[This article was written in June 2015, and sent on 5/7/2015 to a western scholar Christophe Vielle, a member of the Indology List, who had sent me these two papers by P.E.Dumont and asked me to write my views on those papers so that we could have a discussion on those papers as a prelude to discussing the AIT/OIT. Koenraad Elst had introduced us, after telling me that some members on the Indology List (whose members had carefully avoided any debate with me till then) were interested in having a debate on the AIT/OIT. However, after I sent the article, there was a deafening silence, and Vielle backed out of any further contact. Later, Koenraad told me in a mail that they were expecting me to make some glaring mistakes in my article which they could use against me, but after reading the article they wisely beat a retreat. I suspect they expected a different reaction to the paper on the Babylonian rituals, where I would "expose" myself. However, they found the article unanswerable. Incidentally, the article is a bit heavy and tedious, and will not be light reading]
The following are some points
pertaining to two papers/articles by the renowned Indologist P.E.Dumont, the
papers in question being: 1) Indo-Aryan Names from Mitanni, Nuzi and Syrian
Documents, P.E.Dumont, JAOS, Vol.67, No.4 (Oct-Dec 1947), pp.251-253; and
2) A Parallel between Indic and Babylonian Sacrificial Ritual,
W.F.Albright and P.E.Dumont, JAOS, Vol.54, No.2 (June 1934), pp.107-128.
This article will consist of
three parts:
I. Indo-Aryan Names from Mitanni, Nuzi
and Syrian Documents.
II. Hans H Hock on the Chronology
of the Rigveda.
III. A Parallel between Indic and
Babylonian Sacrificial Ritual.
I. Indo-Aryan Names from Mitanni, Nuzi
and Syrian Documents
In this 1947 paper published in
the JAOS, Dumont examines a “list of names of kings and nobles suspected to
be of Indo-Aryan origin” from Mitanni, Nuzi and Syrian documents, prepared
by W.F.Albright and R.T.O’Callaghan, and selects 45 names (from the list of 81
names) that he feels are more or less definitely of Indo-Aryan identity. [In
this discussion, when an element from these names is cited, the numbers
following it in brackets will be the serial numbers assigned to the names
containing these elements in Dumont’s list].
In my book (TALAGERI 2008:168-183),
I had given a list of Mitanni
names containing the following elements from 1947 Dumont’s
list:
-aśva (7, 8)
-ratha (21, 42)
-sena (6)
-bandhu (2)
-uta (4, 38)
vasu- (39)
ṛta- (13, 14, 18)
priya- (6, 10, 11, 12, 16)
In addition, there were two
elements not included in Dumont’s list (as
they had not been recognized in 1947, but are universally recognized at
present): -atithi and –medha. Also, it may be noted that in Mitanni names
beginning with biriya-, the element was interpreted by Dumont
as vīra/vīrya as per the interpretation of the time, but it is
now universally recognized as priya- (above).
As I pointed out in my book,
these elements are found in the names of composers of the Rigvedic hymns, and names
in references within the verses of the Rigveda, as follows:
Names of Composers of the
hymns (89 hymns):
V. 3-6, 24-26, 47, 52-61, 81-82 (20 hymns).
I. 12-23, 100 (13 hymns).
VIII. 1-5, 23-26, 32-38, 46, 68-69, 87, 89-90,
98-99 (24 hymns).
IX. 2, 27-29, 32, 41-43, 97 (9 hymns).
X. 20-29, 37, 57-60, 65-66, 75, 102-103, 132, 134, 179 (23 hymns).
Names in References
(in 82 verses):
IV.30.18
V. 27.4-6; 33.9; 36.6; 52.1; 61.5,10; 79.2; 81.5.
I. 36.10,11,17-18; 45.3-4; 100.16-17; 112.10,15,20;
116.6,16; 117.17-18; 122.7,13; 139.9.
VIII. 1.30,32; 2.37,40; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45; 8.18,20; 9.10; 23.16,23-24; 24.14,22-23,28-29;
26.9,11; 32.30; 33.4; 34.16; 35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8; 46.21,23; 49.9; 51.1; 68.15-16; 69.8,18; 87.3.
