• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Aryan Invasion/migration Theories & Debates -2
Ben_Ami: Irfan blog has it at http://irffanclub.blogspot.com/2006/01/pro...university.html
<!--QuoteBegin-aruni+Jul 9 2006, 09:19 PM-->QUOTE(aruni @ Jul 9 2006, 09:19 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->But the racists rants he made against one of the Indian scholars last Dec or Jan would have put any of the eastern european jobless skinhead to shame. It's a pity that 'learned' people with education behave worse than skinheads.

Well, I think their sixth sense is telling them to nip these indians in the bud, just in case we are able to go beyond the AIT paradigm to further sort out the mess of euro history. for example, even in greek times we can detect significant periods where they seem to lose a critical connection with their stories and start to ask abrahamic like questions, eg how can the gods be good if they kill, how can there be so many gods, etc. I think this is another indication that the adoption of indic derived elements in Europe caused some type of meltdown in their psyche, just as zoroastrianism and buddhist concepts of nirvana could not be digested by the ANE semetics resulting in the mutant hybrids of judaism and christianity. judaism also traces back to the akhenaten-vedic mittani connection highlighted by Kak. If true, this would put europe on par with the mideast as the birthplace of abrahamism. It would also indicate the inauthenticity of the socalled IE culture which was transplanted there by itinerant indian traders, gypsies, and what not.
Post 30:<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->This is a balkanic statue from 4500 bC in LOTUS yoga position:
http://jyee1.netian.com/crete-heramuseum...dess-l.jpg <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(Yoga is a Hindu concept and a Samskritam term, and that's how I will refer to it here)
The Lotus position is called Padmaasana (Padma is Samskritam for lotus). The statues whose pictures you have posted are not doing the Padmaasana. Here's a picture of the Padmaasana: http://holisticonline.com/Yoga/hol_yoga_pos_lotus.htm
Padmaasana is what Shiva does when he performs Tapas (it's also what rishis, sannyasis generally do when doing tapas). There's a world of difference between what the statue is doing and the Padmaasana.

Or I suppose you might have meant that the statues are in the much more general and simpler Siddhaasana position - http://holisticonline.com/Yoga/hol_yoga_...hasana.htm However, on closer observation I can't completely agree with that either. In the correct position, palms tend to face upwards in this posture, not inwards as in the case of the statues (although the statue of Goddess Hera in Crete shows her holding her hands low enough, the palms still seem to be facing inwards). Yoga positions are very particular. Since the feet are also missing in both statues, there's no way to tell whether either statue would have had their feet in the correct Siddhaasana way even if their hands had been acceptable.
And even if the feet were present and correctly placed, the Siddhaasana is too generic a position: it doesn't mean it's yoga that the statues represent. For an example of its genericness, the position of the legs in the Romanian statues is only the second most common sitting position of Indians when we sit on the ground. In small Indian stores where they make dosais (something like pancakes) or fix bicycles, Indians can often been seen with their legs folded in either the Sukaasana or Siddhaasana. That doesn't mean they're doing Yoga. And as I've seen on tv, Siddhaasana-like position is also a very common sitting position in many traditional cultures around the world - but again, that doesn't make it yoga. One of our Hindu Goddess forms is famous for being presented in this sitting position (her feet are very correct for Siddhaasana though, but her hands are not in the required position so it's not the complete Siddhaasana).

<b>Even had you found photos of circa 4000bce statues in <i>correct</i> Yoga positions, I'd have posed the following:</b>
(1) Why is it a requirement that ancient Indians <i>should</i> have made statues of people doing Yoga? Should all ancient people have thought of capturing all their religious practises, culture and lifestyles in statues so that future generations can have evidence that their ancestors invented them?
What if there was merely no need for ancient Indians to have made statues of any yoga position at the time?
Even today, it's not a common passtime. It is more common for Yoga practitioners in western countries to release dvds and photos of yoga instruction than it is for us Indians to do so. In India, it is still the norm for people to learn from experts in yoga, although there are now not a few schools which have come up in the last centuries that teach it as well.
Why must ancient Indians have been preoccupied with making yoga statues, especially in times when one could actually see rishis, sannyasins, and other practitioners quite often? Yoga, never being an art like dancing was, was considered a science (Hindu philosophical, religious) and therefore perhaps less likely to have been inspiration for statues.
(2) Even if you argue that Indians should have made statues of the more basic yogic postures, since Romanians were able to do generic sitting positions, I have the following arguments:
- It is a fact in archaeology that "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". It's a phrase AIT people kept parroting for a long time whenever archaeology showed no signs of an Aryan Invasion or migration or influx even (genetics more conclusively supported the archaeological record here). The phrase is no less apt here.
Therefore, just because no earlier statues in India have been unearthed as yet, does not mean we don't have them. No one has searched every nook and cranny of India's historical layers.
- Suppose India introduced Yoga into countries to the west of India (quite a natural assumption, by the way) as has been the case with countries to the east. Yoga being familiar in India, would have been a common sight and everyone would know the basic positions. Yoga being yet unknown in these western countries, Indian visitors might perhaps have explained the precise positions and then described them to the local populace who then made statues of the descriptions to serve as a reminder of how exactly to position oneself.
It would make more sense that statues would be made of a non-art form like Yoga in countries where it was an unknown practice, than in India, where it has been well-known and one could easily have seen it performed everyday.
Or another scenario: perhaps one small wave of Indian immigrants, say the Jats, settled in ancient Romania and made statues (for future generations perhaps) of their Indian traditions which they could no longer see performed in their new environment.
If it has not been yet investigated whether the statues might emanate from outside Romania, consider even the case of them being exported from the Indian subcontinent to the west as keepsakes or souvenirs or methods of instruction.

Who is to say none of the above is true? Archaeology might show that the statues were not imported to Romania, but they cannot show that immigrant settlers did not create them or Indian visitors did not have them described to the ancient Romanians who then sculpted them. This is exactly the limitation with the more precise sciences dealing with the past: they cannot really reconstruct history to say what happened and how - they can only say what the end result was.
There's no way to be exactly sure that things happened in any particular way. All that archaeology can tell us is that at (a) some time (b) some culture existed that (c ) either was imported or was indigenous and part of a continuous local culture. However, there can still be influences by or inspiration taken from neighbouring cultures. There can be a host of other explanations.
But consider that Yoga is a known Hindu tradition for thousands of years, one whose purpose, development, and philosophy are well-documented in India. You have only the statues, not even certain in its depiction of any yogic posture.

(3) Yoga is a Samskritam term for a <b>Hindu religious concept</b>. (Buddhism eventually also inherited it. Though according to tradition Buddha tried and abandoned yoga, the early Buddhists in India were of the brahmana profession, and so were already trained for the most part in Yoga and didn't quit practising it.)
Yoga is a practise that spans many fields, not limited to physical exercise only. The most commonly known forms of Yoga in the west are the physical ones, which most there tend to think is the only form of Yoga. This form is what looks like physical exercise and has many, many positions (only a few of which are the various meditative/Tapas-like positions) and many, many movements.
Buddhist practitioners in the west know of Meditation (also another Hindu Yogic practise inherited by Buddhism). This is what I think is called Hatha Yoga - others please correct me on this, it's been a while since I read of the different forms of Yoga. In English, the Gita describes this as Meditation and/or Concentration (one of these is Hatha Yoga and the other is some other form of Yoga). Then there is Karma Yoga, which is the yoga of action where one performs one's prescribed duty with a certain state of mind. There's also Chakra-based yoga which might be a subset of Tapas (concentration). There might possibly be more forms of Yoga, but I can't remember.

However, <b>Yoga is not just the outward physical practises</b> (Karma Yoga wouldn't be registered as Yoga then). Instead, the practise always involves developing a particular mental state, sometimes requires mantras (as in doing tapas and in some forms of meditation), is often accompanied by breathing practices (in tapas, meditation, sandhya, physical yoga, chakra-based yoga), and involves renunciation of the fruits of one's action (the basic requirement of Karma Yoga). Yoga is a Hindu philosophical system - the lessons on the physical aspects of these forms of Yoga are always accompanied by the teacher imparting an even more important means to develop a mental state that will allow the spirit to evolve. Likewise, the outward physical positions allow one to get the quiteness of mind and develop the frame of mind that will help in achieving the spiritual state.
But to do this Yoga (the real Yoga) requires self-discipline. That is why there are 8 basic requirements to self-harmony and self-control (they collectively have a name which I've forgotten, not being a yoga practitioner) all of which need to be satisfied if one is to practise yoga successfully and lead the life of a yogi. Generally, one <i>starts</i> on yoga when one has satisfied at least a first few of these requirements, after which one has to practise <i>all</i> of them.
All of these religious and philosophical aspects are integral to real Yoga (which is Hindu), whose final aim is nothing less than becoming one with Brahman. It is the means by which the body and the mind are made conducive to the spiritual search and realisation of Brahman. Yoga (all its forms) is one of the many means by which a creature can transcend this world and obtain Moksha.

One final illustration on what is and isn't Yoga. When I was little, I was highly active and invented all sorts of movements and positions and gymnastics. Having grown up outside of India, I knew nothing of Yoga and there was none in my immediate family who was knowledgeable about it either. When I returned to India for a while, I got a booklet on Yoga from a friend. In it, I discovered no less than 12 positions and movements - 5 of which were quite complex movements and only 3 of which were simple positions (like Savaasana) - that matched exactly what I had loved to do since I'd been a toddler.
In a similar manner, when I watched my first Olympics I'd noticed that the people doing the acrobatics did stuff I myself had "invented" with no external influence: standing on my hands, somersaults, backflips and cartwheels. Whether that means I reinvented gymnastics or not, I certainly didn't re-invent yoga. With respect to the yoga-moves: I had just latched onto natural positions and movements that I felt were comfortable and interesting to do when I was a bored child. It is possible to independently come up with a few of them, because the external forms of yoga exercises are merely natural.
However, it was not Yoga that I had been doing, not only because it was incomplete (only 12 of the many Yoga exercises) and lacked the breathing, it was also not coupled with the mental training and spiritual teachings that are integral to what constitutes Yoga. In short, even if someone had independently performed what looks outwardly like a few "yoga" moves in 50,000bce or 100,000bce or even today (of which statues might have been made), that doesn't make it Yoga.

In Hinduism, those simple physical positions that anyone can invent, imitate and practise, do not represent merely physical positions in Yoga. In Yoga, they are part of an integrated religious lifestyle that had been extensively developed, described, taught and eventually written down by our ancestors. <b>So even if you have statues that <i>looked</i> like they were in some yoga-like positions:</b>
(1) they do not cover all Yogic positions
(2) the statues do not show any Yoga movements which are also an integral part of physical yoga (besides which all movements and positions are connected with particular breathing which statues can neither confirm nor deny)
(3) physical yoga is merely one of many forms of yoga
(4) in Yoga, the outward physical practises are combined with the (at least) as important internal teachings (mental training and spiritual realision), which are integral to yoga and without which it does not qualify as such. Yoga without the mental and spiritual practises is not yoga - it is merely physical exercise, some parts of which anyone can invent evidently
(5) where are the philosophical treatises in Romania describing the positions of these statues in the context of complete Yoga (mental, spiritual as well as physical).
(6) India has an ancient tradition of developing and teaching Yoga (not just the physical exercise). You have merely statues that don't even confirm a basic yogic posture.

