sintu/sindhu.
In fact this only reinforces the argument that there are two separate
cognates and that greek sindon is unrelated to assyrian sudinnu or
hebrew sa:di:n

lastly lets consider the contrived argument that

although greek sindon is a semitic loan word from hebrew/assyrian, it
is actually cognate with sudinnu rather than with sintu to which it is
a closer phonetic match.[right][snapback]89662[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I was under the impression that Shaatika (or thereabouts?) was the word in Samskritam for the Hindu dress that's now called saaree.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 11-02-2008

The Rig Veda: A History Showing how the Phoenicians had their earliest home in India. (From a Bengali Essay on the Subject by Rajeswar Gupta, 1902)


Many truths lie buried in the dark depth of the past covered over by numerous strata of forgotten events. I propose to dig up one of them, one that would have to combat the history of the primitive ages as it is commonly accepted and also the cherished theories of the scholars of the east and the west, both old and new. What I fear is that the importance of the discovery may fail to attract the attention of the learned world through my own insignificance, utterly unknown to fame as I am. But I consider the task I have set upon myself to be of great moment, and nothing undaunted I intend to strike out the path, for diligence in the cause of truth is destined to bring its reward and recognition of the truth
I begin by recapitulating first the results of my investigation to create, if possible, an interest in the subject at the outset. They are the following:

- A great war broke out in the remote old days between the Indian Aryans and the Phoenicians in which the latter were defeated and compelled to leave wholly or partially the land of the Aryans.

-Most of the Suktas of the Rig Veda either describe or refer to this and many other wars.

- The Rig Veda, therefore, is not a poem only but a history. The current meanings of most of the Suktas will accordingly have to be altered and the Rig Veda SANHITA itself explained in a way different from the accepted one.

- The Phoenicians were the first of the civilized nations of the world. The civilization of Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Greece and other ancient countries owed its origin to the union of the civilization of the Aryans with that of the Phoenicians.
The Phoenicians originally lived in Afghanistan or in some part of India, whence driven out they migrated gradually westwards. While still residing in the neighbourhood of India they colonized and traded with Arabia and the countries bordering on the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.

- The Phoenicians had colonies in many countries from each of which they were driven away by the natives after severe struggles. In this way they were expelled from India, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, or they mixed with the natives when they lost their supremacy in those countries.

- The primitive civilization of the world was born long before the time known to us.
In ancient time the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea were connected together by a strait through which the Phoenician and Aryan trading ships entered the Mediterranean Sea and Indian goods were taken to Europe. As that passage gradually silted up the connection between India and Europe broke off.

- These conclusions will lead on to many others which it is neither the place nor the time to dilate upon. They are sure to revolutionize the history of the world, chalk out a new path for linguistic researches, and recast the classification of the human races when the agitation caused by their novelty has calmed down and they have found acceptance with the learned world. A careful investigation, I am confident, will reveal the truth of these statements to honest enquirers, and the feeble track I lay out will before long turn to a high road in skilled hands of willing labourers in the cause.

The Panis

The word Pani occurs in not less than 36 riks of the Rig Veda It is used in one form or another in all the Mandalas except the fifth and the ninth, the forms being Panih, Panim, Paneen and Panayah. In the Sukta no. 108 alone of the tenth mandala the word is employed eight times. There are 11 riks in the 108th Sukta of the tenth mandala, and ill six of them Pani is the god. In some of the books the god is mentioned as Panayah and in other as Panayásura

It should be noted here that the names of the gods and the Rishis with which each Sukta begins were selected long after the collection of the VEDAS. These were determined in the Index known as the Anukramanee. The Anukramanee which has been followed in the Rik-Sanhita in adopting the names of the gods and the rishis, was composed by Katyayana Katyayana came after Yáska and it is therefore evident that the names were invented many centuries afterwards without having any historic truth in them. There is nothing in the Suktas themselves which can throw any light in elucidating these words. Moreover in some of the riks two or three names are mentioned of which only one is to be taken as the god. It is clear the commentator himself was at a loss to decide the point. It would not have been the case had the composer of the Sukta made the selection himself. Had he done so he would surely have mentioned only, one god instead of many. Take for example the 58th Sukta of the fourth mandala. The gods named therein are: -- Agni (Fire), Surya (the Sun), Ap (Water), Gabo (the Cows), or Ghrita (clarified butter). The same remarks apply to the use of the names of the rishis, vide the 2nd Sukta of the fifth mandala in which the names of the rishis are: -- KUMÁRA the son of ATRI, or KRISA, the son of JAR, or both. The inference therefore is that the names of the rishis, the gods arid the chandas heralding each Sukta, were inserted many years after the composition of the Sanhita itself, and must accordingly, be taken at their proper worth. Pani and Asura are two different words with different meanings. The Panis were not Asuras. The application of the word Panyásura as the name of the god in the 168th rik, quoted above, is to be taken to date from the Pauranic period and not the Vedic.

The Stealing of Cows

The stealing of cows by the Panis forms one of the most important factors of the Rik-Sanhita. The Suktas in which the Panis are mentioned, in which allusion is made to cows, or in which Indra is the god, are mostly related, directly or indirectly, to the stealing of cows. The commentator Sáyanáchárya admits this to be the case almost everywhere. Mr. Romesh Chunder Dutt, following the footsteps of Professor Max Muller, finds those of the Suktas or riks to contain the story of the stealing of cows in which the word Pani occurs, and considers the views of Sáyana as far fetched with regard to other Suktas and riks

In the commentary Sáyana makes reference to the Panis in explaining Sukta 33 of the first mandala (Vide page 79 of Mr. Dutt's edition), which runs . "Desiring to get back the cows, stolen by the Asuras known as the Panis, &c." Mr. Dutt rejects, this allusion to the Panis on the ground that they are not mentioned in the Sukta. The list I have prepared will. however, show that the word Pani does occur in rik 3 of the Sukta and it may be noticed that Mr. Dutt has made no attempt to prove Sáyana wrong in his explanation there In my opinion Sáyana's exposition appears to be the correct one when we study the Sukta as a whole. Sáyana refers again to the story of the stealing of cows when he begins his commentary on Mandala 11, Sukta 24, rik 6, and states how the homes of the Asuras of the Pani tribe were burned by the messengers of the Devas (gods) when they were discovered with the stolen cows by the hound Saramá. Sukta 108 of the tenth mandala will bear this out as nowhere else is the story related more fully and clearly. But Mr. Dutt, on the authority no doubt of European scholars, sets down this simple affair as merely an allegory without having any underlying historical basis.

Prof. Max Muller says . "It is a reproduction of the old story of the break of day. The bright cows the rays of the Sun or the rain clouds, for both go by the same name, have been stolen by the Powers of darkness, by the Night and her manifold progeny. Gods and men are anxious for their return. But where are they to be found? They are hidden in a dark or strong stable, or scattered along the ends of the sky, and the robbers will not restore them. At last, in the furthest distance the first signs of the Dawn appear, she peers about and runs with lightning quickness, it may be, like a hound after a scent, across the darkness of the sky. She is looking for, and following the right path, she has found it. She has heard the lowing of the cows, and she returns to her starting place with more intense splendour. After her return Indra arises, the God of light ready to do battle in good earnest against the gloomy Powers, to break open the strong stable in which the bright cows were kept, and to bring light and strength and life back to his pious worshippers." Science of Language, Vol II PP. S 13-514.

The following points. however, require elucidation before we can accept the theory of the Western scholars:

- The Dawn never returns after it has once disappeared, before the same Sun-rise.
- The allegory as described does not correspond with the story as related in the original.
- If by the God of light the Sun is meant, what becomes of Indra?


To ascertain the meaning of a Vedic word it is necessary to have some acquaintance with the expounders of the Vedas. If I hold that at to know the Vedas correctly we need not follow the Western scholars, it must not be inferred that I disregard them. I am not however prepared to honour them before the scholars of my own country. To put without rhyme or reason a different construction on the exposition of the Vedic scholars of India, is to ignore them and as it were to persecute the M.

The writers of the Niruktas were the first expounders of the Rig Veda. The works of three of them, out of four whose names are available, are not forthcoming. Yáska, whose writings have been preserved, was the fourth writer of the series. According to Mr. R. C. Dutt Yáska flourished in the 9th century B.C., and if it be admitted that the Rig Veda was composed two thousand years before the birth of Christ, Yáska must have had to elucidate the Vedic words tracing their evolution through the history of the country for eleven hundred years. But it is impossible that he could have done so, and I do dot think I need adduce any reasons for my assertion. He had to explain the unintelligible riks with the help of tradition and the dictionaries extant. Achárya Sáyana also followed the same course for the purpose, only that his profound wisdom and valuable researches shed a brighter lustre on it. Prof. H. H. Wilson thus speaks of Sáyana: "He undoubtedly had a knowledge of his text far beyond the pretension of any European scholar, and must have been in possession either through his own learning or that of his assistants, of all the interpretations which had been perpetuated by traditional teaching C. 1 earliest time.

The Western scholars take the Rig Veda to be a collection of hymns in praise of nature. This theory they have consistently followed without looking to history for the correct exposition of the Vedas. In fact they have gone the other way of deducing history from the Vedas. But I would follow the scholars of my own country who did not try to create a history out of the Vedas. I would make history my guide in opening up the secrets of those sacred books. I must however at the outset say that my acknowledgments are due to the scholars who have already taken the lead in unfolding the mysteries of the Vedas, as also to Mr. R, C. Dutt in particular.

The dispute is in regard to the correct meaning of the three words, Pani, saramá and go. For the meaning of the first Prof. Max Muller depends on the meaning of the second. According to Prof. Kuhan, Saramá means storm. He says that Saramá is only a different form of the Teutonic Storm and the Greek herme. The word Saramá is derived from the root Sar with the suffix amá and Sar means to go. Saramá therefore means a runner or one who goes quickly. But storm or wind does not appear to be the correct meaning of the word Saramá as used in the Vedas. There Saramá is a messenger of Indra; she seeks out the lost cows and goes about to distant places. For her services she is rewarded with food for her son, (I. 62. 3) and she gets a large quantity of milk from Indra and others (1. 72. 8). So Saramá cannot mean the storm or the wind.

Prof. Max Muller would think that saramá and the early dawn were one and the same thing. He says: "There can be little doubt that she (Saramá) was meant for the early dawn, and not for the storm. In the ancient hymns of the Rig Veda she is never spoken of as a dog, nor can we find there the slightest allusion to her canine "nature. This is evidently a later thought." Science of Language, Vol. II. R 5 51. I agree with the learned Professor in holding that

Saramá was not a dog. The Panis concealed the cows: Saramá discovered them and informed Indra. It would appear that in those days whoever found out a lost thing after a careful search -- an informer -- was called Saramá and naturally the word came to mean a dog long after the Vedic days. To reconcile the meaning of the word in the Vedas, Sáyana ascribes to her supernatural powers, or how could a dog speak? Nothing, was impossible in the land of the gods.

In the Rig Veda Saramá has been given a number of attributes. She is the messenger of Indra (X. 108 2); she is beautiful, fortunate (X. 108 5); she is fair-footed or swift-footed. Surely these cannot be attributed to a dog.

Prof. Max Muller says. "It is Ushás the Dawn, who wakes first (I 123. 1); who comes first to the morning prayer (1. 123. 2). The-, sun follows behind as a man follows a woman (Rv I. 115. 2). Of whom is it said, as of Saramá, that she brings to light the precious things hidden in darkness? It is Ushás, the Dawn, who reveals the bright treasures that were covered by the gloom (1. 123. 6). She crosses the water unhurt (VI. 64. 4); she lays open the ends of heaven (1. 92 11); those very ends where, as the Panis said, the cows were to be found. She is said to break the strongholds and bring back the cows (VII. 75. 7; 79. 4). It is she who, like Saramá, distributes wealth among, the sons of men (1. 92. 3; 123. 3). She possesses the cows (1. 123. 12. &C.) she is even called the mother of the cows (IV. 52. 2). The Angiras, we read, asked her for the cows (VI. 65. 5), and the doors of the dark stable are said to be opened by her (IV. 5 1 2). In one place her splendour is said to be spreading as if she were driving forth cattle (1. 92. 12); in another the splendours of the Dawn are themselves called a drove of cows (IV. 51. 8; 52. 5). Again, as it was said of Saramá that she follows the right path, the path which all heavenly powers are ordained to follow, so it is particularly said of the Dawn that she walks in the right way (1. 12 4. 3; 1 13. 12). Nay even the Penis, to whom Saramá was sent to claim the cows, arc mentioned together with Ushás, the Dawn. She is asked to wake those who worship the gods, but not to wake the Panis ( ( 1 124. 10). In another passage (IV 51. 3) it is said that the Panis ought to sleep in the midst of darkness while the Dawn rises to bring treasures for man.

It is more than probable, therefore, that Saramá was but one of the many names of the Dawn "

From these the Professor concludes that Saramá and Ushá or the dawn are the same thing. But I am unable to subscribe to this view. If Saramá could not be the storm, it could neither be the dog. It is absurd that such epithets as fair-footed and beautiful should qualify a dog, or that such expressions as returning to Indra and crossing a stream should be predicated of a storm.