IX. 43.3; 65.7.
X. 33.7; 49.6; 59.8; 60.7,10; 61.26; 73.11; 80.3; 98.5-6,8; 132.7.
However, in Dumont’s
list, there are some additional elements:
bṛhad- (7)
sapta- (24)
abhi- (42)
uru- (5)
citra- (33, 45)
-kṣatra (41)
yam/yami- (37, 38)
When, to the above list of hymns
and verses furnished by me, we add the additional data from the Rigveda which
arises from a consideration of these additional elements, we get the following
revised list:
Names of Composers of the
hymns (108 hymns):
V. 3-6, 24-26, 46, 47, 52-61, 81-82 (21 hymns).
I. 12-23, 100 (13 hymns).
VIII. 1-5, 23-26, 32-38, 46, 68-69, 87, 89-90,
98-99 (24 hymns).
IX. 2, 27-29, 32, 41-43, 97 (9 hymns).
X. 14-29, 37, 46-47, 54-60, 65-66, 75, 102-103, 118, 120, 122, 132,
134-135, 144, 154, 174, 179 (41 hymns).
Names in References
(in 116 verses):
IV.30.18
VII.33.9
V. 19.3; 27.4-6; 33.9; 36.6; 44.10, 52.1;
61.5,10; 79.2; 81.5.
I. 35.6; 36.10,11,17-18;
38.5; 45.3-4; 83.5; 100.16-17; 112.10,15,20; 116.2, 6,16;
117.17-18; 122.7,13; 139.9; 163.2;
164.46.
VIII. 1.30,32; 2.37,40; 3.16; 4.20; 5.25; 6.45; 8.18,20; 9.10; 21.17-18; 23.16,23-24; 24.14,22-23,28-29; 26.9,11;
32.30; 33.4; 34.16; 35.19-21; 36.7; 37.7; 38.8; 46.21,23; 49.9; 51.1; 68.15-16; 69.8,18; 87.3.
IX. 43.3; 65.7.
X. 10.7,9,13-14; 12.6; 13.4; 14.1,5,7-15;
15.8; 16.9; 17.1; 18.13; 21.5; 33.7; 47.6; 49.6; 51.3; 52.3; 58.1; 59.8; 60.7,10; 61.26; 64.3; 73.11; 80.3; 92.11; 97.16; 98.5-6,8; 123.6; 132.7;
135.17; 154.4-5; 165.4.
The significance of all the above
data is that the books of the Rigveda have been classified into two categories
by the western Indologists and Vedicists who have studied the subject in great
detail: the broad consensus, from Oldenberg through Witzel to Proferes, is that
the Rigveda was, in the words of Michael Witzel (see TALAGERI 2008:132), “composed
and assembled” in different stages, and they can broadly be divided into
two groups: the Old Books 2-4, 6-7, and the New Books 1, 5, 8-10.
Further, there are some hymns/verses in the Old Books which are
classified by them as not fitting into the principles of arrangement of the Old
Books: these are hymns/verses which were interpolated or redacted at a
later stage (i.e. at the time of composition of the New Books). And not
one of the above listed hymns or verses is found in the Old
Books proper: all the hymns and verses, except two,
listed above are found totally and exclusively in the New Books, and
those exceptional two verses (IV.30.18 and VII.33.9)
are found in hymns in the Old Books which are classified by Oldenberg as
hymns/verses which were interpolated or redacted at a later stage (i.e. at the
time of composition of the New Books).
The implications are very clear:
all these name types found among the Mitanni (and, as I have shown in my book,
in even more massive proportions in the Avesta) are found in the Rigveda only
and exclusively (and in large numbers) in the New Books – and
what is more, they continue to be found in greater and greater numbers in all
post-Rigvedic Vedic literature (i.e. in the other Vedic Samhitās, the Brāhmaṇas,
Upaniṣads and Sūtras) and in the Epics and the Purāṇas. They are completely
missing in the Old Books proper, clearly showing that they are
popular name types which evolved after the period of composition of the Old
Books. Since the New Books form a continuum with the Old Books,
and the geography of both sets of Books is located in northern and northwestern
India from Haryana to Afghanistan – and in fact, the
geography of the Old Books is located to the east of the Sarasvati in
Haryana and shows a gradual movement from east to west (TALAGERI 2008:81-122) –
the inevitable and unchallengeable conclusion is that the ancestors of the Iranians
and the Mitanni migrated from within India during the period of composition of
the New Books of the Rigveda.