You might still think the statue is proof of the ancient Romanians having known about Yoga. I found them merely proof of ancient sculpture showing a generic, common sitting position. They're no more proof of Yoga than an ancient Romanian's possible observation of an apple falling might lead us to surmise that he too, like Newton, immediately grasped the concept of gravity.

<b>For proving that ancient Romanians knew or even <i>invented</i> Yoga, you require</b> more than statues to prove your point (besides showing that it was indeed Yoga):
(1) Need to prove that they had developed the philosophical aspects of it and had reasoned as to why it was beneficial for one's spirit as well as for training the mind and body to come under spiritual control.
(2) Where's your literature showing or describing this?
(3) Then you need to disprove that the ancient Hindus of India had developed all these aspects relating to Yoga along with the physical postures themselves. Prove (not speculate) that these Hindu teachings were imported - from Romania in your case.
(4) Show that the Romanians visited India and imparted the knowledge of Yoga (all aspects) to us. Of course, again, you need to show the prerequisie and (1) first: that the Romanians knew actual Yoga positions and besides knew all aspects of it. I'm basically asking you to give conclusive evidence of the RIT: the Romanian Invasion/Migration/Benevolent teacher-tourist theory. Genetics, archaeology, anthropology, philology. Hey, why not add linguistics into the equation ("...therefore proves that the word Yoga is from the language spokem by the ancient Romanians, not Samskritam. As are such words as the various -aasanas). Yes don't forget linguistics - the Indologists never do.

We do not need to give any proofs such as the above for ourselves: our living Yoga tradition and surviving literature shows that it has been a Hindu practise since very ancient times. Besides, Yoga is a Samskritam word, the practise is mentioned throughout our epics (and even elaborated on by the Gita), further developed by Patanjali, known as far as the Afghan portion of ancient India and no doubt exerted its influence further west, inherited by Buddhism, exported to the East. Far and wide in India, one may see Yogis practising - people who have never seen a country beyond our land but know all aspects of Yoga.
<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Jul 11 2006, 09:26 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Jul 11 2006, 09:26 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> judaism also traces back to the akhenaten-vedic mittani connection highlighted by Kak. 
this is somethign i really want to know about. can u supply a link.

i was having a debate with a pom over the last few days, about how it was zorastrianism that introduced the concept of monotheism to the jews, at least to post exilic judaism. when that guy told me how Atenism is actually the oldest monotheism known to man, and may have influenced Mosiac judaism as well.
Ben ami,

the mideasterners were not able to digest the vedic brahman concepts or its antarvidya aspects.

From my experience in dealing with Eastern Europeans (Romanians, Russians etc.) is that they are some of the most racist people in the world. I have heard stories of how dark skinned people are beaten up in Russia all the time including by the Police in big cities like Moscow etc. Foreign students from Asia/ Africa in Russia are assaulted all the time, I have posted links to such news reports in this forum.

So, it is reasonable to assume that many people from these regions have a strong mental block or aversion to the idea that a darker skinned race was more advanced than them for a long time.

I think Romania can start by rounding up the stray dogs in their country (especially in Constanta). Many Romanians look very Mongoloid (as in Genghis Khan's cousin). Are these folks part of the Aeerian race as well ?
Just to add my opinion and personal experience here. I've studied with 2 Russians and 1 Czech, and none of them were racist in the least. They were simply lovely people to know.

Racism is like an intolerant religion: it makes people aggressive and fills them with hate. Rational thinking is the only solution to racism (learning not to stereotype ethnic groups, always considering the individuals and not thinking of them as groups; and remaining positive about the rest of a population even when you do meet the rotten apples). They should teach this stuff at school, so that when children grow up, they don't become racist.
Post 30:
<b>Dialects and Languages</b><!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The thracian latin go and mixed whit etruscians and other native languages and formed the amaizing 1500 !! dialects of italian(more then all dialects of India).<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->1500 dialects of Italian are indeed impressive. So after the fall of the highly literate Roman Empire with its official language of Latin which kept things standardised, the rampant illiteracy under the darkness of Christianity gave rise to 1500 dialects of Latin's late child Italian?
But dialects are after all variations on the same language - they are not different languages. Dialects appear to indicate loss of standardisation in countries that have had large-scale civilisations.

Let's look at the number of actual different languages in India. India has official languages (compulsory to use in government offices and places in each state), state languages (official language of a state, which is taught in schools as well as being used in the state's government places) and of course actual languages:

<b>Number of <i>languages</i> in India</b>
- http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_04/uk/doss24.htm<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->It has two official languages (Hindi and English), 18 major languages Scheduled in the Indian Constitution, and 418 “listed” languages, each spoken by 10,000 people or more.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=India
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of languages listed for India is 428. Of those, 415 are living languages and 13 are extinct.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Your preferred source has not been ignored http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_languages says:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The number of mother tongues in India is as high as 1,652. There are 24 languages which are spoken by a million or more people, in addition to thousands of smaller languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
- Just to be PC, I will include an entry from the <b>Islamic & pseudo-secular site</b> http://www.culturopedia.com/ says on the page http://www.culturopedia.com/Languages/la...intro.html that "there are 408 living languages and 11 extinct ones in India".
In the usual Islamic propagandist manner, they continue to attempt to sell the Aryan invasion/migration/influx theory well past its expiry date - saying that [the indo-aryan language family]<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->came to India with the Aryans.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, books from the late 80s:
- From the Jiri Kalousek's knowledge book for children 'Rund um die Erde in Wort und Bild' (German for 'Around the world in words and pictures') - published in German, translated originally from Czech (late 80s):
In the page on India it says, in translation, that besides the country's officially-used languages of Hindi and English, <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->'the law recognises 14 languages (the states + Samskritam)'; in total there are about 900 languages and dialects that are spoken'.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->- 'Giant book of facts' (children's knowledge book) - 1987, London, published by Octopus books:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Which country has the most languages?</b>
The leading contender is probably India. Where the people speak 15 major languages 857 other languages and dialects! .... A smaller country with a similar language problem [insert: not a 'problem'] is Papua New Guinea, whose population of just over 3 million speak more than 700 different languages.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->On these grounds, I'd say you've picked the wrong country to impress with dialects. We've got the most <i>languages</i>.

<b>Rumanian and Latin</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->About rumanian i disagree that latin came from Italy to Romania<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->You may. But every known scholar in that field agrees that the Romanian language came from Latin.
(There are also Italic-speaking people in southern Switzerland, by the way. Their languages developed the same way Italian dialects did from Latin. Latin was brought there during the times of the Roman Empire.)

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->They say that the romanian word "apa"-water is from the italian "aqua",but more similar word we find in sanskrit "ap,apas", and persian "ab".Or the romanain word for sun-"soare" came from the italian "sol" ,while more similar word you find in sanskrit "surya" or persian"saura".The same ca be said about other 4000 words. In fact we can say that romanian vocabulary is equaly close to persian or sanskrit as to latin.
<i>This laundry just show how many tings was develop out-side India</i>.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->I have to say the opposite: it does not show anything about how these things were supposedly 'developed' outside of India. It does not show <i>where</i> they were developed at all. It merely shows there appears to be some connection without throwing any light on how that connection came to be or what it was. Even the very young language English (about 1500 yrs old) shares many words that appear similar to Samskritam. Not all those similar-looking English words are from Latin, some are Germanic in origin, others Celtic. But this is why the Indologists believe in the IE family of languages. It doesn't mean that they think that Romanian gave rise to Samskritam.

But I have a different kind of example for you:
- The German word <i>Kaiser</i> is pronounced close enough to Latin '<i>Caesar</i>' (not the English mispronunciation of it, they always mispronounce Latin) and has the same meaning! What a mystery, what a coincidence (never mind that Kaiser came from the Latin word Caesar and was imported during the Roman Empire).
- The Russian word <i>Czar</i> has the same meaning (emperor) as Caesar and it looks similar! Again: what a mystery, what a coincidence. And yet again, ot is known that the Russian ruling family adopted the term at some point.
These are facts of history that we know, because they've been properly recorded. Other things are still real mysteries and just by saying that certain Romanian words sound like Samskritam and like Latin doesn't mean that Romanian gave rise to either or both. Tamil also shares many words with Samskritam - did Samskritam give rise to Tamil? By your logic it did. But no, the fact is that a number of Samskritam words were eventually adopted into Tamil (and a few words went the other way).

For all I know, Indian people went to Anatolia and then Romania say between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago and then from there went to Rome. Alternatively, Indian traders went some places and then some of their words were borrowed into European languages and changed slightly over time. Where's the counter-evidence to contradict this? I can randomly pick any date (like the Indologists do with their AIT and its modified versions) and leave you to work on disproving it.

The Indologists are more interested in linguistics, perhaps you can convince them that Romania is the PIE homeland they've been looking for. I personally don't care about the mythical PIE one bit. I don't believe in Aryans. I know that Samskritam is an Indian language of Indian origin. As much as I respect Latin and Romanian, it wouldn't affect me in the least if tomorrow they find that Samskritam bears no relation at all to those languages. It might matter to you, but not to me.
<img src='http://www.organiser.org/dynamic_includes/images/2006-07-23/Book-cover-of-second-story-.jpg' border='0' alt='user posted image' />

The distortion of India’s past by western historians

V. Lakshmikantham & J. Vasundhara Devi; What India Should Know, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, pp 308, Rs 250.00
By Manju Gupta

The deep-rooted prejudices about the qualities, traditions and religions of the East have been a pervasive and marked characteristic of Western thought of centuries. It was a thought reinforced in the 19th century by industrialisation and imperialism, and which resulted in identification of the East with backwardness and ungovernability.

We also agree that today scholarship means being at home with what is written by Western scholars, who have more than often discredited the ancient past of Indian culture and distorted the history and chronology of events.

The book under review, written by mathematicians Dr V. Lakshmikantham and Dr J. Vasundhara Devi, begins by throwing light on the confusion till today between Gupta Chandragupta and Maurya Chandragupta. They point out that actually Gupta Chandragupta flourished in 327 BC and was the contemporary of Alexander, while Maurya Chandragupta lived in 1534 BC. “But the Western historians wrongly identified Alexander’s contemporary with Maurya Chandragupta, thus affecting more than 1,200 years in the history of ancient India. This colossal blunder upset the whole scheme and brought terrible chaos into the Puranic dates of India.” They point out that it was Sir William Jones, “the first historian of India”, who changed this date to effect a sort of similitude between the Biblical and Indian conceptions of time and they add, “twelve centuries of time after the Mahabharata war (3138 BC) and 10 centuries before that are struck off like this and the history the Indians got to know is put upon this wrong base. The Western scholars have not only bungled facts and tampered with texts, but even gone to the extent to hurling abuse at ancient Indian historians and sages.”