The learned Professor was so charmed with the Greek stories of the light, the darkness 1 a and the dawn, that he was led to trace the allegory in the Vedas even. And it was very natural. The son of a famous German poet he was taught from his infancy to look upon the world with the eyes of a poet as full of poetry. He loved poetry and saw it everywhere in nature all around. To him the Rig Veda therefore was nothing but a poem, a book of hymns, and hence the allegorical expositions. Thus what was meant to be a history was taken to be a poem. Let me however point out that the Rig Veda is not a poem but a history, the first and the most ancient history of the world. It is impossible for a nation to have a poem without having a history of its own. Prof. Max Muller would even trace the origin of the Trojan war in the epic of the immortal HOMER to the stories of the Panis and Sarainá in the Rig Veda. To discover the original meaning of old and obsolete words it is necessary to know (I) the condition or history of the then society, (2) the intellectual progress attained by the men of the time, and (3) the changes in the meaning which the words themselves have undergone from time to time. I would only point out here that at least the first two requisites were not fulfilled by the Western scholars in ascertaining the meaning of the Vedic words. In fact the allegorical explanations they have given to various words and passages of the Rig Veda would point to an intellectual state of our forefathers which it was not possible for them to have attained in those early days. Development of the Imagination must follow, and not precede the maturity of the Intellect.

The misconceptions of the Western scholars are more-over largely due to their acceptance of the current meanings ideas and of the Vedic words in explaining long-forgotten usages. It should be remembered that the modern meanings of words have reference to the modern state of the human society. An attempt to explain the Vedas, which are four or five thousand years old, in the light of present day signification of words is undoubtedly vain and useless. In two or three hundred years even many words and their meanings as well become obsolete and antiquated. What wonder, therefore, that a large number of words of an ancient work like the Vedas should be entirely forgotten after the lapse of so many centuries? The use of many words in their original Vedic sense has been forbidden even after the days of Sáyana. The dictionaries which are the repositories of words and their meanings were themselves compiled long after the Vedas when a great many of the words had lost their etymological signification; and the grammar has only puzzled the scholars in arriving at the correct import of the Vedic words, as it deals with but a few of the various meanings which particular words conveyed. Hence it is that the principal Vedic words have been made to mean what was not contemplated by the sages of old who used them first. The words Sarainá, Pani, Go, Indra, Soma, the twins Asvi, etc., are of this class and difficult to unravel.

The Meaning of the Word Pani

I wish Prof. Max Muller had taken the same pains to ascertain the meaning of the word Pani as he had done for Saramá. To get at the correct meaning of the latter it is desirable that we should first know the correct meaning of the former. And so I begin with the word Pani.

I have already said that the word Pani is mentioned no less than 36 times in the Rig Veda. The word Pani forms as it were the backbone of the Rig Veda: it is the key that unfolds the meaning of the sacred book, Not only do the stories of Saramá and Pani, but also good many riks depend for their proper interpretation upon the correct meaning of the word Pani itself. The rules of grammar relating to numbers and inflections have not been observed in the Rig Veda and it is not unusual for a word in the singular number to denote plural ideas or objects.

- The expression Revatá Paniná (4. 25. 7) shows that the Panis were rich.
- The expression Paner maneeshán (3. 58. 2) shows that the Panis were wise.
- Abasam Panim (6. 61. I) would show that the Panis were given to introspection.
- The rik 7-6-3 tells us that the Panis did not perform any Yajnas or sacrifices; were garrulous, arrogant or haughty; had no respect for Yajanas and were Dasyus i.e., idlers or robbers. According to Sáyama they were usurers also.
- In 1. 33. 3 the word Pani is used for traders. Mr. Dutt, evidently following the European scholars, adopts the meaning of the term as traders in this rik. It is therefore clear that the Panis were a trading people and sold things for their value.
- The rik 6. 5 1 14 represents the Panis as gluttons. For their voracious eating they were regarded as monsters. The word is also explained to mean illiterate traders.
All these would go to show that the word Pani could never mean darkness. It must mean men or some creatures akin to men. They were indeed a nation of traders without sacrifices, selfish, illiterate and usurious.

A nation of traders of those ancient days recalls the Phoenicians of old, for they were the only trading people then. In those days the Phoenicians were known as the Panis. The Aryans spoke of them as the Panih and the Romans as the Punic.

The question now is, how did the Panis come to be the neighbours of the Aryans?

Prof. Keightly says that the Phoenicians called themselves Kedmus In the Semitic language Kedmum means the East. it is probable that the Phoenicians came from the East and so gloried in the name of Kedmus, i.e., an Eastern people. This again would show that civilization had travelled from the east and had not its origin in Egypt.

Herodotus, known in the West as the father of History, was born in Asia Minor in 434 B.C. He travelled over many countries and recorded the experiences of his travels. He says: "The more learned of the Persians assert the Phoenicians to have been the original exciters of contention. This nation migrated from the borders of the Red Sea to the place of their present settlement, and soon distinguished themselves by their long and enterprising voyages. They exported to Argos, amongst other places, the produce of Egypt and Asia." Chapter I. Book 1.

Prof. Larchar of Ireland says: "Some authors make the Phoenicians to have originated from the Persian Gulf." And in Pockock's 'India in Greece' we have (vide page 218), "There to the north dwelt the singularly ingenious and enterprising people of Phoenicia Their first home was Afghanistan

I could multiply such quotations in support of my views. These lead me to conclude that from Afghanistan the Phoenicians went to the coast of the Persian Gulf, from the Persian Gulf to the borders of the Red Sea in Arabia and thence to Phoenicia, their last colony and home. I should like to observe here that they had, before their occupation of Phoenicia, colonized Egypt and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea. They had colonies in Greece and in the adjacent countries even. In fact with the Phoenicians or Panis the light of civilization travelled from the cast to the west.

The Phoenician held their own civilization to be the most ancient and declared it to be thirty thousand years old. There is however no doubt that they were one of the first civilized nations of the world, if not the first, and that Phoenicia was not their first home. Instead of tracing them to their first settlements on the coasts of Arabia or Persia or in Afghanistan the historians of Europe have located them at once in Phoenicia, and hence the mistake that points to the origin of all civilization in Egypt. I would not discuss here the question whether Afghanistan was the first home of the Phoenicians or not. But I would affirm that the Panis or Panih of the Rig Veda were the same people as the ancient Phoenicians of Afghanistan.

The Meaning of the Word Go

After ascertaining the meaning of the word Pani I take up next the Vedic word Go Saramá will be the last word of my investigation.

The word go occurs in almost all the riks in which the word Pani is used, and also in those Sutras in which Indra is the god or Ushá is the goddess. Prof. Max Muller has generally explained go as the rays of the Sun. I have not yet been able to know how other Western scholars explain the word. Mr. Dutt has followed Prof. Max Muller and has presented his view as shared by, a number of Vedic scholars. Sáyana interprets the word as water in certain passages, and as the re rays of the Sun in others, vide 4. 5 1. 3 and 4. 52. 2. There are, again, places where he gives no synonym for the word at all

Sáyana flourished in the fourteenth century A.D., when the Sanscrit vocabulary had been almost perfected. The word go then had for its synonyms Heaven, ray, thunder, the moon, the sun, animal, the cow-sacrifice, cow, water, organ or sense, word, etc. And yet with all these before him Sáyana did not try to explain away the word go when he came across it in the incidents relating to the theft of the go by the Panis. A reference to the various passages will show that in such cases he has taken the word go to mean the cow or cows and not the rays of the sun.

Let us see how the Rig Veda can itself help us in ascertaining the meaning of the word go.

It is said in 4.58.4 that the Panis kept concealed in the go three kinds of butter and the gods came to know of it. It is absurd to suppose that go which produced milk, curd and butter were rays of the sun and not cows. There cannot be the least doubt that go meant cows.

'The conversation between the Panis and Saramá in the 108th Sukta of the tenth mandala, as translated into Bengali by Mr. Dutt, convincingly shows that the word go could not mean any thing but cows, that it meant some animal and not rays of the sun.

I quote below the passage as rendered in English by Professor Max Muller

The Panis said: 'With what intention (did Saramá reach this place! for the way is far, and leads tortuously away. What was your wish with us? How was the night? How did you cross the waters of the Rasá?'
Saramá said: 'I come, sent as the messenger of Indra, desiring, O Panis, your great treasures; this preserved me from the fear of crossing and thus I crossed the waters of the Rasá.'
The Panis: 'What kind of man is I Indra O Saramá? What is his look, he as whose messenger thou camest from afar? Let him come hither, and we will make friends with him, and then he may be the cowherd of our cows.'
Saramá: 'I do not know that he is to be subdued, for it is he himself that subdues, he as whose messenger I came hither from afar. Deep streams do not overwhelm him; you, Panis, will lie prostrate, killed by Indra.'
The Panis: 'These are the cows, O Saramá which thou desirest, flying about the ends of the sky, O darling. Who would give them up to thee without fighting? For our weapons too are sharp.'
Saramá: 'Though your words, O Panis, be unconquerable, though your wretched bodies be arrowproof, though the way to you be hard to go. Brihaspati will not bless you for either.'
The Panis: 'That store, O Saramá, is fastened to the rock furnished with cows, horses, and treasures. Panis watch it who are good watchers; thou art come in vain to this bright place.'
Saramá: 'Let only the Rishis come here fired with Soma, Ayasya (Indra) and the ninefold Angiras; they will divide this stable of cows; then the Panis will vomit out this speech
The Panis: 'Art thou, 0 Saramá, come hither driven by the violence of the Gods? Let us make thee our sister, do not go away again; we will give thee part of the cows, 0 darling.'
Saramá: 'I know nothing of brotherhood or sisterhood; Indra knows it and the awful Angiras. They seemed to me anxious for their cows when I came therefore get away from here, 0 Panis, far away.'
'Go far away, Panis, far away; let the cows come out straight the cows which Brihaspati found hid away, Soma, the stones, and the wise Rishis.'

The Meaning of the Word Saramá

If Pani means the Phoenician merchant and go the cow, it can easily be understood that Saramá cannot mean either the (she) Dog of the gods or the Dawn. Professors Max Muller, Monier Williams and others have taken the Vedic story of the theft of cows as an allegorical representation of the conflict between light and darkness or day and night Hence they have explained a good many riks as hymns in praise of Nature I am sure these scholars have not at every step followed the proper meaning of the Vedic words but have adopted what they themselves thought to be their plausible meaning.

Saramá introduces herself to the Panis as the messenger of Indra. I can safely affirm without stopping to enquire who Indra was, that Saramá is neither a dog, nor the Dawn, but she is human and she is a woman. It may be of interest to note that the Panis do not ask her who she is, but who Indra is, by whom she is sent to them. It is evident she is already known to them. The very conversation between them shows that they are not strangers. This leads me-to infer that by Saramá is meant those Pani-women who with their children had been imprisoned by the Angiras.

The Angiras and their party had compelled these Saramás or messengers to capitulate for them with the Panis. They could not leave their children without making due provisions for them (1-62-3) as they were afraid of being detained by the Panis. Or it may be that the Angiras forced the mothers to go out to the Panis as their messengers and kept the children as hostages for the successful performance of their duty.

It would seem that for some reason or other the study of the Rig Veda was for many centuries forbidden, and so the present confusion about the meaning of the Vedic words. The age of the Puranas evidently had its origin in an attempt to discover the original meaning of those words. In their ignorance of the proper signification of the epithets the commentators thought out gods and goddesses hoping to give a rational explanation of the sacred books. Thus they were led to ascribe to inanimate objects desires and functions which they could never exercise or possess, forgetting that the words in question in the Vedas related to men and their actions. And thus did the age of the Puranas or Mythology come into existence clothing the Vedas with absurdities. Still however in the hands of the Indian scholars like Sáyana and others the Vedas were not wholly divested of their historical garb. But the Western scholars, on the other hand, led by Professor Max Muller, have gone a step further -- they have declared the Vedas to be nothing more than hymns in praise of Nature. Hence the difference in the interpretations of the Rig Veda by the savants of the East and the West. Investing the Vedas with mythical ideas Sáyana has interpreted Saramá to be the Dog-messenger of the gods, while to Max Muller and his followers she is only the storm or the Dawn to suit their theory that the Vedas are but a collection of hymns. In the latter is lost the vestige of historic worth of the Vedas that is still traceable in the former. I am led to discard both these views . I accept the Vedas as a history recording the actions of men-that this -- view is correct will be amply demonstrated in this treatise .

Sukta 108, quoted above,' if properly interpreted, will show that Saramá could have been nothing but a woman. In fact the expressions used therein cannot be correctly and rationally explained except in relation to man. For this and various other reasons I have interpreted Saramá as an imprisoned (or prisoner) Pani (Phoenicians) woman.