Significantly, the great
Indologist E.W.Hopkins, in a period before the discovery and analysis of the
Mitanni evidence, and even though he had no idea of postulating an Iranian
origin in India at the time, had arrived at the same conclusions about the
internal chronology of the Rigveda vis-à-vis the Avesta, in his seminal article
“Prāgāthikāni” in the
JAOS (Vol. 16, 1896). He writes (by General Books, Hopkins refers below to Books, 1, 9-10 of the
Rigveda):
“[....] viii with the General Books and post-Rik literature agrees with Avestan
as against the early family books” (HOPKINS
1896a:73).
“[....] viii joins the later Avesta to post-Rik literature and the other
General Books” (HOPKINS
1896a:74).
As Hopkins points out: ““[....]
to point to the list of words common to
the Avesta and viii with its group, and say that here is proof positive that
there is closer relationship with the Avesta, and that, therefore, viii after
all is older than the books which have not preserved these words, some of which
are of great significance, would be a first thought. But this explanation is
barred out by the fact that most of these Avestan words preserved in viii,
withal those of the most importance, are common words in the literature
posterior to the Rik. Hence to make the above claim would be tantamount to
saying that these words have held their own through the period to which viii
(assuming it to be older than ii-vii) is assigned, have thereupon disappeared,
and then come into vogue again after the interval to which the maker of this
assumption would assign ii-vii. This, despite all deprecation of negative
evidence, is not credible.
Take, for instance, udara or uṣṭra or meṣa, the
first is found only in viii., i., x.; the second in viii., i.; the last in
viii., i., ix., x. Is it probable that words so common both early and late
should have passed through an assumedly intermediate period (of ii.-vii.)
without leaving a trace? Or, again: is a like assumption credible in the case
of kṣīra, which appears in the Iranian khshīra; in RV. viii., i.,
ix., x.; disappears in the assumedly later group ii.-vii.; and reappears in the
AV. and later literature as a common word? Evidently, the facts are not
explained on the hypothesis that the Avesta and RV. viii. are older than RV.
ii.-vii. We must, I think, suppose that the Avesta and RV. viii. are younger
than RV. ii.-vii.” (HOPKINS
1896a:80-81)
The data contained in Dumont’s paper, Indo-Aryan Names from Mitanni, Nuzi
and Syrian Documents (1947), thus only confirms and reiterates in stronger
measure, the chronology and history of the Rigveda postulated by me in my book
(TALAGERI 2008), and anticipated by Hopkins
in 1896.
Before proceeding to the second
paper by Dumont, I feel it necessary to deal
with certain points raised by Prof. Hans H Hock, in posts on the Indology list
on 22/6/2015 and 24/6/2015, regarding my chronology
of the Rigveda.
II. Hans H Hock on
the Chronology of the Rigveda
Prof. H H Hock, who has appointed
himself as the Leader of the Crusades against ignorant upstart bank employee
Indians like myself who think they know more about ancient Vedic history than
American Professors like himself, has made certain points in his postings on
the Indology list on 22/6/2015 and 24/6/2015, which I feel must be dealt with
here.
1. Vadhryaśvá:
“Close reading shows that Talageri’s attempt to
‘prove’ certain books of the Rig Veda to be older and others (which refer to
more northwestern areas) much younger is problematic on numerous counts. To
name just one: He argues that names with ‘suffix’ aśva are late and
in so doing claims that the Kaṇva portions of book 8 are recent because they
contain the name śyā́vāśva (without even attempting to refute
Arnold’s argument that much of this material is among the most ancient); but
since book 6, which Talageri wants to claim is older, contains the word vadhryaśvá,
which also contains the ‘suffix’ aśva,
he claims that the latter must be old ‘as shown by its accent, which
treats it as a single fused word rather than a hyphenated compound word
like the rest’ (p. 13). The accent placement in vadhryaśvá,
however, follows a regular Rig Vedic pattern that is limited to bahuvrīhis
whose first member is an i-or u-stem (Wackernagel-Debrunner
1957: 296-298). Talageri’s attempt to use words ending in aśva to justify a
chronology of the Rig Veda that conflicts with that of Arnold or other
traditional scholars, thus, is not supported by the evidence.” (Indology List post of 22/6/2015)
Here, let me deal only with the
word “vadhryaśvá”:
a) Hopkins in his article “Prāgāthikāni” (JAOS 1896) clearly states that the aśva names are late
names found only in the Late books.