The authors feel that colonisation had affected the Indian mind in certain aspects. Through Macaulay’s education policies, the British ensured that they left behind an inferiority complex among the Indians by constantly denigrating Indian culture. “<span style='color:red'>This is why the intellectuals of India today repeat what their masters said before and ape them after having hated them,” say the authors.</span>

They add that another masterstroke of the British was the propagation of the “absurd” theory of Aryan invasion according to which India was invaded by a tribe called Aryans who originated in western Russia and imposed upon the Dravidians of India, the hateful caste system. They continue, “To the Aryans are attributed Sanskrit, the Vedic religion, as well as India’s greatest spiritual texts, the Vedas and a host of writings like the Upanishads. The Aryan invasion myth has shown that the Indian civilisation was not that ancient and that it was secondary to the cultures that influenced the Western world. Also, whatever good thing India had developed has been a consequence of the influence of the West.”

The book deals with the general prejudice about the East, the distortion of Indian history and the superficial translation of the Vedas by Western scholars. The authors comment ironically that the “supposedly enlightened writers” such as Edward Gibbon who never set foot east of Switzerland, in his History of the Roman Empire, loved to make play of the “despicable people of the East”, and Voltaire, who never travelled beyond Berlin, “fantasised about the misery and bigotry of the Eastern nation”. They add, “The most conspicuous example was Lord Macaulay, who carried his all-consuming racist hatred of the East to ridiculous depths by asserting that the entire corpus of knowledge that the Orient possessed could be contained in half a thimble.” They add that the world is but one and the East and West bifurcation is a mythical boundary.

The catastrophic event of the formation of a Mediterranean Sea resulted in the loss of culture and civilisation existing in Europe. The history of the Greeks, Roman and the British are traced briefly and so is the awakening of Europe from the “dark ages”.

The book ridicules the theory of Aryan invasion and gives in points the reasons for its dismissal. It says that the Aryans spread from the Bharatavarsha in different directions to spread the Aryan culture. “There was never any Aryan invasion of India or any Aryan-Dravidian war. The cradle of civilisation was not Sumeria in Mesopotamia, but the Sapta Sindhu, the land of seven rivers in north-west India.”

Then it expounds on the misrepresentation of the two Chandraguptas and tries to set right the chronology of events in India.

It points out that the Aryan invasion theory was aimed at dividing India into factions. It explains that the Aryans were extremely sensitive to the high walks of life, righteousness and nobility, both in thought and action. That is, the Aryans followed the Vedic Dharma, also called the Sanatana Dharma. Dharma is “that nature which makes a thing what it is.” Thus Manava Dharma implies that human beings “should be true to their own essential nature, which is divine; therefore, all efforts in life should be directed towards maintaining the dignity of the atma (the self) and not plodding through life like helpless animals. Thus Dharma is the ‘law of being’.”

The book exposes the deliberate distortions wrought by Orientalists in their efforts to write the history of India.

The book traces the great traditions laid down by Sanatana Dharma throughout the world that endured in Bharatakhand in the 12th century.

And the authors try to synthesise India with its glorious heritage and the present technological advances ready for taking India into the twenty-first century. The chapter ends on a positive note that this entry “will have a new awakening and the humanity will be much more spiritual than it has been.”

The book concludes by saying that the Sanatana Dharma “is much more open than any other religion to new ideas, scientific thought and social experimentation. Many principles basic to Sanatana Dharma initially appeared strange to the West, such as yoga, meditation, reincarnation and methods of interiorisation, but these principles have now found worldwide acceptance. Sanatana Dharma is, of course, a world religion…”

(Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Kulpati Munshi Marg, Mumbai - 400 007.)

<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Jul 14 2006, 01:46 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Jul 14 2006, 01:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From my experience in dealing with Eastern Europeans (Romanians, Russians etc.) is that they are some of the most racist people in the world.  I have heard stories of how dark skinned people are beaten up in Russia all the time including by the Police in big cities like Moscow etc.  Foreign students from Asia/ Africa in Russia are assaulted all the time, I have posted links to such news reports in this forum.

So, it is reasonable to assume that many people from these regions have a strong mental block or aversion to the idea that a darker skinned race was more advanced than them for a long time.

I think Romania can start by rounding up the stray dogs in their country (especially in Constanta).  Many Romanians look very Mongoloid (as in Genghis Khan's cousin).  Are these folks part of the Aeerian race as well ?

If you have also reports of agresion against dark people in Romania please informe us.
You ca detalied the traumatized experience of meeting romanian and russians.Is a thread were can be discuss about this?
Is no such thing as the aryan race.
Hey Romani,

Don't be afraid to post on the open forum instead of sending private messages.

I have been to Romania, and I have seen Romanians with 100% Mongoloid features (From eyes to everything else...). This is nothing to be ashamed of or to be suprised about. The Black Huns and invading mongoloid tribes have regularly passed through Romania and ofcourse racial mixing must have occured.

<!--QuoteBegin-agnivayu+Jul 14 2006, 01:46 AM-->QUOTE(agnivayu @ Jul 14 2006, 01:46 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->From my experience in dealing with Eastern Europeans (Romanians, Russians etc.) is that they are some of the most racist people in the world.  I have heard stories of how dark skinned people are beaten up in Russia all the time including by the Police in big cities like Moscow etc.  Foreign students from Asia/ Africa in Russia are assaulted all the time, I have posted links to such news reports in this forum.

So, it is reasonable to assume that many people from these regions have a strong mental block or aversion to the idea that a darker skinned race was more advanced than them for a long time.

I think Romania can start by rounding up the stray dogs in their country (especially in Constanta).  Many Romanians look very Mongoloid (as in Genghis Khan's cousin).  Are these folks part of the Aeerian race as well ?
Namaste, I have been following this thread for some time and it has been a very informative one. I was especially impressed by Husky and the breadth of his/her knowledge and the quality of his/her arguments. However, I was a little disappointed that the thread degenerated into name calling and racial remarks. I think it comes of in poor taste if you resort to name calling someone who presents a different point of view than your own, even if it might not be correct.
Post 52:
Thanks, didn't know I said anything deserving of a compliment. I have stepped on a number of toes so far (in other threads, probably). I suppose there's no hiding that <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I am good at stepping on toes especially big ones, comes with the job as an Aryan Invader .

<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Jul 19 2006, 06:02 PM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Jul 19 2006, 06:02 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Post 52:
Thanks, didn't know I said anything deserving of a compliment. I have stepped on a number of toes so far (in other threads, probably). I suppose there's no hiding that  <!--emo&Sad--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--emo&Big Grin--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> Cheers.
Well i saw the images of "yoga" (from crete, of all places). I have to admit they remain unconvincing, actually they are laughable. So now, someone sitting down can denote the discipline of yoga. We should ask ourselves that if yoga could not be appropriated into the Christian ashrams of Father Clooney and bunch, then why are these euro supremacists now being called into action to give it an "IE" provenance. It is symptomatic of the standard appropriation (thievery) practices of the colonials.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I for one believe that AIT stands for Aryan Indigenous theory
although my proof is by circumlocution.

We all would agree that Indian civilization is of a level which not
seen in many other parts. + It is still surviving thereby showing its
enduring qualities.

There are many aspects to eg language (Sanskrit, mathematics, surgery
(health), hatha yoga, meditation, leatherworks, agriculture, societal
development, level of pluralism and on and on.

If really Aryan culture came from outside, then India and its
development should be on the fringe with similar results. But the
level of achievements somehow suggests that the heart (core)was in
India and it branched out.

Otherwise how can we explain the high level of civilization here and
conversely we do not see such development outside India where Aryans
we supposed to have come from. in fact we do not even see sparks of
it. If the heart was elsewhere it should still have some vestiges.,
be it Mesopotamia etc. But all these cultures long ago have gone.

Does it make sense. I guess this is the core point of Out of India

We may not be able to get others to believe it, but it does make some
level of sense?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hinducivil...ssage/4251 Re: BB
Lal replies to Witzel re: UMass Dartmouth conf.; WAVES conf. in
See also:

Vishal Agarwal made a presentation at the WAVES conf. (July 8 to 10,
2006) in Houston, Texas. His full paper 'Is there vedic evidence for
the indo-aryan immigration to India' is appended.

The mulishness with which Witzel sticks to his reading of Baudhayana
and an absence of grace in accepting a mistake leads us to another
context -- in reference to fine-tuning evidences for donkeys,
half-asses, onagers, small khur and equus caballus (aha, horses) in
archaeological settings calls for designating the entire episode as
Harvard donkey trial.

The donkey was referred to in The Hindu (the marxist tabloid) by
Witzel in a profound, brilliant introduction to zoological creationism
and supremacy of the Aryan equus caballus:
differences between a half-ass skeleton and that of a horse are so
small that one needs a trained specialist plus the lucky find of the
lower forelegs of a horse/onager to determine which is which, for
"bones of a larger khur will overlap in size with those of a small
horse, and bones of a small khur will overlap in size with those of a

Now, reverting to Baudhayana textual reference which was twisted and
misinterpreted by Witzel indulging in blatant mistranslations. The
issue is not merely about mistranslations but about the absence of
grace to say, 'sorry, I was wrong, I stand corrected'. What is the big
deal about AIT/AMT/Aryan Tourist Theory or Aryan Influx Theory that we
cannot say, 'let the evidence speak' while exploring the ancestry of
hindu civilization?

As Vishal notes, Baudhayana S'rautasutra itself contains references to
the locale, in addition to the references to Ayu and Amavasu. Urvasi,
Pururava and their two sons lived in Kurukshetra. "In Kurukshetra,
there were ponds called Bisavati. The northern-most among them created
gold." TS I.7.1.3

When I requested for a review, a Sanskrit scholar who has done notable
researches on Panini, <b>George Cardona, also rejected Witzel's
translation of Baudhayana text.</b>

Let the Harvard donkey trial continue and let the middle-school
textbooks record the correct evidence in regard to the ancestry of
hindu civilization.

Thanks to BB Lal for bringing out the importance of the neolithic site
of Bhirrana and for highlighting the imperative of correct reading of
ancient texts unhindered by motivated theories and myths created by
indologists. As Sarasvati flows on, the cultural continuity of the
civilization from the days of Vedic Sarasvati will come alive as the
celebrations of tarpanam on the river bank in veneration of almost
every single vedic rishi continue as annual melas. At Mohangarh, the
local people, bharatam janam, have erected a dhwajastambham heralding
sarasvati mahaanadi roopaa flowing in a 40 ft. wide and 12 ft. deep
channel, 55 kms. west of Jaisalmer, in the midst of Marusthali. As
Sarasvati flows on towards to Gujarat (she will reach Rann of Kutch in
the next 3 years), the Harvard donkey trial will become a mere episode
to be narrated to the children to inculcate the value of inquiry,
veda, in the quest for satyam, without indulging in dogma and myths.