Another point worthy of notice in this connection is that all primitive words originally meant objects or things. Abstract or metaphorical meanings, as they implied intellectual development, came in long afterwards. The Rig Veda was composed in the primitive age of words and it was almost impossible for them to have been used metaphorically at that stage. The metaphorical and allegorical interpretation of the Vedas by the Western scholars cannot therefore be considered sound and reasonable.

The Cause of the War

I may now say with Sáyana that the Panis stole the cows of the Angirás or of their friends. The Angirás defeated the Panis with the help of Indra and other powerful allies and regained their cows. I must however admit here that I am not yet certain whether the Panis stole the cows of the Angiras or the Angiras attempted to take by force the cows belonging to the Panis, for the Angiras and their partisans would not unoften seize the cows of others: vide Suktas 6-45-24 and 6-45-32. This shows that the Angiras would ask for cows from Kavitsa and Bribu. Some of the owners would part with their cows without any objection to continue their friendship with the Angiras, but some would object and a fearful strife would ensue. The Angiras would ask the Panis to give them their cows, but they would not do so willingly. So the Angiras sometimes took their cows by force -- vide 1-93-4. Many of the Aryan families were afraid of the Angiras and they would not oppose them. But the Panis were 'rich and powerful and possessed many hill forts and fortified towns: 6-45-9. So they were not afraid to defy Angiras.

In riks 4-93-1 and 1-39-6 the cow is mentioned as in article of food. It is therefore evident that the Angiras were in the habit of taking beef and other meat. I have shown before elsewhere in my Bengali journal the Anjali, (Part 12, Vol. 1) that the Indian Aryans used to take animal food and intoxicating drinks, for which they fought amongst themselves I am not yet sure if the Panis were Aryans, but there is no doubt that they had a terrific quarrel with the flesh eating Angiras and their party for their cows and other cattle

It is now necessary to determine who the Angiras were. They were the principal branch of the Aryans. Rik 2-24-6 describes them as learned. Brahmanspati or Brihaspati was their leader or headman. In rik, 5-101-1 Sáyana interprets Brahmané in relation to the caste or the family. of the Brahmans or the Angiras. This would show that the Brahmans of the later days were no other than the Argiras of the Vedic period. The word Brahmavih occurs in rik 9-33-1 . Sáyana explains it as Mantraíh that is by incantations or the sacred words. According to Pandit Ramanath Sarasvati the word means by the worshippers. Mr. Dutt however following Professor Wilson (and perhaps accepting the reading Nibrahmavih) makes it mean by those who were tenable to accept the mantras, but says in the note that the meaning of the passage is not clear. I think the meaning would be clear enough if the word were taken to denote the Angiras. It should be remembered that according to Sáyana the Brahmans are the descendants of the Angiras.

The Angiras were flesh-eaters whilst the Panis were cowherds. That the flesh-eaters would often oppress the herdsmen can easily be understood. The Panis prepared three kinds of articles of food from the milk of their cows. Sáyana has described them as Ksheer or condensed milk, Dadhi or curd and Chrita or Clarified butter. I think the Persian Panir (cheese) is one of these three preparations. Most probably it is a modification of the first condensed milk. The article was first prepared by the Panis and so the name Panir The Panis not only made these preparations but also traded in them, and hence their love and care of cows and other cattle. Their rivals the Angiras, however, would kill the animals for the sake of their meat. Their interests were thus diametrically opposed and they fought for the cows. I hold the Angiras to have been the aggressors.

I should mention here that to make the various preparations of milk the Panis required earthen pots and therefore knew the art of pottery and other kindred arts for making the requisite tools, etc. They also knew the art of cooking. The god "Chatuh Sringah" that is, having four horns, was nothing but a rod for churning milk and was used for preparing clarified butter. Another instrument was named the Dasa Yantra Utsa (6-44-24) It must have been a sort of lactometer. Different Vedic scholars have explained it differently though. There is however no doubt that the Panis knew how to cook and used to take cooked food. But the Angiras simply roasted their meat and other articles of food before taking them. This operation of roasting was known by such names as Kratu and Yajna, i.e., sacrifice. It may be that particular terms were applied as the occasions were ordinary or special. The Angiras hated the Panis and called them Akratu and Ayajna (that is men who did not perform the sacrifice), as the latter were not in the habit of roasting their articles of food. On the other hand it can easily be imagined that the Panis treated the Angiras with contempt for their sacrificial observances. Such epithets as vain, arrogant, etc., applied to the Panis would show that the feeling of hatred originated with them. The hatred of the Angiras was merely reciprocal The fact that the Panis were More advanced would only confirm my theory.

The Rivals

In ancient times it was impossible for men to live in villages as at present. If they were afraid of the depredations of wild beasts, they were no less afraid of the outrages of human enemies which were yet more violent. For this the custom then was to live in Gosthis that is clans or communities. The Panis formed one such clan and they were further subdivided into houses or families. Each clan or house in those days lived in what is now called a Busti in the Upper Provinces of India. The bustis or localities were known as nagars or towns. The towns were protected by walls or trenches around them. I have already said that the Panis had many towns and forts and also an army. The clans of the Asuras, the Ilbis, the Ahis, the Bals, etc. were friends of the Panis and were opposed to the Angirás, the Agnis, the Bayûs, the Marûts, etc. The war they were engaged in might fittly be called the first Kurukshetra war, I believe all the rising families of ancient India took part in this great fight siding with one or the other party. and I have no doubt that branches of the Dása or the primitive families also had their share in it.

I take Agni, Bayû, Marût and others to represent different families or clans like the Panis. This I could prove not only, from the Rig Veda but from various other ancient works also. It is easy to see that the terms as used in the Suktas of the Vedas refer to men. Their present interpretation to denote natural phenomena or the elements in the various passages in which they occur in the Vedas, is more modern: the words originally meant families of men, but underwent a change in the course of time to acquire their present meaning. Professors Max Alluller, Kuhan and others have tried to fix their meaning tracing them to their root., It should be remembered that the Vedic words had already lost their original impart when their roots were formulated, and an attempt to explain them in the light subsequently obtained could not meet with unqualified success.

The Panis and their party have been mentioned as Adevas (a=no or not, and devas = gods). It is therefore not strange if their animals, and their friends have been called Devas. The word Arya is of comparatively modern origin though it, like the word Dása occurs in several Suktas, and so I cannot agree with those who hold the Vedic war 'to have been a war between Aryans and non-Ayans. The word Arya came to be applied to all the clans including the Panis, the Asuras, the Bals the Angiras and others, at a later period.

The frequent application in the Plirva (old) and nûtana (new) the Rig Veda of the words is worthy of notice, as also the mention of Indra as Yuvá -- a word used to qualify other gods also. According to Mr. Dutt, yuvá in several places young. But I think it means new to distinguish the Indra of later days from the Indra of old. The constant use of these three words -- purva, nútana and yuvá leads me to infer that the Rig Veda contains a description not of one but of two great wars one the Panik or Phoenician and the other the Asúrik or pertaining to the Asúras. The Phoenician war was the earlier of the two and it was in the days when the old rishis or sages flourished: the Asúrik war came after when new rishis appeared. The Indra who figured in the Panik war had riot the distinctive term yuvá which characterised the Indra of the Asurik war. There may be Suktas relating to other wars, but these two lasted long and were the most terrible in those old Verdic days. The Panis were not, however, the only trading people hose old Vedic days. Many other nations and races either singly or jointly all or most traded with the Panis in various parts of the then known world while some families espoused the cause of the Angiras. Perhaps vide 31, 32 and 33 of Sukta 45, mandala 6, relate regarding the Bribus. These Bribus, I think, were no other than the modern Brahui or Brahoe of Beluchistan for which reference may be made to Chamber's Encyclopaedia Vol II, or Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. III. They were skilled carpenters. The Tvastas were a branch of these Bribus, Professor Max Aluller has given an account of the Bribus in Vol. 11 of his "Chips from a German Workshop" According to him they were a family of carpenters from whom the Rhiblús also learnt the art. I think the Rhiblús who were allies of the Angiras learnt the art of carpentry from the Bribus who sided with the Panis. The fact is that all of them were men and not gods. vide Suktas 20 and 40 of the first mandala.

The word Pûshá is mentioned in Sukta 42 of the first Mandala and also in several other Suktas. The Angiras were not acquainted with the whereabouts of the Panis and so sought the help of the Pushas in finding them out. The Pushas were thus the guide of the Angiras. If we eliminate the more modern and the special Suktas we shall find that the Rig Veda is a history of the Panik and the Asurik wars. The gods mentioned in them were friends of one or other of the parties engaged in the wars. They were all different branches of the ancient human race and not gods of the elements, nor deified powers of Nature.

Mutual Hostility

I have already said that the Angiras were hated by the Panis for their sacrificial rites. In fact the hatred was carried so far that the Panis appeared wherever the Angiras performed their sacrifices and caused great disturbances. The Angiras retaliated by seizing and destroying the commodities of butter and cheese of the Panis. The practice of offering up ghee or clarified butter to the sacred fire may be traced to the attempt of the Angiras to burn the ghee they obtained by Plunder from the Panis. In this act the Angiras had had the support of their friends Mitra and Varuna: vide 1-2-7 in which they invoked the latter to their help. Mercilessness in the treatment Of the fallen enemy characterised the spirit of vengeance in those "remote old days. I cannot say that the humanitarian civilisation the present day is without any trace of it. The captives were then kept in dark dungeons strongly bound in chains or cords, in the custody of the Varunas who acted as gaolers and were known as Pasees or Binders. It was the duty of the latter to secure the enemies in the field of battle When conquered and put them in chains. Sometimes they would go out as pirates and surprise their enemies whom they would bring away in chains or cords. In the Suktas 24 and 25 of the first mandala the rihsi is mentioned as Súnah Sep would Sep which would appear to have been used as a general term for the Phoenician prisoners These Suktas describe how they were secured by means of pás, that is, chain or cord. The following passages will help to make me clear: -- "Of the gods of various orders whose graceful name shall I utter? Who will again set me free in this wide world: that I may see my parent "May he (Varuna) chastise the enemy who has pierced my heart." 1-24-28. I pray to you for long life." May the king set us at liberty." 1 24-12.

Unfasten from above, O Varuna, the upper cords that bind us down and the lower ones from below. Loosen also the ties in the middle. We shall then, 0 thou son of Aditi, live sinless without breaking thy vows." 1.24-25.

The above extracts show that those who were thus lamenting and asking for mercy did not know the gods well They only besought him for clemency who they thought could release them. It is therefore clear that lamantations who arose parties of the Adevas (no-gods) were subjected to the cruellest torture when imprisoned by their enemies.

The enemies and their houses were burnt down in retaliation: They (the Angiras) made fire with their own hands and hurled it on to the hills (the hill forts of the Panis), for the destroying fire was not there before." 2-24-7.

"Thou hast burnt to ashes the robber captured from the land of the Deva." I-33-7.

Jealousy and envy brought about a difference in the customs and usages of the opposing parties. I would trace the different modes of writing from right to left and from left to right to the mutual enmity of the Devas and the Adevas -the latter writing from right to left and the former from left to right. The Panis as traders had learnt early the art of writing for which the Devas disliked them. Even the Vedas remained unwritten for many centuries and continued as Srutis being committed to memory and thus handed down from generation to generation. From an aversion to writing anything written was scorned or ridiculed as after the fashion of the Panis or Panisads. Panisad would appear to be the Greek name for Pani. Hence the name " U-Panisad " or " Upanisad" derived from a dislike to writing. In very many riks the term "U" or "Uh" has an interjectional use and is expressive of an emotion of pain or scorn. I think the word Upanisad (Upanishad), is born of scorn for the Panis. It is remarkable that the derivation of this word Upanishad is not yet satisfactorily traced A reference to the authorities extant will bear me out.

The Date of the Panik War

On the date of the civilisation of the world must count from that date. It would at present appear, that history has not recorded any event earlier than this war, and as our early civilisation is mainly related to the Panis and their times the date of this war must be a very important factor in our researches.

I hold with the Panis that they are the first of the a civilised nations of the earth. If they were the first to see the light of civilisation, they did also, under the guidance of Providence; spread that light among various peoples in the ancient world; in fact they carried it from one country into another either to be expelled in the end or to merge themselves in the nationality of the people with whom they came in, contact. The Panis had colonies in Afghanistan, Persia, Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Greece, and their supremacy gained ground in one when it declined in another. It will be enough for me to say for the present that facts are on record which conclusively prove that the Panis at least visited all these countries for purposes of trade and they introduced India to other ancient countries of the world in those days.

Many are the adherents of the theory propounded by the Western scholars that from Central Asia the Aryans migrated to India and the other countries. It is not easy to determine exactly who these Aryans were. I am inclined to think that originally there was no nation bearing that name. The word as used in some of the riks of the Rig Veda does not appear to refer to any particular nation. The word "Aryan" came to be used after the Phoenician War. It is probable that the Angiras and their allies were given that name for their agricultural pursuits. This would nullify the theory of their migration from Central Asia. After the Great War the survivors of the rival parties who were left together formed into a new nation under the name of the Aryans. The word Asura has been repeatedly used in the Rig Veda, and I have already shown elsewhere that

Assyria was named after them to denote the country they lived in. After the war a branch of the great Asura clan passed over into Asia Minor and founded Assyria, In India they as well as their country had been known by the name of Asura This leads me to conclude that it was from India and not from Central Asia that the Aryans -migrated into different lands using the trading ships of the Panis in their travels- a conclusion which dispenses with the theory of their migration overland also.

The Phoenician ships sailed from the coasts of India and entered direct the Mediterranean Sea through the Strait of Suez, for in those remote days Suez was a strait and not an isthmus as it afterwards became through the silting up of the channel. The subsequent closure of the passage not only broke off the communication between the East and the West but also separated the Panis inhabiting the two quarters. Hence it was that long afterwards India appeared as a dream land to the ancient Greeks and other nations. The Panik War had taken place long before the strait of Suez was closed. That Suez was originally a strait will be evidenced by the facts here adduced. The present isthmus is sandy, which shows that there was a time when it formed part of the sea. Geology will bear testimony to this. The following extracts also support my view:

"From hence inland to Heliopolis the country of Egypt is a spacious plain, which, though without water, and on a declivity, is a rich and sandy soil."

Herodotus. Book 11, Chap. VII.

Again: "The greater part of the country (Egypt ) described above, as I was informed by the priests, (and my own observation induced me to be of the same opinion) has been a gradual acquisition to the inhabitants. The country above Memphis, between the hills before mentioned, seems formerly to have been an arm of the sea!'

Ibid. Book II, Chap X Heliopolis forms the basis of the great delta of the Nile in Egypt. To the east and the west of Heliopolis the soil is soft and clayey which conclusively proves that it has been formed by the alluvia of the Nile and that the cities of Heliopolis and Memphis stood in the olden days on the shores of the sea. It is therefore patent -that the entire land to the east and the west in a line from Heliopolis to Memphis was under the sea, the Mediterranean and the Red Seas being connected together by the Strait of Suez. In support of this I quote Prof. Pocock who says, "The soil of Egypt, except what it has received from the overflowing of the Nile, is naturally sandy, it is full of nitre and salt."

I am further confirmed in my statement by Prof. Larcher, for he says: "If it be true, all the country from Memphis to the sea must have been formerly a gulf of the Mediterranean parallel to the Arabian gulf, the land must have been raised up little and little from a deposit of the mud which the water of the Nile carry away with them."

All this would show that there was a time when Suez was under water through which the Phoenician vessels sailed to the Mediterranean, and Heliopolis was an important port of the Panis. It was when Suez was a branch of the sea with Heliopolis on it, or before that age even, that the great Phoenician war broke out. The union between the east and the west broke off as Suez turned into an isthmus.

The Strait of Suez had nearly silted up when Moses crossed the Red Sea and the Israelites safely passed over the shallow water. According to many Moses flourished two thousand years before Christ, and it must have taken two thousand years more for Suez to have filled up. The fact that Heliopolis had then fallen into decay before the growing fame of Memphis, would support this theory. It is said that Menes, the first king of Memphis, founded the city more than four thousand years before Christ, and according to the Greeks the gods of the name of Helios reigned in Egypt long before that date extending over a period of about fourteen thousand years. There can be no doubt that these rulers of Heliopolis, the so called gods Helios, were none other than the Pani of old Heliopolis therefore must have fallen into ruins at least four thousand, if not six thousand years before Christ. It should be noted here that Heliopolis was the cradle of the Egyptian civilisation of which, the Panis were undoubtedly the originators.

According to the Western scholars the Rig Veda was composed in 2000 B.C. As I have already shown the Phoenician war to have taken place in 4000 BC the Rig Veda may safely be assumed to have been 'composed about that time. It should be remembered that the great Book took many years to compile and it is not improbable that a number of the Suktas were composed in 4000 B.C. I would even say that the Pauranic or Poetic Age began two thousand years before Christ. It is not therefore unlikely that the historical part of the Rig Veda was anterior to the Pauranic age by another two thousand years. Mr. Tilak, the well known Mahratta scholar, has, in explaining the astronomical import of a particular Sukta, demonstrated that the Rig Veda was composed six or seven thousand years before Christ. The Phoenician war, as recorded in the Rig Veda, may therefore be referred to a date at least six or seven thousand years before the Christian era, if not earlier.


With a few words more I shall conclude the subject. In every nation or race, old or new, civilised or uncivilised, war-songs have been handed down from generation to generation. The small stock of songs that the wild hill tribes possess is only a collection of war-songs Colonel Todd's history of Rajasthan is based on such songs. In fact the songs of Bháts or eulogists, so well known in this country were current even in the Vedic age, and I have no hesitation in affirming that in war-songs and songs of victory the Rig Veda had its origin, at least they form the bulk of the great work. The old war songs of ancient India composed the true Rig Veda and many other songs on various subjects came to be added to them I subsequently The Rig Veda is thus not a collection of hymn and anthems but of war songs recording the primitive history of the world. It may therefore be concluded that the first history of each nation or race of man began with war songs.

I have in the previous section already mentioned the city of Heliopolis of Egypt. In Greek "Heliopolis" means "the city of the sun. In India also there was an ancient city of that name which would appear to have belonged to some family of the Panis. A city or town in those days would be named after the family or clan that inhabited it, and so the clan of the Heliopolis named their towns after their own wherever they went. This I conclude from the name Ilibis which occurs in the Rig Veda, the word being only another form of Heliopolis. All the towns of the name of Heliopolis -in India, in Egypt, or elsewhere were founded by the llibis.

Modern Morea in Greece had for its ancient name Peloponnesus which I think originally meant palli or residence of the Panis. That Greece was not unknown to the people of ancient India has been very ably shown by Prof. Pococke in his work "India in Greece." In fact the fame of India was carried throughout the ancient world by such races as the Ilibis, the Panis, the Bals, the Asuras and others.

If may be safely affirmed that Balkh, Baalbek and other ancient cities bearing similar names were founded by the Bals. We know from the Rig Veda itself that the north west of ancient India was inhabited by these races who used to fight amongst themselves. The Rig Veda is therefore not only a history of ancient India but of the antire ancient world, and so the whole human race is interested in its correct and proper exposition. And as more light is thrown on the subject new truths will be discovered in the various branches of human knowledge. For this purpose it is necessary that the great work should be translated in the different languages of the world.

When in the old days the isthmus of Suez was a strait connecting the Red Sea with the Mediterranean not only was there an exchange of merchandise between the countries on either side but also of thoughts and experiences. With the closing up of the passage such exchange ceased and the nations and races grew up independently each in its own way, the western nations making rapid progress in material prosperity and the eastern in spiritual. Many centuries after Suez has again been opened up to renew the lost connection between the east and the west to fulfil the purposes of a beneficent Providence.

As Bháts or eulogists in the present days sing in praise of heroes and dynasties, so in the old days the Rig Veda was sung by the Rishis or sages and the assembled people heard with rapture the glories of their forefathers. In explanation of the discontinuance of the Vedic songs and psalms in India I can only say what I myself think on the subject. In many places of the Rig Veda mention is made of bovine food which the antagonists of the Panis were in the habit of taking. I am not sure if the word at first meant cattle generally, but it is certain that subsequently it represented the cows only. And it is easy to conceive how the study of the Rig Veda came to be interdicted as containing obnoxious passages when cow-killing was considered a great sin at least in the Pauranic age. In fact the Rig Veda fell into disuse with the introduction of the worship of the cow, nay the unfortunate householder who dared to possess the work was cursed to death from thunder and lightning. The result was that at last not only the doomed Rig Veda, but the entire Vedas fell into oblivion leaving behind only an unshaken veneration for them in the minds of people of the country.

Professor Sergi holds that the ancient civilisation of Europe is derived from the coasts of Mediterranean and he doesn't accept the theory that the Aryan civilization was the first and most ancient in the scale. I believe I have been able to show in this examination of the Rig Vida -- which is a repository of facts not action -- that it was not from Central Asia, as is ordinary supposed, but from India -- the land of Ilibis, the Panis, the Asuras, the Angiras and others -- that the light of civilisation spread far and wide to wake up the whole world to progress and enlightenment.


The Phoenicians derived their name from Phoenicia, meaning the inhabitants of Phoenicia. The diphthong oe in the word shows that with the sound of o (as in order) it should read as Phonicia and with the sound of e as Phënicia. It is thus clear that by some the word was pronounced as Phënicia, and Phonicia had its origin in Phonis. The pronunciation of P and Ph are so closely allied that it is not unoften that the one takes the place of the other Ph is P hard. The conclusion therefore is that Panis is only a different form of Phonis and the Panis of old were known as the Phoenicians in later days. In fact the word Phoenician has sprung from the word Panis which was the original name of the race. The country inhabited by the Panis came to be known as Pânisé Pânisia -- transformed into Phönicia or Phoenicia, and as time went on the inhabitants of Phoenicia were called Phoenicians instead of Panis.

Two eminent scholars of the day have already expressed their opinion off the subject of this treatise regarding the historical aspect of the vedas. I append them below as they may encourage others like me in this interesting study.

1. Translation of a letter in Bengali addressed to the author by Mr. R. C. Dutt, member of the Indian Civil Service:

I have read your assay on the Panic War. I am glad to see the scholarship and research you have brought to bear on the subject.

I see nothing improbably in the theory that there was a race called Pani or Panis, that the Indian Aryan seized their cows and that many of the suktas of the Rig Veda were composed to record historical events. In fact your exposition seems more plausible than that of Prof. Max Muller. But I am unable to decide which of these two expositions is correct: indeed I cannot say if it is possible to come to a decision on the subject after so many thousand years.

To what nation or race did the Panis belong, if they were really men? You say they were Phoenicians. A good many proofs are wanted before the statement can be accepted. That the Phoenicians always came to ancient India by the land route: that they quarreled and fought with the Indian Aryans, and that the latter knew them as Panis: or, that the Phoenicians have in their own works mentioned the Aryans living on the banks of the Indus -- these are conclusions which require to be amply demonstrated. I do not say that your theory is a groundless one, but still it is only a theory for the present. Hundreds of hill tribes inhabited Afghanistan, and it s not improbable that they quarrelled with the Indian Aryans for cattle (cows), and that some of them were referred to as the Panis in the Suktas of the Vedas.

I cannot accept your meaning of the word Saramá as correct. It may be taken to mean the Dawn even if the word Pani signifies some hill tribe or a trading people -- "at dawn of day the Aryans discovered the concealed cows and recovered them with the help of Indra."

There can however be no doubt that the word go means cows if your interpretation of the word Pani be correct.

Sd. Romesh Chunder Dutt
May 1, 1902

[The Phoenicians dwelt in some part of Afghanistan long before they colonised Phoenicia, and the wars described in the Vedas refer to those days. Defeated in those wars or for some other reasons they migrated westward and founded the colony of Phoenicia. Or it may be that Phoenicia was their principal colony in those remote Vedic days, and after their defeat in the wars referred to in the sacred books they removed there for good. Mr. Dutt's suggestion, therefore, that the Phoenicians came to India by land, is not borne out by my conclusions -- Author.]

2. The following appeared in the columns of the Indian Mirror (Calcutta), of the 22nd May 1902, from the pen of the eminent Sanscrit scholar Prof. Satis Chandra Acharya Vidyabhusan M. A. of the Presidency College (Calcutta):

" It was nearly ten years ago that I marked with surprise several passages in the Rig Veda (as for instance, in Mandala VI, Sukta 53) where the word Pani repeatedly occurred. Looking into the commentary of Sayanacharya, I found the word Pani interpreted as Vaninj, a merchant. In the Chapter on Unádi suffixes in Panini's Sanskrit Grammar, the word Vanij was found to be derived from the root Pan. I then suspected that the word Pani, meaning a merchant and occurring in the Rig Veda, might refer to the Phoenician race. Eventually I gave expression to the fact in several places, and lately in the introduction to my edition of Kachchayana's Pali Grammar. I expressed my view on the subject With great diffidence. Now I am very glad to find my view confirmed by our learned friend; Babu Rajeswar Gupta, Head Master of the Rangpore Normal School, and Editor of Anjali, who has published a long and interesting article on the subject in the Chaitra number of his journal. The article is an admirable one and is a product of deep researches into the Vedic literature. It reflects great credit on the scholarship of the writer and has brought to light some very important facts of earliest history."