Hoping that there is still an academic ethic valued in Harvard, would
it be unreasonable to expect Witzel to apologise to BB Lal for the
intemperate comments Witzel made at UMass., Dartmouth?
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(pigs will fly before that)</span>


Is There Vedic Evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India?
By Vishal Agarwal

1. Introduction
2. Earlier Criticisms of Michael Witzel's translation of BSS 18.44-45
3. Translation of Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44 by other Scholars
4. Pururava Uruvasi legend in Vedic texts
5. Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.45 and Kurukshetra
6. Satapatha Brahmana 11.5.1 on the Pururava-Urvashi legend
7. Vadhula Anvakhyana version of the Narrative
8. Hertha Krick's Study on Agnyadheya rite
9. The location of 'Aratta' in Baudhayana Kalpasutra
10. Conclusions

1. Introduction:
The complete lack of mention of an Aryan immigration into India in the
vast Vedic
literature has been considered a moot point by historians for several
decades. Recently however, some scholars have claimed that a Vedic
text finally provides evidence for the migration of Indo-Aryan
speakers from Afghanistan into India.
In a lecture delivered on 11 October 1999 at the Jawaharlal Nehru
University (New
Delhi), historian Romila Thapar said 1: " …and later on, the Srauta
Sutra of Baudhayana refers to the Parasus and the arattas who stayed
behind and others who moved eastwards to the middle Ganges valley and
the places equivalent such as the Kasi, the Videhas and the Kuru
Pancalas, and so on. In fact, when one looks for them, there are
evidence for migration."

Another historian of ancient India, Ram Sharan Sharma considers this
passage as an
important piece of evidence in favor of the Aryan Migration Theory
(AMT). He writes2 -
"More importantly, Witzel produces a passage from the Baudhayana
Srautasutra which contains 'the most explicit statement of immigration
into the Subcontinent'. This passage contains a dialogue between
Pururava and Urvasi which refers to horses, chariot parts, 100 houses
and 100 jars of ghee. Towards the end, it speaks of the birth of their
sons Ayu and Amavasu, who were asked by their parents, to go out. 'Ayu
went eastward. His people are the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas.
This is the Ayava kin group. Amavasu stayed in the west. His people
are the Gandharas, the Parsavas and the Arattas. This is the Amavasava
kin group.'"

Sharma is so confident of the 'evidence' of the AMT produced by Witzel
that he even
goes to the extent of co-relating these two groups with various
pottery types attested in the archaeological record. He says 3-
1 Romila Thapar's lecture titled "The Aryan Question Revisited" is
available on-line at
2 Pages 87-89 in Sharma,
Ram Sharan. Advent of the Aryans in India.
Manohar: New Delhi (1999)
3 ibid., page 89
"Perhaps members of the Amasava kin group used grey pottery and those
of the Ayava kin group used Painted Grey Ware and Northern Black
Polished Ware.
Possibly the former spoke the r- only dialect of the Indo-Aryan
language of the north,
and the latter spoke its r- and –l dialect in the north eastern part
of north India."
In his chapter on the conclusions of his book, Sharma finally adds4:
"Some later Vedic texts clearly speak of a migration from the west."
It is quite apparent that all these claims of alleged Vedic literary
evidence for an Indo-Aryan immigration into the Indian subcontinent
are informed by the following statements made by Harvard philologist
Michael Witzel5 – "Taking a look at the data relating to the
immigration of the Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is stuck by the
number of vague reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the
Rgveda, in spite repeated assertions to the contrary in the secondary
literature. Then, there is the following direct statement contained in
(the admittedly much later) BSS (=Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra)
18.44:397.9 sqq which has once again been overlooked, not having been
translated yet: "Ayu went eastwards. His (people) are the Kuru
Panchala and the Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava (migration). (His
other people) stayed at home. His people are the Gandhari, Parsu and
Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)" (Witzel 1989a: 235)."

That the above passage of the Baudhayana Srautasutra is the only
'direct' evidence for an Indo-Aryan immigration into India is
clarified by Witzel in the same article later6 – "Indirect references
to the immigration of Indo-Aryan speakers include reminiscences of

The reference (Witzel 1989a: 235) at the end of the above citation
pertains to an earlier article7 by Witzel, where he has elaborated it
further – "In the case of ancient N. India, we do not know anything
about the immigration of various tribes and clans, except for a few
elusive remarks in the RV (= Rigveda), SB (= Shatapatha Brahmana) or
BSS ( = Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra). This text retains at 18.44
:397.9 sqq. the most pregnant memory, perhaps, of an immigration of
the Indo-Aryans into Northern India and of their split into two
groups: pran Ayuh pravavraja. Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity.
Etad Ayavam pravrajam. Pratyan amavasus. Tasyaite Gandharvarayas
Parsavo 'ratta ity. Etad Amavasavam. "Ayu went eastwards. His(people)
are the Kuru-Pancala and the Kasi Videha. This is the Ayava migration.
(His other people) stayed at home in the West. His people are the
Gandhari, Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava (group)".

Witzel further comments (ibid): 4 ibid., page 99 5 pages 320-321 of
Witzel, Michael. 'Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftains and Politics'. in
The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia ed. by Erdosy, George Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin: 1995 6 Ibid, page 321 7 Witzel, Michael. 'Tracing the
Vedic Dialects'. In Dialectes dans les literatures indo-aryennes;
Publications de l'Institute de Civilization Indienne, Serie in-8,
Fascicule 55, ed. by C. Caillat, Diffusion de Boccard: Paris (1989)
"…the text makes a differentiation between the peoples of the Panjab
and the territories West of it on one hand, and the "properly Vedic"
tribes of Madhyadesa and the adjacent country East of it." Witzel then
brings in a discussion on Eastern Vratyas and I leave it to the reader
to refer the original article by Witzel for further details.

Finally, this mistranslation is found in an even older publication of
Witzel8 as well, were he says – "The other passage tells the origin of
two groups of Aryans, the Amavasu "who stayed at home" and who include
the Gandhari, the Parsu and Aratta, and that of the Ayava "who moved
eastwards": the Kuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas." This article
intends to show how this Sutra passage actually says the reverse of
what Witzel intends to prove, because Witzel's translation is flawed.

2. Earlier Criticisms of Witzel's Translation of Baudhayana
Srautasutra 18.44: In a review of Erdosy's volume where Witzel's
article appeared, Koenraad Elst9 took issue with Witzel on the precise
translation of the Sanskrit passage. He stated - "This passage
consists of two halves in parallel, and it is unlikely that in such a
construction, the subject of the second half would remain unexpressed,
and that terms containing contrastive information (like "migration" as
opposed to the alleged nonmigration of the other group) would remain
unexpressed, all left for future scholars to fill in. It is more
likely that a non-contrastive term representing a subject indicated in
both statements, is left unexpressed in the second: that exactly is
the case with the verb pravavrâja "he went", meaning "Ayu went" and
"Amavasu went". Amavasu is the subject of the second statement, but
Witzel spirits the subject away, leaving the statement subject-less,
and turns it into a verb, "amâ vasu", "stayed at home". In fact, the
meaning of the sentence is really quite straightforward, and doesn't
require supposing a lot of unexpressed subjects: "Ayu went east, his
is the Yamuna-Ganga region", while "Amavasu went west, his is
Afghanistan, Parshu and West Panjab". Though the then location of
"Parshu" (Persia?) is hard to decide, it is definitely a western
country, along with the two others named, western from the viewpoint
of a people settled near the Saraswati river in what is now Haryana.
Far from attesting an eastward movement into India, this text actually
speaks of a westward movement towards Central Asia, coupled with a
symmetrical eastward movement from India's demographic centre around
the Saraswati basin towards the Ganga basin." Elst further commented
(ibid): "The fact that a world-class specialist has to content himself
with a late text like the BSS, and that he has to twist its meaning
this much in order to get an invasionist story out of it, suggests
that harvesting invasionist information in the oldest literature is
very difficult indeed. Witzel claims (op.cit., p.320) that: "Taking a
look at the data relating to the
immigration of Indo-Aryans into South Asia, one is struck by a number
of vague
reminiscences of foreign localities and tribes in the Rgveda, in spite
[of] repeated
8 Page 202 in Witzel, Michael; On the Localisation of Vedic Texts and
Schools; pp. 173-213 in "India and the Ancient World" ed. by Gilbert
Pollet; Departement Orientalistiek; Keuven; 1987 9 pages 164-165 of K.
Elst, 1999. Update the Aryan Invasion Debate. Aditya Prakashan: New
Delhi assertions to the contrary in the secondary literature." But
after this promising start, he fails to quote even a single one of
those "vague reminiscences"." If Elst's critique is correct, the
solitary direct literary evidence cited by Witzel for the AMT gets

Dr. S. Kalyanaraman, referred the matter to Dr. George Cardona- an
authority in Sanskrit grammar, and author of numerous definitive
publications on
Panini's grammar. Cardona clearly rejected Witzel's translation, and
upheld the
objections of Elst on the basis of rules of Sanskrit grammar11. He
"The passage (from Baudha_yana S'rautasu_tra), part of a version of
the Puruuravas and Urva'sii legend concerns two children that Urva'sii
bore and which were to attain their full life span, in contrast with
the previous ones she had put away. On p. 397, line 8, the text says:
saayu.m caamaavasu.m ca janayaa.m cakaara 'she bore Saayu and
Amaavasu.' Clearly, the following text concerns these two sons, and
not one of them along with some vague people. Grammatical points also
speak against Witzel's interpretation. First, if amaavasus is taken as
amaa 'at home' followed by a form of vas, this causes problems: the
imperfect third plural of vas (present vasati vasata.h vasanti etc.)
would be avasan; the third plural aorist would be avaatsu.h. I have
not had the chance to check Witzel's article again directly, so I
cannot say what he says about a purported verb form (a)vasu.h. It is
possible, however, that Elst has misunderstood Witzel and that the
latter did not mean vasu as a verb form per se.
Instead, he may have taken amaa-vasu.h as the nominative singular of a
compound amaavasu- meaning literally 'stay-at-home', with -vas-u-
being a derivate in -u- from -vas. In this case, there is still what
Elst points out: an abrupt elliptic syntax that is a mismatch with the
earlier mention of Amaavasu along with Aayu. Further, tasya can only
be genitive singular and, in accordance with usual Vedic (and later)
syntax, should have as antecedent the closest earlier nominal: if we
take the text as referring to Amaavasu, is in order: tasya (sc.
Amaavaso.h). Finally, the taddhitaanta derivates aayava and
aamaavasava then are correctly parallels to the terms aayu and
amaavasu. In sum, everything fits grammatically and thematically if we
straightforwardly view the text as concerning the wanderings of two
sons of Urva'sii and the people associated with them.