Published by Jogendra Mohan Gupta, 1904.
Printed by Sanyal and Co. at the Bharat Miihir Press
25, Roy Bagan Street

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Guest - 11-02-2008

<!--QuoteBegin-ramana+Oct 28 2008, 09:25 PM-->QUOTE(ramana @ Oct 28 2008, 09:25 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Oct 27 2008, 07:16 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Oct 27 2008, 07:16 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->We want the thread for longer time

After 10 pages it will be difficult to save as single page format. May be can split it at ten pages for starting the next thread.

ramana, whenever the threads are split, for important topics, they get split at 10 pages. Also they (even the locked ones) stay in there for a while longer before moving to trash.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 11-05-2008

Google queries on AIT

<span style='color:blue'>
Latest Searches Leading to this Doc
hypothetical aryan invasion
serbs as descendants of japheth
'aryan invasion' for teaching in middle school
foreign theories on asian and europe's scientific dominance
recent developments aryan invasion theory
political aspects of the aryan invasion debate
aryan in europe history
the indo european theory does not hold
how did we find out about the aryans?
philosophical framework of aryans
the aryans scribd
problems of theories of aryans criticism of origin of homeland theories of aryans
aryan serbs
historical invasion + russia + migration
indian genes with europe relation
aryan invasion theory support
alternate theory on destruction of the tower of babel
r1a1 lithuania india
what activities where the indo-aryans involved

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - acharya - 11-08-2008

A Grammar of Modern Indo-European

<b>This is a renewed effort to systematize the reconstructed phonology and morphology of the Proto-Indo-European language into a modern European language.

The reasons for which the Greek language and writing should again become international and official protocol of European Union

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - ramana - 11-08-2008

H.G. Wells in his "Outline History of the World" speculates that the Jewish people in various parts of the ancient world were actually Phoenicians. Very fascinating article where in the root Panis- means Vanij or merchants. And Phoenicians were the number one traders.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Husky - 11-16-2008

Some related stuff:

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>What Genetics can say about the diversity of Indians, and refutation of the Aryans coming from overseas</b>
nov 8th, 2008

michel danino has written a survey of recent genetic research, which seems to comprehensively reject the aryan invasion theory, and alas, even my copyrighted aryan tourist theory.
(But I wanted to make money off these aryan tourists.... Then again, try as I might, I've never seen any, so it's no loss.)

unfortunately, michel has asked that this not be circulated without his permission. it appeared in the bulletin of the indian archaeological society in 2006. here is an excerpt from the conclusions.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->See at link.

<b>India's Aborigines?</b>
The IHT (European-based sister to NYT) has a piece on adivasis, calling them India's Aborigines.
Gee, I didn't realize that the rest of us weren't native to India. How glad I am that the NYT/IHT have enlightened me by informing me that I come from nowhere, since as a non-adivasi I can't possibly be native to Indian soil. The Atlanticists never seem to quit expanding their revisionism. The more India rises, the more feverishly they seem to pick at it.
Posted by san at 11/10/2008 03:44:00 PM 2 comments <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Well, neither kind of WASPCy is native to the soil they're in now.

Picts are the aboriginal Brits and they were persecuted and genocided by every other invader to the British Isles: the Celts, the Romans, and the Vikings (and IIRC, the Anglo-Saxons too).
According to the IE fantasy all invaders of Britain invaded there way later than any of the ancient <i>alleged</i> 'non-aboriginals' (the oryans-dravidiods) allegedly moved into India. So invader Brits ought to get out of the Isles. It's Pict land. Only Stephen Oppenheimer's unOryan ancestry for many British can save them now. (Which will IHT choose: unOryanness or Get Out of Britain?)
And christosettlers in the Americas (WASPCies, SW European Catholics et al) need to get lost from the Stolen Continent. It's an indisputable fact that the native Americans are the true and only inhabitants of the Americas. European christosettlers in the US are proven invaders and of proven genocider stock.

Meanwhile, none of this has any bearing on Hindus. For all the christian whining against us, they've still been entirely unable to prove us to be non-indigenous to our mother (Bharatam). Girijan Hindus are indigenous to Bharatam as are all other kinds of ethnically Indian Hindus. We're all the aborigines of Bharatam. Christos in IHT behave like christomedia in India: hurling accusations against Hindus but never giving any evidence. Someone should sue them to get them to <i>prove</i> the AIT and the Dravidian theory and the Adivasi theory and oh yeah, the IE theory.

About the IHT,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Established in Paris in 1887, today the IHT is owned by The New York Times Company and continues to expand the reach of its authoritative journalism through the newspaper which is sold in 180 countries and via computers and mobile devices at

The New York Times Company (NYSE: NYT), a leading media company with 2007 revenues of $3.2 billion, includes The New York Times, the International Herald Tribune, The Boston Globe, 15 other daily newspapers, WQXR-FM and more than 50 web sites, including, and <b></b>. The Company's core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and distributing high-quality news, information and entertainment.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Husky - 11-26-2008

3 things related to AIT and therefore naturally concerning christianism:

1. This is very interesting. From "HISTORY OF HINDU-CHRISTIAN ENCOUNTERS
AD 304 TO 1996" by the lovely SitaRam Goel.
Note the evolution of Muir: the effect that encountering Samskritam and Hindu arguments against christianism eventually had on him. This sort of transformation from evangelical terrorist into doubter of sorts was not uncommon, and must have been a source of worry for Britain's own christoterrorists (just as was the native American traditional society which kept swallowing European settlers because it was so superior to christoterrorist society):
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>10 Encounter with Sanskrit Pandits</b>
Yet another dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity was held from 1839 to 1845.  It is particularly interesting because it took place through the medium of Sanskrit.  John Muir (1810-1882) published the first draft of his MataparikshA in 1839 and the final in 1840.  It drew three rejoinders from Hindu Pandits.  SomanAtha, whose real name was Subaji Bapu, published his MatataparIkshAsikshA in 1839.  Harachandra TarkapañchAnana came out with his MataparIkshottara in 1840.  NIlakaNTha Goreh reacted somewhat late and published his ShAstratattvavinirNaya at the end of 1844.


The enterprise continued till long after Carey was dead.  <b>Such, indeed, is the exuberance and flexibility of this language and its power of compounding words,  M. Monier-Williams would write in 1861,  that when it has been, so to speak, baptised and thoroughly penetrated with the spirit of Christianity, it will probably be found, next to Hebrew and Greek, the most expressive vehicle of Christian truth. 4</b>
(Why christoterrorists want to steal Samskritam.)
Yet another dialogue between Hinduism and Christianity was held from 1839 to 1845.  It is particularly interesting because it took place through the medium of Sanskrit.  John Muir (1810-1882) published the first draft of his MataparikshA in 1839 and the final in 1840.  It drew three rejoinders from Hindu Pandits.  SomanAtha, whose real name was Subaji Bapu, published his MatataparIkshAsikshA in 1839.  Harachandra TarkapañchAnana came out with his MataparIkshottara in 1840.  NIlakaNTha Goreh reacted somewhat late and published his ShAstratattvavinirNaya at the end of 1844.
These learned men believed sincerely that Hindus honoured certain doctrines simply because they were expressed in Sanskrit.  It never occurred to any of them that Hindus honoured those doctrines no less when they were stated in other languages.  Long before Carey and his tribe appeared on the Indian scene, the Alvars, the Nayanars, the Siddhas, the Sants and the Bhaktas had produced a prolific literature in all Indian vernaculars, expounding the same spiritual truths as the earlier spiritual seekers had done in Sanskrit.  All this vernacular literature was held by Hindus in equal reverence.  The missionary conviction that Hindus will buy the abomination that is Christianity if it is wrapped up in Hindu forms, persists in our own days.  The missionary mind has so far failed to grasp the simple truth that what Hindus find fundamentally objectionable in Christianity is its doctrine.  The objection will not disappear because that doctrine is stated in Sanskrit or dressed in an ochre robe.5<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Interesting bit at the end:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Impact of MataparIkshA Controversy on Muir</b>

Muir revised his MataparIkshA once more between 1852 and 1854 when he returned to Scotland.  Then he gave up writing in Sanskrit and took to publishing Original Sanskrit Texts.  The materials in these still standard books never betray the author s original purpose in amassing them: to demonstrate that Christianity is rationally superior to Hinduism. 39 Sanskrit studies had a beneficial effect on Muir and he no more regarded the language as a  golden casket full of pebbles and trash.  The contents of Sanskrit texts now so fascinated him that he endowed a Chair of Sanskrit Language, Literature, Philosophy and Comparative Philology at the University of Edinburgh in 1862.

Muir also moved away from Evangelism and towards the Broad Church movement which thought that  Christian doctrine was sorely out of alignment with modern science.  He now believed that  the Bible could not be exempted from the rigorous philological and historical analysis to which he had subjected the Vedas.  In 1861, Muir published his Brief Examination of Prevalent Opinions on the Inspiration of the Old and New Testaments.  He found that both had mutual discrepancies besides several other shortcomings.  The introduction to this book was written by H. B. Wilson who said that it  clearly reveals the impact of the Matapariksha Controversy upon Muir s belief in the Bible.  Muir himself wrote,  We may be assured that as Christianity comes into actual close contact with Orientals of acute intellects it will be met with a style of controversy which will come upon some among us with surprise.  Many things will be disputed which we have been accustomed to take for granted, and proofs will be demanded, which those who have been brought up in the external evidence school of the last century, may not be prepared to supply. 40

Muir continued to believe for some time that Christianity had an immeasurably superior message in the sphere of morality.  But after a few years he gave-up that belief also  admitting that Christian virtues are neither superior to others nor sui genesis.  In 1879, he published Metrical Translations from Sanskrit Writers in which  didactic passages from Indian literature were juxtaposed with others from Biblical and classical Greek authorities.  He concluded,  These sentiments and observations are the natural expression of the feelings and experiences of Universal humanity; and the higher and nobler portion of them cannot he regarded as peculiarly Christian. 41<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Actually, good to read the entire page at the link. In fact, the entire book - in case anyone here hadn't yet (I hadn't).

2. Why west/christoterrorism needs the AIT/belief in Oryans (Indo-Europods):
Yahoo question via VivekaJyoti:
<b>Goan Christians, how do you feel about your ancestors being tortured to accept Christianity?</b>
Look at how the lying christoterrorists have to resort to using their fabled Japhetic-Hamitic horror story "AIT" in order to get their discomfitted terrorist selves out of historical facts.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>I wonder why Universities in America would teach kids racism and animosity where there was and is none</b>

Geeta Athreya's letter on <b>Portland State University's version of Ramayana</b>

From: Geeta Athrey
Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2008 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: The Portland Ramayana

Dear Ms. Carr,

I wonder why Universities in America would teach kids racism and animosity where there was and is none. I am a South Indian -- Tamilian to be very precise. Wonder how much you know what it is to be Tamilan born in Madras in Tamilnadu. I have never heard through out my life -- I am pretty old -- your <b>Aryan invasion into the South story and depicting the South Indians as Bad Monkeys</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->My family's from TN too and no more/no less a monkey than other Hindus/Indians/humans.

I'm surprised christo(conditioned) DMK is not offended by their christo brethren in Portland State University assuming the "Dravidians" are all Hamites/monkeys. What am I saying - of course, DMK-ites would rather play the assigned role of the unevolved untermenschen in the Japhetic-Hamitic christian myth which they so cherish, than be part of the humanity of Hindu Dharma and Hindu Epics.
Status of untermensch always did appeal to the converted native.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 12-25-2008

Book Review: The Rigveda and the Avesta - the final evidence,
By S G Talageri
Aditya Prakashan New Delhi 2008
Review by S Kalyanaraman

Part 1:
Part 2: (with particular reference to critique of Witzel's unscholarly, unethical, dishonest, abusive, flip-flops)


Witzel is angry!

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->From: Michael Witzel <>
To: Indo-Eurasian_research
Cc: Michael Witzel; mkelkar2003; kalyan97@
Subject: Re: Review of Talageri (2008) by S. Kalyanaraman

Dear List,

Our (former) list member Kelkar (who is "specializing" in cutting and pasting snippet from linguistic articles as to "prove" his Out of India theories) has sent us the message quoted below some 2 weeks back. I now have a moment to deconstruct it, for your late weekend delectation.

(More serious stuff to follow on Monday or so.)

This is a "book review" of a new book by the "Out of India" proponent S. Talageri  by our old friend, the ardent Hindutva proponent, Dr. K.

From what appears in his copious quotations from the book, it is a continuation of the uninformed and hare-brained theories proposed by T. earlier (1993, 2000). And, as always, hailed and actually aided by the Belgian Hindutva fan K. Elst (who also had praised the Indus signs 'decipherment' by Rajaram, before we picked it apart on the old INDOLOGY list (Liverpool) in 2000.

The following quotes from T.'s new elaboratum, however, are enough to cast aside this book just like its predecessors. (I may, perhaps?, write something on it once I have received it.)

For the moment just a few remarks -- for a perfect end to this weekend.  Have fun:

* The Rgveda in 3400 –  2200 BCE -- is of course impossible as it is full of horses and chariots, which were invented (in the Ural area, or Mesopotamia as some maintain) only around 2000 BCE. The steppe animal, the horse, was introduced into South Asia only around 1800 BCE (and similarly into the Ancient Near East)

That alone is enough to throw out T's dating of his three layers of the RV (which even *as such* are wrong: books 3 and 7 can by no means be shown to be early; they belong to the end of the Bharata conquests under Sudas and are preceded by the books mentioning his ancestors, such as  books 4, 6).

* The funny thing about this book, just as about its predecessors (see quotes in EJVS 2001 @@)  is the absolute certainty ("the only  possible conclusion" ... ) with which T. makes his statements.

One may think of a 19th c. German professor, not a 21st c. writer <b>(who is, BTW, not a specialist but a bank clerk... What is it about Indian bank employees like Dr. (Manila) K.  and retired mathematicians/science people like Rajaram to become 'historians' and 'linguists' at the drop of a hat?)</b>

If T. is that sure, why to write another book about the same subject matter as in his 1993 and 2000 elaborata?

It seems that the active help of K. Elst with this book has not helped T. to change his preconceived ideas about an origin of the RV and of all Indo-Europeans deep in the bosom of Mother India... This is AW. Schlegel of 1808, not the 21st century.

* As for our friend Dr K., opining his own views in the last few lines of this 'review.'  We all know that he has deciphered the Indus signs several times over, and always they are about smiths and metals, notably: his ingenious identification of the Soma plant with  ... electrum. Hard to swallow, that mineral...

He repeats the same below, and adds the long-refuted nonsense about Shivalingas etc. (well: small pillars between three bricks, for positioning cooking pots).

* All of that fantasy is crowned by his proposal of a mleccha vaacas (wrong for Skt. vacas or: vaak!) which somehow should explain the origin of Dravidian and Munda ... in a "linguistic area called Bharatam": idam bharatam janam of RV 3.53.12. Well, the author of that hymn (Vishvamitra, or rather his descendants) speaks about the tribe and king by whom he has been hired: Sudaas of the Bharata, a small tribe (that overcame others) and "settled" in the Kuruksetra area NW of Delhi. So Dr K.' linguistic area is confined to Haryana State, and not all of modern India (Bhaarat) + Pakistan + Bangla Desh, etc.

No end to Hindutvavadin fantasies... Nice, however, to see how hey disagree with each other.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 12-27-2008

<span style='color:red'>Hindu nationalist approaches to the Aryan invasion hypothesis</span>

<b>(1) Acceptance of the AIT</b>

A number of Hindu nationalists have accepted the AIT. Most prominent among them is Hindu nationalist seed ideologue Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. In his influential booklet Hindutva ("Hinduness"), he wrote of how migrations had ?welded Aryans and non-Aryans into a common race? (1923:8) and how ?not even the aborigines of the Andamans are without some sprinkling of the so-called Aryan blood in their veins and vice-versa? (1923:56). This way, he rejected the divisive implication of the AIT that India was composed of several distinct nations, arguing instead that they had biologically mingled and culturally fused into a single Hindu nation. Like his leftist opponent Jawaharlal Nehru, he accepted that the nation was a product of historical processes, not an age-old God-given essence. There is no organic link between Savarkar?s positions on nationalism and ancient history: as a non-specialist, he merely accepted the dominant paradigm and tried to accommodate it into his political views. But note at any rate, all you who identify OIT with Hindutva, that the founder of the Hindutva ideology was an AIT believer.

Sharply to be distinguished from Hindu nationalists, who are modernists and social reformers for the sake of national unity, there is also a dwindling school of Hindu traditionalists. Among them, you find pandits who are steeped in Sanskritic lore and have never even heard of an Aryan invasion, which is after all unattested in Vedic literature. The one traditionalist who must be mentioned here as accepting the AIT was a Western ?honorary Hindu?, the French musicologist Alain Dani鬯u (1971, 1975), companion of the traditionalist leader Swami Karpatri. Here again, there is no organic link between his Hindu-traditionalist view of society and his historical beliefs, which were borrowed wholesale from the dominant Western school of thought.

The most well-known Hindu nationalist to actively support the AIT and explore its implications was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, an Indian National Congress leader in the early 20th century. His chronology, worked out in dialogue with Hermann Jacobi (and still upheld by archaeo-astronomers, e.g. Kak 2003), was sharply incompatible with the currently dominant theory: he put the Rg-Veda ca. 4000 BC rather than 1500 BC (Tilak 1893, 1903). If the Vedas were that old, the invasion would have to be pushed back accordingly, as the Vedic geographical setting is obviously South-Asian; but Tilak solved this problem by having the Vedic seers compose their hymns far outside India, in an Indo-European homeland situated in the Arctic region. Except for a handful of European rightist non-scholars, nobody takes this eccentric scenario seriously anymore, not even the Tilak loyalists in Maharashtrian Brahmin circles which happen to be the cradle of both the Savarkarite and RSS-BJP strands within the Hindu nationalist movement. All the same, Tilak?s acceptance of a version of the AIT again disproves the identification of the OIT with Hindu nationalism.

<b>(2) Rejection of the AIT</b>

Few among the Hindu nationalists have really studied the relevant evidence. Some even reject the whole notion of historical evidence as pertinent to this question. From Jaimini's Mimansa (BCE) down to Arya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda's Satyartha Prakash (ca. AD 1875), a school of Vedic scholars has believed that the Vedas were not a human creation, but were created by the Gods aeons ago and then revealed in complete form to the Vedic seers. Oddly, for people who held the Vedas in such awe, their theory flies in the face of the Vedic testimony itself: unlike the Quran, the Vedas never take the form of a statement by God addressing man. Instead, they take the form of hymns in which man is addressing the Gods. The names of the seers composing the hymns are also given, and they are put in a historical context, often with their mutual relations, genealogical kinship and faction feuds detailed in the texts themselves. Moreover, a number of presumably historical events are described or alluded to, most famously the Battle of the Ten Kings. All this points to the historicity of the Vedas: they came about as a creation of human poetry in a specific society at a specific phase in its development. But Vedic enthusiasts like Dayananda and to a lesser extent Sri Aurobindo Ghose chose to disregard this information and reinterpreted all these mundane data as spiritual metaphor. Though they also happened to reject the invasion hypothesis, they excluded the Vedic information as possible source of evidence for their own indigenist position. Aurobindo?s correct observation (1971:242-251) that the Vedas contain no mention of an Aryan invasion, thereby loses its force.

After Aurobindo's death, his otherwise loyal secretary K.D. Sethna (1982, 1992) abandoned this position and started using Vedic data on material culture to argue the chronological precedence of Rg-Vedic over high Harappan culture, e.g. that the Harappan cultivation of cotton goes unmentioned in the older Vedic layers so that its early-Harappan introduction must coincide with some mid-Vedic date. More perhaps than the archaeologists? acknowledged inability to discover any remains of an Aryan invasion (Shaffer 1984, Rao 1991, Lal 1987, 2002, etc.), Sethna?s theses truly were the opening shot in the Hindu nationalist mobilization against the AIT. Within the Aurobindo circle, this work was continued by Danino & Nahar 2000.

Since Sethna?s publications, many Hindu authors of divergent levels of qualification have felt emboldened to contribute to the anti-invasionist argument. Some of them lose themselves in projects they are not up to, such as the decipherment of the Indus script, but in matters of textual interpretation and of matching archaeological and genetic data with cultural history, they are often better equipped than their invasionist opponents. Those who care to read this literature, will notice how it belies its characterization by hostile commentators as ?far-rightist? and the like. It actually taps into the discourse of anti-colonialism, anti-racism and anti-orientalism (e.g. Rajaram 1995, 2000), which most Westerners would spontaneously describe as leftist. A lone Indian Marxist (Singh 1995) has also contributed to the anti-invasionist argument, predictably focusing on material and economic data suggesting Harappan-Aryan continuity, and thus upholding the more usual Third World Marxist tradition of anti-colonialism as opposed to the Indian card-carrying Marxists? championing of the colonial view of history.


The political instrumentalization of theories about Indo-European origins has yielded coalitions of strange bedfellows. On the side of the hypothesis of an Aryan invasion of India, we find old colonial apologists and race theorists and their marginalized successors in the contemporary West along with a broad alliance of anti-Hindu forces in India, most articulate among them the Christian missionaries and the Marxists who have dominated India?s intellectual sector for the past several decades. This dominant school of thought has also carried along some prominent early votaries of Hindu nationalism. On the side of the non-invasionist or Aryan-indigenist hypothesis, we find long-dead European Romantics and a few contemporary Western India lovers, along with an anti-colonialist school of thought in India, mainly consisting of contemporary Hindu nationalists. Obviously, among the subscribers to either view we also find scholars without any political axe to grind. And even in the writings of politically motivated authors, we do come across valid argumentations. Consequently, it is best to continue this research without getting sidetracked by the real or alleged or imagined political connotations of certain scholarly lines of argument.

(from The Politics of the Aryan Invasion Debate By Dr. K Elst.)

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 01-04-2009

<b>Demolished once for all: Aryan Invasion Theory</b>
Virendra Parekh
4 January 2009

"An unknown Indian has taken on proponents of the Aryan invasion/migration theory, demolished their case, and established that northern India is the original home of the Aryans and the Indo-European family of languages. The importance of this remarkable achievement cannot be exaggerated. In course of time, it can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian but also world civilization."

That was Girilal Jain in his masterful review of Shrikant G. Talageri's 'Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism,' published in 1993. Since then, Talageri, a not-so-unknown Indian now, has come up with two more works. His 'The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis' (2000) established that Vedic Aryans were inhabitants of the area to the east of Punjab, traditionally known as Aryavarta; that the region of Saptasindhu formed the western periphery of their activities and that the Aryans migrated from the east to the west within India and beyond it. For this, he relied solely on a detailed analysis of the Rigveda.

His latest book, "The Rigveda and the Avesta: the Final Evidence," seeks to prove conclusively beyond all reasonable doubt that India was the original homeland of the Indo-European family of languages, that the Rigvedic people were settled in areas around and to the east of the Sarasvati river in at least the third millennium BCE if not earlier, that the proto-Iranians who later became Zoroastrians were settled in the areas to the west of the Vedic Aryans, and that both started expanding westward around that period.

As the name of the book suggests, Talageri collects, collates and compares a massive amount of evidence from the Rigveda and the Avesta and also marshals undisputed recorded facts from Mesopotamian history about the Mitanni and the Kassites to support his conclusions. He relies on non-controversial data such as names of people, animals and places, and on the provenance and numerical frequency of their occurrences, rather than subjective interpretations of esoteric texts.

We teach our children even today as settled facts that nomadic Aryans invaded/migrated to India around 1500 BCE, destroyed the Indus Valley culture and began what is known as the Vedic Age, and produced Rigveda around 1200 BCE. However, this is only a theory, and an extremely weak one at that.

That there is not a shred of evidence for it in either the ancient literature or archaeology, that it is based on nothing more solid than some striking similarities among the Indo-European languages, that there is an overwhelming body of solid evidence against it, and that even the linguistic data supporting it can be better explained by an alternative opposite theory, has not daunted its proponents who are deeply entrenched in the academia, media and, worst of all, in politics.

Originally cooked up by 19th century European scholars to serve the interests of India's colonial masters, the theory has now been appropriated by current political ideologies whose sole purpose is to keep India weak, divided and confused. It is used to deepen and exploit regional, linguistic and racial cleavages in Indian society, deny nativity and originality to Hindu civilization, and justify later invasions: if Aryans came from outside, how can the Hindus cavil at Muslim or European invaders?

This is not the first time that the Aryan Invasion Theory has been disproved. It has been demolished several times over in the past. Talageri's specialty is that he uses only objective, non-controversial and verifiable data from ancient texts to support his conclusions.

Talageri's point of departure is the internal chronology of the Rigveda. The Rigveda, the oldest book in the world and the most primary source of knowledge about ancient India, consists of 1028 hymns divided in ten Books, or Mandalas. The composition of these hymns, their collation and compilation in the present form, must have been a gradual process stretching over a vast geographical expanse, spanning several centuries if not millennia, and involving generations of seers, kings and other actors.

The Rigveda itself provides strong and massive internal evidence that all of it was not composed at the same time. There is general agreement among scholars that Books II to VII, known as family books, are older, whereas Books I, VIII, IX and X came later. The family books are composed either entirely (as in the case of Book VI) or almost entirely (as in Books III and VII) by seers of a single family; or entirely (as in Books IV and II) by the members of a single family with a few hymns composed by a family related to them; and they use simple meters.

But among the family books, Book V is regarded as the latest. Descendants of composers of other family books are composers of hymns in this Book; and although it belongs to the Atri family, it has composers from as many as six families. In meters, it uses mainly four-line Anushtup in preference to the three-line Gayatri which is more prominent in older family books; the five-line Pankti meter makes its appearance here. These characteristics become stronger in later Books. Book I, VIII, IX and X, for instance, each has hymns composed by seers from many families, and uses not only the five-line Pankti, but also the six-line Mahapankti and the seven-line Sakvari. And personalities and events of the earlier Books are referred to as belonging to the distant past and so on.

In 'The Rigveda: A Historical Analysis,' Talageri has analysed the internal evidence in great detail and established the detailed chronological order of all ten Books as follows: Books VI, III and VII are the oldest (Early Books), followed by Books II and IV (Middle Books) and then come Books V, I, VIII, IX and X (Late Books) in that order.