There is certainly no good way of having this refer to a people that
remained in the west." The noted archaeologist B. B. La l13 has also
stated out that Witzel's translaton is untenable and is a willful
distortion of Vedic texts to prove the non-proven Aryan migration
theory (AMT). Lal's criticism is along the same lines as that of Elst.
10 Elst's revelation generated a very bitter controversy involving
accusations of a personal nature, and we need not detail these here
because the controversy is documented in my online article 'The Aryan
Migration Theory, Fabricating Literary Evidence' (2001), available at

11 Message no. 3 (dated April 11, 2000) in the public archives of the
Sarasvati Discussion list. The website of the discussion list was
http://sarasvati.listbot.com/ . The list is now defunct and messages
are no longer available. 12 In the original message, the word aayu was
spelt incorrectly advertently as 'saayu'. This error was
pointed out by Dr. Cardona himself, and has therefore been
incorporated in the citation in the present article. 13 Lal, B. B.
1998. India 1947-1997, New Light on the Indus Civilization. Aryan
Books International: New Delhi

3. Translations of BSS 18:44 by other Scholars:
Let us consider the few publications where the relevant Baudhayana
Srautasutra (BSS) passage has actually been studied, or has been
translated -
Willem Caland's Dutch translation: It is he who first published the
Srautrasutra from manuscripts.14 In an obscure study15 of the Urvashi
legend in Dutch, he focuses on the version found in Baudhayana
Srautasutra 18.44-45 and translates the relevant sentences of text as
(p. 58)- "Naar het Oosten ging Ayus; van hem komen de Kuru's,
Pancala's, Kasi's en Videha's. Dit zijn de volken, die ten gevolge van
het voortgaan van Ayus ontstonden. Naar het Westen ging Amavasu; van
hem komen de Gandhari's. de Sparsu's en de Aratta. Dit zijn de volken,
die ten gevolge van Amavasu's voortgaan ontstonden." Translated into
English16, this reads – "To the East went Ayus; from him descend the
Kurus, Pancalas, Kasis and Videhas.
These are the peoples which originated as a consequence of Ayus's
going forth. To the West went Amavasu; from him descend the Gandharis,
the Sparsus and the Arattas. These are the peoples which originated as
a consequence of Amavasu's going forth." The text, as reconstituted by
Caland (and also accepted by Kashikar – see below) reads 'Sparsus',
which apparently stands for the peoples who are known as 'Parshus'
elsewhere in the Vedic literature, and are often identified as the
ancestors of Persians (or even of Pashtuns). Clearly, Caland
interpreted the passage to mean that from a central region, the
Arattas, Gandharis and Parsus migrated west, while the Kasi-Videhas
and Kuru-Pancalas migrated east. Combined with the testimony of the
Satapatha Brahmana (see below), the implication of this version in the
Baudhayana Srautasutra, narrated in the context of the Agnyadheya rite
is that that the two outward migrations took place from the central
region watered by the Sarasvati.17

C. G. Kashikar's English translation: Very recently, Kashikar has
published the critical text of the Baudhayana Srautasutra with an
English translation in four volumes18. The ____. 2005. The Homeland of
Aryans, The Evidence of Rigvedic Flora and Fauna & Archaeology. Aryan
Books International: New Delhi; pp. 85-88
14 In three volumes, from 1903-13, by Bibliotheca Indica (Calcutta) 15
Caland, Willem. 1903. "Eene Nieuwe Versie van de Urvasi-Mythe". In
Album-Kern, Opstellen
Geschreven Ter Eere van Dr. H. Kern. E. J. Brill: Leiden, pp. 57-60 16
The passage was translated from Dutch to English by Koenraad Elst upon
my request. 17 It is a long established scholarly tradition in
Indology to collect scattered important articles of venerable
Indologists and publish them in accessible volumes for the convenience
of scholars who wish to refer to them in one place. Such volumes are
called 'Kleine Schriften'. At the beginning of each volume is appended
a list of all the publications of that Indologist, including those
which are not included in that volume. Naturally, the Kleine Schriften
volume of Caland lists this Dutch paper as well. The reader would be
surprised to know that Caland's Kliene Schriften have been collected
as by none other than Michael Witzel [1990. Kleine Schriften, Willem
Caland. Stuttgart: F. Steiner]. Therefore it is all the more
surprising that in this entire controversy, Witzel does not allude to
Caland's translation of the passage at all! 18 Kashikar, Chintamani
Ganesh. 2003. Baudhayana Srautasutra (Ed., with an English
translation). 3 vols.
New Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass/IGNCA blurb on jacket cover says "The
text is revised here in the light of the variant readings recorded by
W. Caland in his first edition (Calcutta, 1906) and is presented in a
readable form."

In volume III of his translation, on p. 1235, Kashikar translates the
relevant sentences of the text as follows- "Ayu moved towards the
east. Kuru-Pancala and Kasi-Videha were his regions. This is the realm
of Ayu. Amavasu proceeded towards the west. The Gandharis, Sparsus and
Arattas were his regions. This is the realm of Amavasu." This is again
a straightforward translation of the passage in accordance with the
rules of Sanskrit grammar.

D. S. Triveda's English translation: In an article 19 dealing
specifically with the
homeland of Aryans, he titles the concluding section as "Aryans went
abroad from
India". He commences this section with the following words (p. 68)20
–"The Kalpasutra asserts that Pururavas had two sons by Urvasi – Ayus
and Amavasu.
Ayu went eastwards and founded Kuru – Pancala and Kasi – Videha
nations, while
Amavasu went westwards and founded Gandhara, Sprsava and Aratta."
Therefore, Triveda also takes the passage to mean that Amavasu
migrated westwards, rather than staying where he was.21

Toshifumi Goto's German Translation:

In his recent study22 of the parallel passages dealing with the
Agnyadheya rite, Goto
translates the Sutra passage in the following words (p. 101 sqq.) –
""Nach Osten wanderte Ayu [von dort] fort. Ihm gehdie genannt werden:
"kurus und pancalas, kazis und videhas."{87} Sie sind die von Ayu
stammende Fortfuehrung. {88}
Nach Westen gewandt [wanderte] amavasu [fort]. Ihm gehoeren diese:
parzus, {88} arattas". Sie sind die von amAvasu stammende
[Fortfuehrung]. {90}
{87}iti kann hier kaum die die Aufzaehlung abschliessende Partikel
(Faelle bei OERTEL Synt. of cases, 1926, 11) sein. In den beiden
Komposita koennte der Type ajava'h' [die Gattung von] Ziegen und
Schafen' vorliegen: pluralisches Dvandva fuer die Klassifikation, vgl.
GOTO Compositiones Indigermanicae, Gs. Schindler (1999) 134 n. 26.
{88} Gemeint ist hier wohl die Erbschaft seiner Kolonisation
("Fortwanderung"); mit bekannter Attraktion des Subj.-Pronomens in
Genus und Numerus an das Pr {89} Mit WITZEL, Fs. Eggermont (1987) 202
n. 99, Persica 9 (1980) 120 n.126 als gandharayas parsavo statt -ya
sparsavo aufgefasst, wofuer dann allerdings im rezenten 19 Triveda, D.
S. 1938-39. "The Original Home of the Aryans". In Annals of the
Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. XX, pp. 49-68
20 In a footnote, the author gives the source as 'Baudhayana
Srautasutra XVIII. 35-51'. The address is wrong, but it is clear that
Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44 is meant. 21 It may be noted however,
that Triveda believes that the Aryans originated on the banks of river
Devika, a tributary of Ravi in Panjab, and they spread towards east
and west from there. A detailed discussion of his views, with which I
do not subscribe, is beyond the scope of the present note. 22
Tushifumi Goto. 'Pururavas und Urvasi" aus dem neuntdecktem
Vadhula-Anvakhyana (Ed. Y. Ikari)'. pp. 79-110 in Tichy, Eva and
Hintze, Almut (eds.). Anusantatyai; J. H. Roll: Germany (2000)
BaudhSrSu die Schreibung gandharayah parsavo zu erwarten wals -SP-
ausgesprochen wurde (wie z.B. in der MS, vgl. AiG I 342) und noch kein
H (fÔr das erste s) eingefuehrt wurde. -yaspa- entging einer
(interpretatorischen) {90} Dahinter steckt wohl die Vorstellung von
Ayu' als normales Adjektiv 'lebendig,
beweglich' und entsprechend, wie KRICK 214 interpretiert, von
amavasu-: "nach Westen [zog] A. (bzw.: er blieb im Westen in der
Heimat, wie sein Name 'einer, der Gueter daheim hat' sagt."."

Loosely translated23 into English, this reads –

"From there, Ayu wandered Eastwards. To him belong (the groups called)
'Kurus and
Panchalas, Kashis and Videhas' (note 87). They are the
branches/leading away (note 88) originating from Ayu. From there,
Amavasu turned westwards (wandered forth). To him belong (the groups
called) 'Gandharis, Parsus (note 89) Arattas'. They are the
branches/leading away originating from Amavasu. (note 90)." {90}: It
appears that the notion of 'Ayu' as an normal adjectival sense
'living', 'agile' underlies this name. Correspondingly, Krick 214
interprets Amavasu as – "Westwards [travelled] A. (or: he stayed back
in the west in his home, because his name says –'one who has his goods
at home')".

We will discuss the views of Hertha Krick in greater detail later.
What is important here is that Goto also interprets the passage to
mean that both Ayu and Amavasu traveled in opposite directions from a
central region. In summary, we see that four scholars have translated
the disputed passage in the same manner as Elst, and differently from

4. Pururava-Uruvasi Legend in Vedic Texts:

The Pururava-Urvasi legend is found in numerous Vedic and non-Vedic
texts. In the
former, the couple and their son Ayu are related to the Agnyadheya
rite. Some passages in Vedic texts that allude to this rite/tale are –
Rigveda 10.95; Kathaka Samhita 26.7 etc.; Agnyadheya Brahmana (in the
surviving portions of the Brahmana 24 of Katha Sakha) etc.; Maitrayani
Samhita 1.2.7; 3.9.5; Vajasneyi (Madhyandina) Samhita 5.2; Satapatha
Brahmana (Madhyandina); Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45;
Vadhula Anvakhyana 1.1-2 etc. Many of the above textual references, as
well as those in Srautasutras (not listed above),
do not throw much light on the historical aspects of the legend.
Several passages
cursorily mention Uruvashi as mother, Pururava as father, Ayu (equated
to Agni) as their son and ghee as (Pururava's) seed in a symbolic
manner in connection with various rites.25 Elsewhere, Uruvasi is
enumerated as an Apsara and prayers are directed towards 23 Notes
87-89 are irrelevant to this present discussion and are therefore left
untranslated here. 24 The Kathaka Brahmana exists only in short
fragments, which have been collected together by the following two
scholars –
Suryakanta. 1943. Kathaka-sankalanam. Lahore Susan Rosenfield. 2004.
Katha Brahmana Fragments – A Critical Edition, translation and study.
PhD thesis, Harvard University The agnyadheya brahmanam portion
survives (and included in Suryakanta's collection), but it does not
shed any light on the question at hand.
25 Taittiriya Samhita;; Kathaka Samhita 3.4;
Kapisthala Samhita 2.11; 41.5; Kanva Samhita 5.2; Maitrayani Samhita
2.8.10 her for protection. 26 At least in one ritual context, Uruvasi
is taken to represent all Devis.27 Kathaka Samhita narrates the tale
in brief. 28 In addition, some passages of Srautasutras mention them
in the context of caturmasya rites.29 The texts that are of most
use for the present purpose are Rigveda 10.95, Satapatha Brahmana
11.5.1; Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45 and Vadhula Anvakhyana 1.1-2.
Dozens of published secondary studies examine the legend from the data
scattered in
Vedic, Puranic and Kavya texts.30 Most of these studies do take into
account the
information contained in Rigveda and Satapatha Brahmana. Very few
however analyze the information in the Baudhayana Srautasutra. Even
Volume I.1 of the Srautakosa31, which studies in detail the Agnyadehya
rite with a special emphasis on the Baudhayana Srautasutra, ignores
these sections. To my knowledge, only Willem Caland (1903), Hertha
Krick (1982) and Yasuke Ikari32 have studied the relevant sections of
the Baudhayana Srautasutra in detail.

5. Baudhayana Srautasutra 18:45 and Kuruksetra:
A very strong piece of evidence for deciding the correct translation
of Baudhayana
Srautrasutra 18.44 is the passage that occurs right after it, i.e.,
Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.45. I am reproducing the translation of
Kashikar (2003) with minor modifications that do not affect the issue
at hand - "The Apsaras Purvacitti was her Urvasi's) sister. She
thought, "My sister has been living among human beings for a long
time. I shall meet her." (Even after) Coming to her, she could not
meet her. She resided with the herd of sheep in her (Urvasi's)
possession because such was the appearance of old ladies.[1] She
assumed the form of a wolf and caused a violent stir up (in the herd
of sheep). A young ram, still sucking its mother was tied to a foot of
her (Urvasi's) bed. She (Purvacitti) snatched it away. As it was
stolen away, (Urvasi) wept, "My ram is stolen". Hearing it, the king
jumped up. He approached her (Purvacitti). He met (came close to) her.
Transformed as a female
ichneumon, she went to him. She deprived him of his inner garment. She
generated lightning. She (Urvasi) saw him naked in the light of the
lightning. The king came and said, "I could not help; my ram had
indeed disappeared."(2) (Urvasi said-) "I shall leave thee." 26
Kathaka Samhita 17.9; Kapisthala Samhita 26.8, Taittiriya Samhita; Maitrayani Samhita 2.8.10 27 Taittiriya Samhita
28 Kathaka Samhita 8.10 could be paraphrased as: "Urvasi was the wife
of Pururava. She left Pururava and returned to the devas. Pururava
prayed to the devas for Urvasi. Then, devas gave him a son named Ayu.
At their bidding, Pururava fabricated aranis (fire stick and base used
for the fire sacrifice) from the branches of a tree and rubbed them
together. This generated fire, and Pururava's desire was fulfilled. He
who establishes sacrificial fires this attains progeny, animals etc.".
Thus, this passage also equates Ayu with Agni. 29 E.g., Katyayana
Srautasutra 5.1.24-25
30 We need not dwell upon the versions available in Brhaddevata,
Sarvanukramani, Puranas etc., here. A survey of a few of these is
given in Prem Chand Shridhar. 2001. Rgvedic Legends. Delhi: Kalinga
Publications. pp. 311-345 31 Srautakosa , Volume I, Part I, English
Section. Poona: Vaidik Samsodhana Mandala. English section edited by
R. N. Dandekar (1958) 32 Ikari, Yasuke. 1998. "A Survey of the New
Manuscripts of the Vadhula School – MSS. of K1 and K4-" In ZINBUN, no.
33: 1-30 (Pururava said-) "What is happened?" (Urvasi replied-) "I saw
you naked." After her departure the king, with the harm already done,
and suffering from grief, wandered. Brhaspati, son of Angiras said to
him, "I shall cause you to perform the Sada sacrifice. I shall help
thee in the wandering." Brhaspati made him perform the Sada sacrifice.
After having returned from the Avabhrta (the king) saw her (Urvasi).
The sons approached her and said, "Do thou take us there where thou
are going. We are strong. Thou hast put our father, one of you two, to
grief."[2] She said, "O sons, I have given birth to you together.
(Therefore) I stay here for three nights. Let not the word of the
brahmana be untrue." The king wearing the inner garment lived with her
for three nights. He shed semen virile unto her. She said, "What is to
be done?" "What to do?", the king responded. She said, "Do thou fetch
a new pitcher?" She disposed it into it. In Kurukshetra, there were
ponds called Bisavati. The northern-most among then created gold. She
put it (the semen) into it (the pond). From it (the banks of the pond)
came out the Asvattha tree surrounded by Sami. It was Asvattha because
of the virile semen, it was Sami by reason of the womb. Such is the
creation of (Asvattha tree) born over Sami. This is its source. It is
indeed said, "Gods attained heaven through the entire sacrifice."[3]
When the sacrifice came down to man from the gods, it came down upon
the Asvattha (tree). They prepared the churning woods out of it; it is
the sacrifice. Indeed, whichever may the Asvattha be, it should be
deemed, as growing on the Sami (tree). When it is said, "Thou art
Urvasi, Ayu and Pruvasas," one utters the names of the father and the
sons. This may also be taken in general sense. After her departure,
the king, with the harm already done, and suffering from grief,
wandered. Brhaspati, son of Angiras
said to him, "I shall cause thee perform the Aupasada sacrifice;
thereby thy harm will disappear." Brhaspati, son of Angiras made him
perform the Aupasada sacrifice. Thereby his harm disappeared. The
Sadaupasada (sacrifices) are also known as Paururavasau. One who
desires to obtain wealth, him should one cause to perform he Sada. In
his sacrifice the Bahispavamana is in ten Stomas. ……. [1] The wording
aviyuthamupasthapadasa is not clear to me. The translation is
tentative. [2] Doubtful word and meaning. [3] Taittiriya Samhita
I.7.1.3" From this text, it is clear that Urvasi, Pururava and their
two sons were present in Kurukshetra in their very lifetimes. There is
no evidence that they traveled all the way from Afghanistan to Haryana
(where Kurukshetra is located), nor is there any evidence that she
took her sons from Kurukshetra to Afghanistan after disposing off the
pitcher. The passage rather only to indicate that the family lived in
the vicinity of Kurukshetra region. Therefore, the possibility that
Amavasu, one of the two sons of Pururava and
Urvasi lived in Afghanistan from where Ayu, the other son, migrated to
India is totally negated by this passage. Rather, BSS 18.45 would
imply that the descendants of Amavasu, i.e., Arattas, Parsus and
Gandharis migrated westwards from the Kurushetra region33.

From a historiographical perspective, the deduction of an eastward
migration of Indo- Aryans from Afghanistan to India from Baudhayana
Srautasutra 18.44 is problematic. The very mention of Videha and Kasi
should make the passage a very late one from an Aryan invasionist
(AIT) or AMT perspective because these regions were terra incognita33
It may be pointed out that in Taittiriya Aranyaka 5.1.1, the
Kurukshetra region is said to be bounded by Turghna (=Srughna or the
modern village of Sugh in the Sirhind district of Punjab) in the
north, by Khandava in the south (corresponding roughly to Delhi and
Mewat regions), Maru (= desert, noting that the Thar has advanced
eastward into Haryana only in recent centuries) in the west, and
'Parin' (?) in the east. This roughly corresponds to the modern state
of Haryana in India. for the Rgvedic peoples. Therefore, under these
paradigms, the BSS passage would be much later than the period when
the Indo-Aryan speakers were restricted to Afghanistan, and as a
result, it cannot be taken as credible proof for the AMT or AIT.

6. Satapatha Brahmana and Pururava- Uruvasi Narrative:

The Shatapatha Brahmana XI.5.1 is very clear that the wanderings of
Pururava, the reunion with Uravashi (and from context, their initial
cohabitation) were all in the
Kurukshetra region. (And not in W Punjab or anywhere further west).
Another point to note is that Pururava is said to be the son of Ila, a
deity again closely linked to the
Kurukshetra region and Sarasvati. Let me reproduce the passage from
the Satapatha Brahmana XI.5.1, as translated34 by Julius Eggeling
[1903(1963): 68-74]35 – "The nymph Urvasi loved Pururavas, the son of
Ida. When she wedded him, she said, 'Thrice a day thou shalt embrace
me; but do not lie with me against my will, and let me not see thee
naked, for such is the way to behave to us women.' XI.5.1.1
She then dwelt with him a long time, and was even with child of him,
so long did she
dwell with him. Then, the Gandharvas said to one another, 'For a long
time, indeed, has this Urvasi dwelt among men: devise ye some means
how she may come back to us.' Now, a ewe with two lambs was tied to
her couch: the Gandharvas then carried off one of the lambs. XI.5.1.2
'Alas,' 'she cried, 'they are taking away my darling, as if I were
where there is no hero and no man!' They carried off the second, and
she spake in the selfsame manner. XI.5.1.3 He then thought within
himself, 'How can that be (a place) without a hero and without a man
where I am?' And naked, as he was, he sprang up after them: too long
he deemed it that he should put on his garment. Then the Gandharvas
produced a flash of lightning, and she beheld him naked even as by
daylight. Then, indeed, she vanished: 'Here I am
back,' he said, and lo! She had vanished. Wailing with sorrow he
wandered all over
Kurukshetra. Now there is a lotus-lake there, called Anyatahplaksha:
He walked along its bank; and there nymphs were swimming about in the
shape of swans. XI.5.1.4 And she (Urvasi), recognizing him, said,
'This is the man with whom I have dwelt.' They then said, 'Let us
appear to him!' – 'So be it!' she replied; and they appeared to him.
X.4.1.5 He then recognized her and implored her…" At this stage, the
text reproduces some verses from Rgveda X.95, which contain the
Pururava-Uruvasi dialog, ending with Rgveda X.95.16. The narrative
continues then – "This discourse in fifteen verses has been handed
down by the Bahvrikas. Then her heart
took pity on him. XI.5.1.10 She said, 'Come here the last night of the
year from now; then shalt thou lie with me for one night, and then
this son of thine will have been born.' He came there on the last
night of the year, and lo, there stood a golden palace! They then said
to him only this (word), 'Enter!' and then they bade her go to him.
XI.5.1.11 She then said, 'Tomorrow morning the Gandharvas will grant
thee a boon, and thou must make thy choice.' He said, 'Choose thou for
me!' – She replied, 'Say, Let me be one of yourselves!' In the morning
the Gandharvas granted him a boon; and he said, 'Let me be one of
yourselves!' XI.5.1.12 34 Footnotes in Eggeling's translation are
omitted here. 35 EGGELING, Julius. 1900. The Satapatha-Brahmana
according to the Text of the Madhyandina School, Part V. London:
Clarendon Press. Repr. By Motilal Banarsidass (Delhi), 1963. They
said, 'Surely, there is not among men that holy form of fire by
sacrificing wherewith one would become one of ourselves.' They put
fire into a pan, and gave it to him saying, 'By sacrificing therewith
thou shalt become one of ourselves.' He took it (the
fire) and his boy, and went on his way home. He then deposited the
fire in the forest and
went to the village with the boy alone. [He came back and thought]
'Here I am back;' and lo! It had disappeared: what had been the fire
was an Asvattha tree (ficus religiosa), and what had been the pan was
the Sami tree (mimosa suma). He then returned to the Gandharvas.
XI.5.1.13 They said, 'Cook for a whole year a mess of rice sufficient
for four persons; and taking each time three logs from this Asvattha
tree, anoint them with ghee, and put them on the fire with verses
containing the words "log" and "ghee": the fire which shall result
therefrom will be that very fire (which is required).' XI.5.1.14 They
said, 'But that is recondite (esoteric), as it were. Make thyself
rather an upper arani of Asvattha wood, and a lower arani of Sami
wood; the fire which shall result therefrom will be that very fire.'
They said, 'But that also is, as it were, recondite. Make thyself
rather an upper arani of Asvattha wood, and a lower arani of Asvattha
wood: the fire which shall result thereform will be that very fire.'
XI.5.1.16 He then made himself an upper arani of Asvattha wood, and a
lower arani of Asvattha wood; and the fire which resulted therefrom
was that very fire: by offering therewith he became one of the
Gandharvas. Let him therefore make himself and upper and a lower arani
of Asvattha wood, and the fire which results therefrom will be that
very fire: by
offering therewith he becomes one of the Gandharvas." XI.5.1.17 The
mention of a lotus pond at Kurukshetra in the Satapatha Brahmana needs
to be noted because it is consistent with the information provided by
Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.45. The latter text also refers to the
presence of Pururava and Urvasi by a lotus pond surrounded by Peepul
trees in Kuruksetra, and performance of rituals at the site. It is
clear then, that Urvasi and Pururava themselves were present in
Kuruksetra according to the author of Satapatha Brahmana and
Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45.