However, his argument in the present book is not dependent on this detailed chronology. The generally accepted division by scholars of the ten Books into Old Books (II, III, IV, VI, VII), and Late Books (I, V, VIII, IX and X) is enough to support his argument.

That argument can be simply stated. Rigveda and Avesta have a lot in common-names of people, animals, meters, geography. However, the Early Books of Rigveda have very little in common with Avesta, while the Middle Books have a little more. But it is the Late Books of Rigveda that have a lot in common with Avesta, pointing to a period of contemporary development.

Take just one example. The Early Books have few Iranian names: two related kings (Abhyavartin Cayamana, Kavi Cayamana), one priest (Kavasa) and four tribes (Prthu/Parthava, Parsu/Parsava, Paktha and Bhalanas). All these names occur only in three hymns; none of these names of persons or tribes finds any reference in the Middle or Late Books. The three hymns pertain to the historical battles in the Early period and these names refer to enemy Iranians then located in the eastern and central Punjab. Besides, there is a hymn which mentions a sage Usana and his father Kavi Bhargava who played a very important role in the later mythology built on Indo-Iranian conflicts. All these names have equivalents in the Avesta.

In the Middle Books, we find names of four sages, which are not mentioned at all in the Early Books, but find numerous mentions in the Middle and the Late Books and are referred to in Avesta as well. They are: Turviti, Gotama, Trita and Krsanu; in the Avesta they are called Taurvaeti, Gaotama, Thrita and Keresani. All these personalities are Vedic and pre-Zoroastrian. Taurvaeti in the Avesta is an early figure, the father or the ancestor of Fracya (Yast 13.115). Thrita is specifically mentioned in Yasna 9.10 as an ancient personality belonging to a period far earlier to Pourushaspa, the father of Zarathustra.

But the main case rests on dozens of names and name-elements common to the Rigveda and the Avesta. These Vedic name elements like asva, ayana, rta, rna, atithi, brhad, ratha, syava, sura, and names such as Yama, Krishna, Aptya, Vrsni, Varaha, Vivasvat, Atharvan, Kashyapa have their equivalents in the earliest parts of the Avesta, but they are found exclusively in the Late Books and hymns of the Rigveda, and in later Vedic and Sanskrit texts.

To sum up, the Early and Middle Books have only 8 hymns containing these name-elements common to Avesta, and all eight of these hymns are identified as late or interpolated by ancient text Aitareya Brahmana or by western scholars like Oldenberg. On the other hand, the Late Books have no fewer than 386 hymns containing such name-elements.

Apart from names and name-elements, there is the evidence of the development and use of meters used in various hymns of the different Books. The earliest hymns in the Avesta, the Gathas, composed by Zarathustra, use the six-line Mahapankti meter, which is used only in the Late Books of the Rigveda. On this parameter also, the evidence points to the same conclusion: the common development of the joint Indo-Iranian culture represented by these two sacred books took place in the period of Late Books of Rigveda. The Early and the Middle Books of Rigveda belong to a period which is older than the period of the development of this joint culture.

The next question is: in which area were the Early and the Middle Books composed? Where were the Vedic Aryans living in the period before the development of this joint Indo-Iranian culture?

The geographical evidence of Rigveda is very clear and unambiguous. It shows that the Vedic Aryans, in the period of the Early and the Middle books, were inhabitants of interior parts of India, to the east of river Sarasvati and were only just expanding into and becoming acquainted with areas further west.

The geographical horizon of the Rigveda extends from (at least) western Uttar Pradesh in the east to eastern and southern Afghanistan in the West. Let us divide it in three regions: the eastern region comprising the Sarasvati and areas to its east, mainly modern Haryana and western UP; the western region comprising the Indus and areas to its west, mainly the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan, Afghanistan and contiguous areas of southern Central Asia; and the central region comprising Saptasindhu or Punjab between the Sarasvati and Indus.

The eastern region is clearly known to the whole of the Rigveda. Copious references to the rivers such as Sarasvati, Drshadvati, Hariyupiya, Yavyavati, Ashmanvati, Yamuna, Ganga, places such as Ilayaspada, Kikata, and animals such as elephant, buffalo, peacock and spotted deer are scattered all over the Rigveda, but particularly in the Early books.

In sharp contrast, the western region is totally unknown to the Early Books, only very newly familiar to the Middle Books, but quite familiar to the Late Books. The western places (except a solitary reference to Gandharva in a late hymn), animals, lakes and mountains are totally unknown to the Early as well as the Middle Books, and exactly three rivers are mentioned in Book IV, which represents the western-most thrust of the Vedic Aryans in the Middle period.

The late books, on the other hand, are strewn with references to rivers such as Sindhu, Amitabha, Rasa, Svetya, Kubha, Krumu, Gomati, Sarayu and Susoma; places such as Gandhari, mountains such as Arjikya and Mujawat, lakes such as Saryanavat, and animals such as Bactrian camel, Afghan horse, mountain sheep, mountain goat and boar.

Most interesting are the references to the central region-the Saptasindhu or Punjab between Indus and Sarasvati. Very significantly, the Nadi Sukta lists the rivers from the east to the west. Book VI, the oldest book, does not know any of the five rivers of Punjab. The second oldest book, Book III, mentions only the two easternmost rivers-Vipas (Beas) and Sutudri (Sutlej). The third oldest book, Book VII, mentions Parushni (Ravi), the third river from the east, with reference to the Battle of Ten Kings in which the non-Vedic enemies figure as western people of the fourth river Asikni (Chenab). Even the phrase Saptasindhu first appears in the Middle Books.

Significantly, Iranian texts also confirm the movement of the Anu-s (an Aryan clan that later became Iranians) from the east to the west. The first chapter of Vendidad lists 16 holy lands rendered unfit for man by Angra Manyu, the evil spirit of Zend Avesta. The first of these is Airyano Vaejo, bitterly cold and full of snow. If there is doubt that this refers to Kashmir, the designation of one more land as Hapta Hindu, that is Sapta-Sindhu (Punjab), should remove it.

As Girilal Jain had observed, "if it can be established that the movement of the users of the Indo-European speech in India in ancient times was from the east to the west and not vice-versa, the invasion/migration theory, as it has been propounded, cannot stand."

After establishing precisely that on the basis of Rigveda and Avesta, Talageri proceeds to present some more evidence from ancient Mesopotamia that could help us determine a lower limit for the Vedic Age. Once we see that the movement of Aryans has been from the east to the west within India and outside it, even the familiar facts acquire an altogether different significance.

The Mitanni, who ruled northern Iraq and Syria around the 15th century BCE, spoke Hurrite, a non-Indo-European language unrelated to Vedic Sanskrit. But their kings and other members of the ruling class bore names which were corrupted versions of Vedic names: Mittaratti (Mitratithi), Dewatti (Devatithi), Subandu (Subandhu), Indarota (Indrota), Biriamasda (Priyamedha), to mention a few. In a treaty with Hittites, they invoked Vedic gods Mitra, Varuna, Indra and Nasatyas (Asvins). A Mitanni manual on training of chariot horses by Kikkuli has words like aika (eka, one), tera (tri, three), panza (panch, five), satta (sapta, seven) na (nava, nine), vartana (vartana, turn round in the horse race). Another one has words like Babru (babhru, brown), parita (palita (grey), pinkara (pingala, red) and so on. Many centuries must have elapsed between the entry of their Vedic ancestors into West Asia and this loss of language with just a super-stratum of Vedic words.

The Kassite conquerors of Mesopotamia (c. 1677 BCE) had a Sun god Surias, perhaps also Marut and may be even Bhaga (bugas), as also a personal name Abirattas (Abhiratha).

What is notable is that the ancestral Vedic names used by the Mitanni kings, and the one known Kassite name, all belong to the names which are common to the Avesta and the Late Books of Rigveda. So the ancestors of the Mitanni and Kassites must have migrated from northwestern India in the period of the Late Books. This places Late Books of Rigveda in the late third millennium BCE at the latest. The Middle and the Early books of Rigveda must have been composed much earlier. Please note that this is the lower limit for the date of Rigveda. There is nothing here that precludes a reasonably earlier date.

This makes the Rigvedic Age contemporaneous with the Indus Valley culture. Far from being the destroyers of Harappa and Mohenjodaro, Vedic Aryans turn out to be the architects of those great cities. This is what Girilal Jain meant when he said that in course of time Talageri's research can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian, but also world civilization.

Talageri's book makes fascinating reading for those who are familiar with and interested in the subject. That, looked at from the opposite end, is also the biggest limitation of the book. This book is meant for scholars and serious students. It is not fit for lay readers; it cannot be read just for fun. One has to know a great deal about the subject before one can appreciate the monumental feat of scholarship the author has accomplished. But one thing can be said with certainty - even those who do not agree with Talageri's conclusion will not find it easy to disprove his data and logic and come up with an alternative explanation.

The Rigveda and The Avesta: the Final Evidence

Shrikant Talageri

Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2008

Pages: xxxviii + 379

Price: Rs. 750 (Paperback: Rs. 350)

Virendra Parekh is Executive Editor, Corporate India, and lives in Mumbai

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-05-2009

Shri Girilal's Jain's review referred in the article above:

Appendix 1 - Resolving the Ancient Language Problem from the book <i>The Hindu Phenomenon</i>

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->An unknown Indian has taken on proponents of Aryan invasion/migration theory, demolished their case, and established that northern India is the original home of the Indo-European family of languages. The importance of this remarkable achievement cannot be exaggerated. In course of time, it can compel the revision of the history not only of Indian but also world civilization.

The truth is invariably simple and convincing once one is able to cut through the maze of misinterpretation and obscurity. Indeed, one then wonders why other scholars could not grasp so obvious a proposition. This is so in the case of Srikant G. Telageri's Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism 1.

This is, of course, not the first conclusive repudiation of the invasion/migration theory in the English language. David Frawley too has made nonsense of it in his invaluable work Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets of Ancient Civilization 2. But he has not taken note in detail of what various proponents of the theory have written. The scope of his work is also much larger and in parts it is rather speculative. (Frawley is, incidentally, a recognized Vedacharya and has written extensively on various aspects of Vedic civilization).

Telageri puts his finger at the source of much of the trouble when he challenges the common assumptions that the Vedic language was the earliest form of Indo-Aryan, that classical Sanskrit developed from the Vedic, that the Prakrits developed from the Sanskrit, and the modern Indo-Aryan languages from these Prakrits.

According to him, the earliest from of Indo-European speech was spoken in the interior of India, in prehistoric times. It spread out as far north and west as Kashmir and Afghanistan; the original language developed into at least three Proto-Outer-Indo-European (in northern Kashmir and Afghanistan), Proto-Central-Indo-European (in southern Kashmir and Punjab), and Proto-Inner Indo- European (in inner India). This is Telageri's point of departure. And this is the crux of the matter. For if it can be established that the movement of the users of the Indo-European speech in India in ancient times was from the east to the west and not vice-versa, the invasion/migration theory, as it has been propounded, cannot stand.

It is known to student of Sanskrit texts that they enumerate Indian rivers from the east to the west and not the others way around. But the evidence has not been regarded as strong enough. Telageri comes up with the stronger evidence and the interesting point about it is that he locates it in the Rigveda itself.

One of the hymns of the Rigveda (IX. 96) and one of the three verses in another hymn (X. 179.2)are composed by Pratardana, who is clearly described as Kasiraja (king of Kashi). Kashi (Varanasi), as we know, lies in south eastern Uttar Pradesh. The Puranas not only confirm that Pratardana was king of Kashi but name at least six of his predecessors.

One entire book (Book III), of the ten books of the Rigveda, is similarly authored by composers belonging to the family of Visvamitra. According to the Puranas, Visvamitra was the ninth descendant of Jahnu, who established the kingdom of Kanyakububja (Kanauj) in Uttar Pradesh. In the Rigveda the composer of the hymn refers to himself as belonging to the house of Jahnu. In other words, the kingdom of Kanyakubja was in existence at least nine generations before the composition of any of the hymns in this book.

In two other hymns (VIII. 2.41) and (VII. 3.21-24) the poet Kanva Medhatithi praises king Vibhindu and king Pakasthaman for their gifts and the Brahaddevata (VI. 42) clearly identifies them as rulers of Kashi and Bhoja (in eastern Uttar Pradesh and western Madhya Pradesh, respectively).

Another hymn (III. 53.14) mentions Kikata and its king Pramaganda. Kikata later came to be named Magadha. Thus south Bihar is also mentioned in the Rigveda.

This, however, raises the question whether the language of these hymns attributed to authors in present day Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Bihar is different from other hymns composed in Punjab and, if so, how significant is the difference? Telageri has not posed this question.

That apart, however, the eastern Aryan theory provides us a possible explanation for the rise of non-Vedic Jainism and Buddhism. Both provide for 23 predecessors of the historically known founders - Mahavir and Gautam Buddha in the sixth century B.C. It may also help fill the gaps in our knowledge of the linguistic history of India, to which Suniti Kumar Chatterjee has drawn our attention. (See Chapter 2.)