7. Vadhula Anvakhyana Version of the Narrative:

One can hardly blame scholars for ignoring the Vadhula Anvakhyana
version because the relevant portion of the text has been published
only recently, first by Y Ikari (1998:19- 23), and more recently by
Braj Bihari Chaubey36. Based on Ikari's text, Toshifumi Goto (2000)
has studied the legend in detail, comparing it with parallel passages
in Vedic texts, in particular Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45. Chaubey
(2001: 34-35) too has presented a loose translation of Vadhula
Anvakhyana 1.1-2.
The Vadhula Anvakhyana Brahmana 1.1-2 (Chaubey 2001: pp. 34-35, 1-3 of
devanagari text) does not add any additional geographical information
except stating that Pururava and Urvasi traveled to Urvasi's father's
home for the birth of their son Ayu. This might again be interpreted
by Aryan Invasionists as proof that Ayu was born in Afghanistan. This
is because Urvasi was an apsaraa, and therefore, she belonged to the
Gandharvas who are sometimes placed in Afghanistan by scholars still
believing in the Aryan 36 Chaubey, Braj Bihari. 2001.
Vadhula-Anvakhyanam, Critically edited with detailed Introduction and
Indices. Hoshiarpur: Katyayan Vaidik Sahitya Prakashan Several decades
ago, Caland had published large extracts of the Vadhula Anvakhyana in
three articles in the journal Acta Orientalia, but the initial
portions of the text containing the sections on Agnyadheya were
apparently missing in the manuscripts/transcripts available to him.
Invasion Theory (AIT)37. The Vadhula text does not mention the
separation of Pururava and Urvasi. It does not mention Amavasu or his
birth at all, and states instead that Pururava left the home of his in
laws with his son Ayu, and with the knowledge of yajna. The section
1.1.2 explicitly equates Ayu with Agni, that eats food for both humans
and the Devas38.
An over-arching theme in the versions of the Purur ava-Urvasi legend
in the Vedic texts is the semi-divine origin of the Vedic ritual. The
yajna is said to have reached mankind through Pururava, who got it
through semi-divine beings, the Gandharvas, via the intervention of
Urvasi, who herself was an apsaraa and belonged to the Gandharvas.
Coupled with the Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45 passage, we may
interpret the names of Ayu and Amavasu to mean that the former
represents the ancestor of peoples (Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas)
who are 'alive and bright', and 'vibrant' or 'moving'39 because they
sacrificed to the Devas. In contrast, the Gandharis, Parsus and
Arattas did not perform Vedic sacrifices for Devas and hoarded their
'possessions in their homes', due to which they were 'stationary' or
'dead' and 'devoid of light', like the 'amavasya' or moonless night.
This interpretation would be completely consistent with later
traditions concerning the conformity to orthopraxy by the Kurus etc.,
and the lack of the same in the case of Arattas etc.

8. Hertha Krick's study40 on the Agnyadheya Rite

Hertha Krick presents her translation, or rather an interpretation of
Srautrasutra 18.44 in the following words (p. 214) – " Ayu zog nach
Osten weiter: Von ihm stammen diese Völker: die Kurus und Pañcalas,
die (Bewohner von) Kasi und Videha. Das ist der Wanderzug (die
Ausbreitung des Stamms) des Ayu. Nach Westen (zog) Amavasu (bzw.: er
bleib im Westen in der Heimat, wie sein Name ,einer, der Güter daheim
hat sagt): Seine Bachkommen sind die Gandharis , Sparsus und AraWW?as,
das ist der (Stammbaum) des Amavasu536. 37 For instance, Malati
Shengde [1977. The Civilized Demons. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications].
She suggests (p. 111) that the Gandharvas were the priests of people
who resided in the Kabul valley. Such speculations however are very
tentative and tenuous, and do not constitute evidence of any type.
They certainly cannot over-ride rules of Sanskrit grammar in
interpreting Sanskrit texts such as Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44.
Moreover, the Vadhula text 1.1.1 also clarifies that she was also of
the same lineage as Pururavas but had been adopted by Gandharvas as
their daughter. 38 "….aayurasi iti jaatam abhimantrayate sa vaa esha
aayuh pauruuvasa ubhayeshaan devamanushyanaam annaado agnibhagavaan
ubhayeshaam…" 39 Vadhula nvakhyana 1.1.1 explicitly declares that
before the birth of Ayu, humans did not perform Yajna properly due to
which they had developed only the trunk part of their body and not
their limbs- "….naanyaani kaani chanaangaani…" 40 Krick, Hertha. 1982.
Das Ritual der Feuergründung. Österreichische Akademie der
Vienna. The book deals not only with the external form and intricacies
of the rite, it also studies the rite from a variety of sources –
cultural, philological, anthropological, social and so on. Krick has
spared no pains to bring together tiny pieces of data from diverse
sources to weave her narrative. The author died in January 1979 at a
young age of 33 years, and her PhD thesis was published in book form
posthumously by Gerhard Oberhammer in 1982. For her obituary, refer:
Parpola, Asko. 1980. 'Hertha Krick (1945-1979) In Memoriam'. In Wiener
Zeitschrift fur die Kunde Sudasiens, vol. 24, pp. 5-12 536 Dieser
Stammbaum ist offenbar von alten Sternsagen (Gestirnkult) beeinflußt.
Die ersten Kinder Urvasis sind wohl ,Sternenkinder', deren Leben nur
eine Nacht dauert und die darauf ,verlöschen'. Das Zwillingspaar Ayu
und Amavasu erinnert dem Namen nach an Vollmond und Neumond bzw.
lichte und dunkle Monatshälfte (vgl. yavah? ,,lichte Monatshälfte'',
amavasi ,,Neumondnacht'',ayu – wird auch als ,, wandernd''
interpretiert). Auch später steht Ayu in der Soma-dynastie (Hariv.
21,1 ff.). Die Ayus im RV sind stets als Somaopferer genannt, wobei
die Soma (:Agni, :Ayu) – Mond-Symbolik (oft von der Sonnen-Symbolik
nicht unterscheidbar) bereits im Aufkommen ist. Im MBh (I 70, 22 ff.)
hat Pururavas mit Urvasi sechs Söhne (Ayu, Dhiman, Amavasu, Dr?d?hayu,
Vanayu, Srutayu), die im Hariv. 21, 10 um zwei (Visvayu, Satayu)
vermehrt werden. Als Ayus Sohn gilt Nahus?a (Stamm im RV), von dem
Yayati (die weitere Linie führt über Yadu zu Vasudeva) stammt." In her
translation41, Krick (as also noted above) first suggests that the
descendants of Amavasu migrated westwards, but them proposes an
alternate interpretation that Amavasu stayed west in his home, and
only Ayu migrated eastwards. Later on too, she refers (page 218-219)
to her interpretation that the descendants of Ayu migrated to
Kurukshetra region and thence to other parts of Madhyadesha where
Vedic orthodoxy/orthopraxy was established eventually by Brahmins,
whereas the Amavasus stayed back in western regions of Gandhara etc.
It should be noted that the entire work of Krick is written under the
AIT paradigms. Her argument for situating Uruvasi in the Gandhara
region is that Uruvasi resided with sheep and goats and rearing of
these animals was especially important for residents of Afghanistan
and its adjoining areas42. But such an argument is not conclusive
because sheep and goat herding have been important occupations not
just in Afghanistan and North Western Frontier Province region of
Pakistan, but also in much of Punjab and parts of Haryana down to
present times.

Not surprisingly, scholars who still adhere to AIT and its euphemistic
(such as AMT) continue to torture Vedic texts and see evidence for
migrations into India. Parpola (1980:10) remarks sympathetically –
"Such feasts dedicated to gandharvas and apsarases have been
celebrated at quite specific
lotus ponds surrounded by holy fig trees in the Kuruksetra. The
analysis cited above
suggests, however, that the original location of the legend was a
country like Gandhara, where shee-raising was the predominant form of
economy. This eastward shift, which is in agreement with the model of
the Aryan penetration into India, starting from the mountains of the
northwest, is corroborated. Hertha Krick points out, also by the
geneology of the peoples as given in the Baudhayana-Srautasutra
(18,44-45): while Amavasu stayed in the west (Gandhara), Ayu went to
the east (Kuruksetra)." 41 She links Ayu and his descendants with
symbolism related to Moon and Soma, and reproduces passages from later
Sanskrit texts on the progeny of Pururava and Urvashi. None of this
really sheds light on our problem at hand.
42 "Urvasi calls them (pair of sheep) her children, and becomes
desperate when they are robbed, while Pururavas boasts of having
'ascended the sky' through the recapture of the ram. This shows that
the generative and fertility power of the royal family and thereby the
whole kingdom was dependent upon these sheep. This component of the
tale should be based upon the actual old customs and cultic
conceptions of a country subsisting in sheep raising, such as
Gandhara….(P. 160)". Translated in Parpola 1980 (p. 8) In a later
publication for instance, Witzel draws solace43 from the fact that
Krick interprets 'Amavasu' as one who 'keeps his goods at home', and
'Ayu', as 'active/agile/alive'. Not surprisingly, Krick's
interpretations have also found support in her obituary written by
Asko Parpola, another scholar who till this day believes not just in
one but in multiple Aryan invasions of India. According to Witzel,
Hertha Krick and Asko Parpola, BSS 18.44 designates the
homeland of Gandharis, Parsus and Arattas as 'here' ('ama' in
'amavasu'). Prima facie, this suggestion is illogical, because the
territory inhabited by these three groups of people is a vast swathe
of land comprising a major portion of modern-day NWFP/Baluchistan
provinces of Pakistan, and much of Afghanistan. To denote such a vast
territory by 'here', while contrasting it with supposed migrations of
Kurus and other Indian peoples from 'here' to 'there' (= northern
India) is somewhat of a stretch. Baudhayana (or whoever wrote BSS
18.44) was definitely a resident of northern India, and for him,
Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan would be 'there', and not 'here'
or 'home'.

9. The Location of 'Aratta' of Baudhayana Kalpasutra:

In an online paper, Witzel tries to minimize the important he placed
earlier on BSS 18.44 as the only important direct evidence for an
Indo-Aryan immigration. He also argues44 – "…However, the passage
plays, in the usual Brahmana style, with these names and their
Nirukta-like interpretations and etymologies. They are based (apart
from Ayu: ayus 'full life span'), on the names of the two sons of
Pururavas, Amavasi: ama vas 'to dwell at home', as opposed to Ayu:
ay/i 'to go', contrasting the 'stay home' peoples in the west
(Amavasyavah: Gandhara, Parsu, Aratta) with those (Ayavah:
Kuru-Pancala, Kasi-Videha) who went/ went forth (ay/i + pra vraj)
eastwards, as the text clearly says. A note of caution may be added:
The missing verb in the collocation pratyan Amavasus allows, of
course, suppletion of pravavraja. If one follows that line of
argument, one group (the Ayavah) 'went east', the other one (the
Amavasyavah) 'went west', both from an unknown central area, to the
west of the Kuru lands. The Kuruksetra area is excluded as the Kurus
went eastwards (i.e., toward it!), apparent from somewhere in the
Punjab, (e.g., from the Parusni, the place of the Ten Kings' Battle,
RV 7.10)…..The passage in question is just one point in the whole
scheme of immigration and acculturation… The Gandhari clearly are
located in E. Afghanistan/N. Palistan, the Parsu in Afghanistan and
the Aratta seem to represent the Arachosians (cf. Witzel 1980); note
the Mesopot. Aratta, the land of Lapis Lazuli (cf. Possehl 1996b,
Steinkeller 1998)." We may easily dismiss Witzel's attempt to impose
his Nirukta like etymologies in this Sutra passage for the simple
reasons that they are opposed to the rules of Sanskrit grammar (as
elaborated by George Cardona cited by me above), and because the
passages from Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.55, Satapatha Brahmana XI.1.5
and Vadhula Anvakhyana 1.1.1-2 clearly pre-suppose the Kuruksetra
region as the scene of action involving Pururava and Uruvasi. Witzel
refers to his publication 'Witzel (1980)' as proof that Arattas were
'Arachosians' (= residents of Helmand valley in S W Afghanistan), but
43 Michael Witzel. 2001. 'Addendum to EJVS 7-3, notes 45-46', in
Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, Vol. 7, issue 4, available online
at http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ej...04/ejvs0704.txt 4
Michael Witzel. 2001. 'Autochthonous Aryans? The Evidence from Old
Indian and Iranian Texts." In
Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies, vol. 7, issue 3. See footnote 45
on page 16 at online paper available at
that publication was checked45, it was found to place the Arattas
in the Badakhshan
area in extreme N E Afghanistan! Witzel's views on this 'central area'
echo the views of Triveda (cited by me above) who posits the Devika
river (a tributary of Ravi = Parusni) as that central place from where
the Vedic peoples migrated in opposite directions. However, Witzel's
arguments for ruling out Kurukshetra as the central region are
specious. Kurkshetra in Sanskrit texts is not just the modern day
district of that name in northern Haryana, but covered almost the
entire present state of Haryana, and later (closer to the period of
the Baudhayana text), the northern parts of the Ganga-Yamuna doab east
of the Yamuna river. If the progeny of Ayu were to migrate from the
banks of Sarasvati to this region, it would still constitute an
eastward migration. Witzel's interpretations are valid only if Aratta
can be removed from W. Panjab (which is where the entire length and
breadth of Indian literature places it) and transplanted in Arachosia
(S W Afghanistan), as Witzel has done above, without any proof46. This
alone would leave W. Punjab as a 'central area' from which some people
move east and some move west. However, we may reject this possibility
because as a natural corollary, it would imply that W Punjab itself
did not receive any progeny of Pururavas and Uruvasi, even though
regions to the east and west of it did so. Secondly, and more
important, the other occurrences of the word 'Aratta' in the Vedic
texts47 indicate that these people were residents of W. Punjab (north
of Multan, just as in the historical period) and not of Helmand valley
as proposed by Witzel and others. The Baudhayana Srautasutra is a not
stand-alone text of its particular Sakha of Krshna Yajurveda. It is in
fact a (major) part of a larger text – the Baudhayana Kalpasutra. The
various parts of the Kalpasutra are the Srautasutra, the Hautrasutra,
Grhyasutra, Sulbasutra and the Dharmasutra. Hindu tradition attributes
all the portions of the Sutra to 45 See footnote 3 in Witzel, Michael.
1980, 'Early Eastern Iran and the Atharvaveda', in Persica, vol. IX,
pp. 86-128. 46 A Czech scholar Václav Blažek relies on the
mistranslation of the passage in Witzel [1995: 320-321] to reinforce
his conclusion that the Arattas were localized in the Helmand basin.
See Blažek, Václav. 2002. 'Elamo -Arica'. In The Journal of
Indo-European Studies, Vol. XXX, Nos. 3-4 (Fall/Winter 2002): pp. 215-
242 (see page 216). Interestingly, in the 'Acknowledgements' section
on page 235 of the paper, the Blažek says – "I wish to thank Michael
Witzel for providing an opportunity to present the first version of
this paper at the conference held at the Department of Indic Languages
at Harvard University in May 2002…." 47 The word 'Aratta' is
conspicuous by its absence in Vedic literature proper, i.e., in the
Brahmanas, Aranyakas and in the older Upanishads. The oldest text
where it occurs for the first time is Baudhayana Srautasutra. In all
later Sanskritic literature, the word denotes western and central
Punjab. 'Aratta' is also mentioned as a source of Lapis Lazuli in a
Mesopotamian text. Since this mineral was obtained from extreme
northern regions of Afghanistan, as well as from regions just north of
Quetta, some
scholars have often assumed that it denoted the Helmand valley. See
for instance – Hansman, J. F. 1978. 'The Question of Aratta'. In The
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 331-336 However,
even if this identification in Mesopotanian texts is correct, we need
not assume that the Aratta in Baudhayana Kalpasutra also meant the
same region because the Mespotamian text and this Kalpasutra are
separated from each other by great distance and time. In my opinion,
it is more appropriate to interpret this Kalpasutra using data from
successor Hindu traditions, rather than data from distant Mesopotamian
traditions! the same person, viz. Muni Baudhayana. To modern
scholarship however, the Kalpasutra appears to be a stratified text.48
It is not relevant here to discuss the merits of these various views
related to the authorship of Baudhayana Kalpasutra here. Even if the
entire Kalpasutra is not from the same author, the later parts
nevertheless reflect the
understanding of the older tradition by the later-day Baudhayaniyas.
Even if we assume that 'Brahmana-like' portion BSS 18.44 is an older
part of the text, it is worthwhile investigating what the words
Aratta, Parshu and Gandhara mean in other
portions of the Kalpasutra text. Parsu does not appear to occur
elsewhere in Baudhayana Kalpasutra. Aratta and Gandhara however are
found mentioned in BSS 18.13 and in Baudhayana Dharmasutra (= BDS).

Let us consider BDS49 first. Sutra defines Aryavarta as the
land west of
Kalakavana (roughly modern Allahabad), east of 'adarsana' (the spot
where Sarasvati disappears in the desert), south of Himalayas and
north of the Vindhyas. An alternate definition of Aryavarta in sutra restricts Aryavarta to the Ganga-Yamuna doab. The text then
enumerates the following peoples who are of 'mixed' origins, and
therefore whose traditions are not worthy of em
Another item was posted a while back regarding ritualistic zebu finds in ajerbaijan.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Ancient Metal Relics Discovered in Jiroft</b>
Jul 19, 2006

The police department of Jiroft succeeded in confiscating 41 metal relics belonging to the pre-historic and historic periods. The most ancient one is a Riton belonging to the third millennium BC. Riton is a kind of goblet with the head of an animal, usually in the shape of a lion, horse, ibex, or winged lion.

"The police department of Jiroft found 41 bronze, copper, and silver relics. The most ancient one is a <b>Riton with the head of a humped cow belonging to some 5000 years ago," </b>said Nader Soleimani, archeologist from the Cultural Heritage and Tourism Department of Kerman province.

According to Soleimani, a bronze dagger belonging to the first millennium BC with the design of an animal like crocodile is one of the other interesting relics in this collection. "The designs which can be seen on this dagger depict something like the crocodiles which still exist in south of Chabahar Port in Iran's Sistan va Baluchestan province. The person who came up with this design must have seen this animal closely to be able to put down such accurate pattern," added Soleimani.

<b>A bronze axe and a copper plaque engraved with a humped cow, </b><b>an ibex and palm tree </b>are the other discovered relics. "Such designs had already been seen in other parts of Jiroft on artifacts made with soapstone," said Soleimani.

Soleimani also announced the existence of a small bronze vessel belonging to the third millennium BC with some geometrical designs, and also 24 antique coins belonging to different periods of Parthian, Sassanid, the beginning of Islamic, Seljuk, Ilkhanid, Safavid, and Qajar periods in this newly discovered collection.

Jiroft historical site is located in Kerman province on the basin of Halil Rud River. <b>Jiroft is known to be one of the most historical sites of the world which enjoyed a rich civilization in the third millennium BC.</b> Over 100 historical sites have so far been identified along the bank of Halili-Rud River, extended for 400 kilometers.

Lack of enough control over this historical site and unawareness of the public about its importance turned Jiroft into a paradise for illegal diggers, plundering a large number of ancient relics in this site. What happened in Jiroft is today known as one of the most tragic events in archeology. It was only after all these illegal excavations that the archeologists rushed to this area to study one of the most prominent historical sites in Iran which revealed much about one of the most ancient civilizations of the world. Some archeologists believe that more findings on the earliest civilization that lived in Jiroft will be a turning point in their current understanding of the history of civilization.

"This threshold of history found in Jiroft is what is lost in the evolution course of the Mesopotamian civilization and is not that notable in that of Egypt. There are so many objects dating to this time found in the Halil-Rud Area, which can fill the gap in the formation and development course of the Jiroft civilization. Therefore, one can say that Jiroft is the capital of today's world archeology because it allows the archeologists to modify the previous theories on how people lived during that time. The part of history that was hidden in the strata of Iran's plateau is essential to rebuilding the base of world's history," these words were expressed by Jean Perrot, one of world's greatest archeologists who headed the French teams working in Iran from 1968 to 1978 and also attended the International Conference of Halil-Rud Civilization which was held in Jiroft from 1-3 February 2005.

Up until now, some 4000 historical relics which had been unearthed during illegal excavations in Jiroft have been identified and confiscated by the police department. http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/...6782.shtml<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm unable to extract from google cache the 5 or 6 articles on AIT from the now defunct vandemataram.com site: http://channels.vandemataram.com/vindex.jsp?sno=291. I'd appreciate if anyone can help by posting these here.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)