According to Telageri the Vedic dialects disappeared in course of time and their speech area (Punjab and its environs) was taken over by the Inner-Indo-European dialects. But long before that, they had set in motion a cult movement which covered the entire country. This Vedic cult finally also gave way but continued to remain in force as the elite layer of a pan-Indian religion of the Inner-Indo-Europeans and Dravidians. Vedic hymns still dominate Hindu rituals but have little impact on the lives of Hindus.

Classical Sanskrit was created by ancient grammarians (Panini was preceded by hundreds of others, many of whom are named by him in his Astadhyayi) to serve as a via media between the Vedic language and the Inner-Indo- European dialects which and developed together with the Dravidian languages over the course of millennia and were therefore structurally different from the Vedic, and also had their own roots and words. Later the Prakrits came into vogue. Finally, the Inner dialects came into their own in the form of the new Indo-Aryan languages, as heavily Sanskritized as the Dravidian languages. India's cultural history thus beings with a grand synthesis.

Telageri's summing up is important. He says: "In short, the linguistic structure of the present Indo-Aryan languages is not a change from an originally Vedic-like linguistic structure; it is a linguistic structure which developed, in the course of millennia, in the Inner-Indo- European speech family, in conjunction with the Dravidian languages."

I am not a specialist in this field. But as an interested student, I can say that it answer many of the problems philologists have faced and raised for around 200 years. It also settles the question of the cultural unity of India. The Aryans and the Dravidians together shaped the languages and culture of India.

Many other peoples named in the Rigveda are associated by other ancient Indian texts with other parts of India. In one hymn (VIII. 5.3739), for example, we find a reference to the Cedis and their king Kasu. The Puranas point out that the Cedis were Yadavas who migrated northwards to Bundelkhand from Vidarbha in northern Maharashtra.

The poetess-composer of the Vedic hymn (1.179), Lopamudra, wife of Agastya, the great rishi known to be father of the Tamil grammar, is declared by every single ancient Indian text to be the daughter of the king of Vidarbha. Thus there were Aryan speakers in northern Maharashtra well before the composition of these hymns.

All in all, the Rigvedic hymns, in combination with the other texts show that the Indo-European language speaking people of the time were not restricted to the Punjab region, but were found as far east as south Bihar and the Bay of Bengal, and as far south as Maharashtra. This is, more or less, the geographical extent of the Indo-Aryan languages to this day.

Some points may be made at this stage. The vedas testify to the existence of the Purana in the Vedic period itself which obviously got divided into 18 and in the process expanded. These Puranas provide a genealogy of kings of major dynasties up to the time of the Mahabharata war. Telageri uses the list of about 100 kings provided by P.L.Bhargava.

On the basis of the excavation work by marine archaeologists belonging to the National Institute of Oceanography under the direction of Dr. S.R.Rao, the date of the submergence of Krishna's city of Dwarka can be fixed around 1500-1400 B.C., which, incidentally is also suggested by Puranic records which place it 1000 years before Nanda who ruled in Patliputra around 400 B.C.

Take the average reign of a king to be 18 years which is generally accepted by scholars. This takes up back to 3200-3100 B.C. The Aryans are supposed to have come into north-west India around 1500 B.C. and the Rigveda is dated 1000 B.C. at the earliest!

The conquering Aryans are alleged to have treated the conquered  original inhabitants of India with contempt. The two words which have been used most to make this charge stick are Dasa and Dasyu. The Rigveda throughout refers to Dasa/Dasyus as asraddha (faithless), ayajna (offering-less) and avrata (without rituals). It is obvious that these terms refer to religious practices, and not to race or language. As such they could apply only to would-be Iranians, who were hostile to the cult of Indra and to the sacrifice of animals in the sacred fire. This is not a matter of conjecture. Telageri shows that the Iranians called themselves by these names. The world Dasyu is found in the Avest as Dahya, s becoming h  as in all Persian dialects. The word Dasa is found in the eastern Iranian dialect of Khotanese as Daha meaning man. But some how the charges has stood.

The Rigveda makes it clear that Dasa and Dasyu are one and the same and so are Dasyus and Asuras in the later hymns when Asura has ceased to be the equal of Devas and come to acquire an unsavoury connotation.

Telageri is, therefore, justified in concluding that the Arya-Dasyu conflict in the Rigveda reflects the Vedic- versus Iranian conflict which took place in the Punjab region. After the bulk of the Iranians  left Punjab and migrated westwards, the term dasa/Dasyu ceased to be used in reference to a community, and came to be used only in the sense of slave and robber, respectively.

Ten dynasties or peoples are mentioned in the Puranas; of them four are described in some detail. These are the Saryatis, Pramsus, Iksvakus (Ram belonged to this dynasty) and the Sudyumnas are then divided into Drahyus, Anus, Turvasus, Yadus and Purus. Of them, the Anus, who lived close to the Purus in Kashmir, later became Iranians. This is confirmed by most ancient Iranian text.

The first chapter of Vendidad lists 16 holy lands rendered unfit for man by Angra Manyu, the evil spirit of Zend Avesta. The first of these is Airyano Vaejo, bitterly cold and full of snow. If there is doubt that this refers to Kashmir, the designation of the next as Hapta Hindu, that is Sapta-Sindhu (Punjab) should remove it.

Since Punjab now contains five and not seven rivers, it may be added that the Saraswati, biggest of them in Vedic times, dried up about the same time as the so-called Indus Valley civilization disappeared around 1800 B.C. and another river Drishadvati, now known as Naiwala, is going dry.

Students of the Rigveda are familiar with the battle of ten Kings. The relevant hymns have been variously interpreted. Most of these interpretations cannot stand scrutiny. The details, however, do not concern us. Pertinent for us is the fact that the names mentioned there help us identify various Iranian peoples.

The Parthus are obviously Parthians of latter-day Iran, the Parsus the Persians, the Pakthas the Pakhtoons or the Pathans, the Bhalanas the Baluchis (witness Bolan pass), the Visanins Pisaca (Dardic people), and the Bhrigus ancestors of the Phyrgians.

As Telageri has put it, the evidence is overwhelming that eight groups of Anus mentioned in the Rigveda and the Puranas (seven of those being from the ten peoples named in a single historical incident) are the ancient and modern Iranian peoples, covering practically all the major ones: the Medes, the Persians, the Parthians, the Phrygians, the Khivs, the Dards (Pisacas), the Baluchis and the Pakhtoons. These peoples are today found stretched out westwards from Kashmir right up to Asia Minor:

Dr.S.R.Rao, the well-known archaeologist, has provided a valuable Foreword which powerfully reinforces Telageri's case on the strength of archaeological evidence. Dr.Rao himself is a linguist of no mean achievement. Indeed, he has deciphered the script of the Indus Valley seals. This has begun to win wide, though not yet universal, recognition among scholars. Though the non-discovery so far a bilingual seal remains a handicap, Dr.Rao's work is convincing in that it links the seals with a concrete (Vedic) culture, while others have speculated about a Dravidian culture which they have not defined.

Notes And References
   1. Srikant G. Telageri, Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism, Voice of India, New Delhi, 1993.
   2. David Frawley,Gods, Saages and Kings:Vedic Secrets of Ancient civilization, Indian edn. Motilal Banarssidass, New Delhi.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Husky - 01-05-2009

^ Bodhi and Dhu's posts

O <i>voleur</i>! Bodhi (#295)!

I had just seen that article at VijayVaani and was coming over to post it here now and what do I find? That you had already posted it. <i>Yesterday</i>, in fact. As all can see, and there's no denying it, you have copied my intended actions "<i>backwards in time</i>" (a very common christian accusation I am making here, so people will admit I have an 'established point').
You, you ... you plagiarist-into-the-future!

You know that's a crime, right? Plagiarising other people's future intentions? It's in fact worse than plagiarising the past, because of course there would (generally) be only one person you could be plagiarising from in the past: the original source. But <i>such cheating</i> with the future is far more wicked: imagine <i>how many</i> people would in future be intending to write something or do something (like post a particular item on IF). And if you pre-empt them in this illegal manner, then that's just Shame On You. I'm telling IF admin on you, Bodhi. You just wait. They're not going to like it. Not one bit. You're in deeeeep trouble. <!--emo&Wink--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> You just think long and hard about what you've done, now.

Just messin' with ya <!--emo&Smile--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> I don't know how I missed seeing your post yesterday, Bodhi.

Oh well, there are some comments on the article now:
<b>Comments on
"Demolished once for all: Aryan Invasion Theory"
Virendra Parekh</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Has it ever occurred to anyone, including you, that this entire debate bypasses a whole community of people who are well versed in the vedas? Have you ever noticed any comment from scholars of the Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham, for example? Do you really think that the translations and treatises on the vedas in various Indian universities has any value whatsoever?  
   04 Jan 2009  

   Why Talageri ignores the archaeological evidences discovered by the Russians in the Ural-Sinstra excavations which proves ( according to the Russians) that Aryans came from India through Turkey, Armenia to Russia in at least 4000 BC ( during which the Ural-Sinstra civilizations were first constructed) . The problem with the India historians are that they only consider the Anglo-Americans but ignores the European historians.  
   04 Jan 2009  
(Russians incl. Ukrainians do always seem to conclude that everything came from India. At least, the few I know. Every time they mention anything interesting to me, they tell me "that was originally used in India, or invented in India or first developed in India". At least, unlike American teachers who always referred to 'arabic numerals' and describe them as coming from Arabia, I do appreciate that Russians - among others - corrected them by saying they are actually <i>Hindu</i> numbers instead.)

   Excellent work by Talageri. D. basu's point must be noted. By all accounts Mahabharat period was about 5000years ago which is strongly supported by the astronomical evidence as mentioned in Mahabharat itself. Much earlier Rama period clearly mentiones Arya expansion in the North and West from Ayodhya all the way upto Russia and Western Euope, Middle East etc. This explains sporadic development of Indo Eurpean languages in places where local and native languages assimilated language of human waves from interior India. Gradually Sindhu (after Mohenjodero development period, Saptasindhu Afghanistan etc. fully integrated in Sanskrit language developed in interior India and Iran & european countries increased more adaption of Indo Aryan language. The other languages of Aryans like Prakrit,Tamil etc. in interior India continued to develop simultaneously.  
   Rasik Sanghvi  
   05 Jan 2009<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Bodhi - 01-05-2009

those of you who did not know already - late Girilal Jain was the father of Sandhya and Meenakshi Jain.

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - Husky - 01-05-2009

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Jan 5 2009, 07:23 AM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Jan 5 2009, 07:23 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->those of you who did not know already - late Girilal Jain was the father of Sandhya and Meenakshi Jain.
[right][snapback]92693[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Elst's Ayodhya And After has a section on Girilal Jain:
<b>Appendix 1. Girilal Jain on Hindu Rashtra</b>

Girilal Jain was editor of Times of India, but they pushed him out when... just read: (Elst's Who Is A Hindu?)
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->7.2. Joins in Hindu Revivalism

Given the actual participation of Jains in Hindu society, it is no surprise that we find Jains well-represented in the Hindu Revivalist movement, either formally, e.g. J.K. Jain, BJP media specialist and MP in 1991-96, and Sunderlal Patwa, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister in 1990-93, or informally, e.g. <b>the late Girilal Jain, sacked in 1988 as Times of India editor when he developed Hindutva sympathies, and his daughters Meenakshi Jain and Sandhya Jain.</b>

In a collection of Girilal Jain s columns on the triangular Hindu-Muslim-secularist struggle (that is how he understood the  communal  problem)7, we find his explicit rejection of Jain separateness:  Though not to the same extent as in the case of Sikhs, ( ) neo-Buddhists and at least some Jains have come to regard themselves as non-Hindus.  In reality, however, Buddhism and Jainism have been no more than movements within the larger body of Hinduism. 8 According to Girilal Jain, what difference there was between Brahmins and Jain renouncers has been eliminated by competitive imitation, e.g.:  the Brahman would have adopted vegetarianism so as not to be outdone by the renouncer qua spiritual leader .9 Whatever schisms may have taken place in the distant past, the ultimate origin is common, and ever since, coexistence was too close to allow for permanent separateness.

When BJP President Murli Manohar Joshi visited the predominantly Jain Indian diamond community in Antwerp (August 1992), someone in the audience asked him whether Jains are Hindus.  Pat came his reply:  Jains are the best Hindus of all.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Not quite related, but found it when looking for the above (since it also mentioned Girilal Jain):
Elst's bio on Ram Swarup

Aryan Invasion/migration Theories &amp; Debates -2 - dhu - 01-05-2009

Phyrgians are known to originate the double flute in greece, familiar to us from greek iconography. Most likely this was an export from Greater India along with militant Indian tribes.

"(cf Legend of Apollo and Marsyas), the Greeks owed this instrument to the Phrygians, who may have acquired the double flute from the Assyrians." link - a dictionary of the bible

Algoza or 'double flute' - in Punjab