b) The
Vedic Word Concordance of Vishwa Bandhu, in its Uttarapadānukrama Sūcī clearly excludes vadhri- (on page 3622) from
the list of prefixes of the word aśva on grammatical
grounds, and places the word Vadhryaśvá as a separate un-hyphenated word (A Grammatical Word
Index to the Four Vedas, Volume 2, 1963, pg.835) on its own. Grammatically the
word just does not fall in the same category as the numerous aśva names in the Late
Books.
c) Vadhryaśvá is not a name (of
Divodāsa’s father) at all. It is a derisive
epithet (used for him) and is totally unrelated to the later aśva names. It is
mentioned in this sense in the only reference in the Family Books. The flood of
aśva names in the Late Rigvedic Period led to confusion not
only among the later redactors of the Purāṇas
and the gotrakāras, but even among the
editors of the Anukramaṇīs of the Rigveda,
who reasoned backwards and treated Vadhryaśvá as a name. Before Hock gives this the horse laugh, let
him note the following facts:
c-i) Vadhryaśvá means “eunuch” or “impotent”, and no sane parents would
name their son a eunuch.
c-ii) The word is used in Rigveda VI.62.7
in reference to Divodāsa’s father (probably
Srnjaya, as many analysts of the Vedas and Purāṇas
have claimed Srnjaya was Divodāsa’s father),
and the reference makes it very clear that Divodāsa’s father is derided as impotent and childless. The verse states
that an impotent person finally got a child, Divodāsa, with the special blessings of Sarasvati (note the
parallel case of Abraham and Sarah in the Old Testament). This is confirmed and
paralleled by references in the Rigveda itself (I.116.13, 117.24;
X. 39.7, 65.12) to a Vadhrimatī, translated correctly as the wife (like Divodāsa’s mother) of an impotent person, who similarly gets a child with the special blessings
of the Aśvins.
2. Chronology: “What you characterize as ‘widespread scholarly
opinion’ concerns the composition of the Rig Veda, in terms of which books were
included earlier and which ones later. Book 8 was indeed incorporated later,
but that does not mean that all of its hymns are later than those of the Family
Books” (Indology List post of 24/6/2015)
To
begin with, note that the “widespread scholarly opinion” does not concern only
the question of “which books were included earlier and which ones
later” but also which books were composed earlier and which ones
later. As Witzel puts it (see TALAGERI 2008:132), the Rigveda was “composed
and assembled” in different stages. Hock protests that “Book 8 was indeed incorporated later, but that does not
mean that all of its hymns are later than those of the Family Books”;
however, unless some kind of evidence is produced to show that a particular
hymn in Book 8 was indeed composed earlier than or contemporaneously
with those of the Family Books (2-7), we must accept this “widespread scholarly
opinion” as a rule. And no-one – not Arnold, and certainly not Hock – has been
able to produce any such evidence.
In fact, there is a massive
barrage of evidence showing that this “widespread scholarly opinion” is indeed
an iron cast one. I give this admittedly long (but complete and conclusive)
extract from my reply, available online, of Narhari Achar’s criticism of my
chronology of the Rigveda on “astronomical” grounds:
“I have shown in my books that
the ten books of the Rigveda were composed in the following order:
6,3,7,4,2,5,8,9,10 (with parts of book 1 spanning the periods of composition of
books 4,2,5,8,9,10); and that they were composed as follows: books 6,3,7 in the
Early Rigvedic period, books 4,2 in the Middle Rigvedic period, and books
5,1,8,9,10 in the Late Rigvedic period (the hymns of book 1 having been given
their final form in the Late Rigvedic period, this book must be included in
that period).
Michael Witzel, in his review
of my earlier book, writes: ‘the composition of the RV occurred in complex
layers ― not in the tidy sequential patterns imagined by Talageri’ (WITZEL
2001:§1). Achar seems to hold similar views ― that the different books of the
Rigveda were not composed in any sequential order but in sporadic spurts of
composition which cut across the different books of the Rigveda.
Now, in any analysis of the
internal chronology of the Rigveda, the division of the 1028 hymns into 10
books should prima facie have been
taken as suggestive of the possibility that the different books were composed
in different periods rather than that they represent mixed collections with no
reference to period of composition. This possibility could have been abandoned
if the data indicated otherwise, but the data, far from suggesting otherwise,
massively reinforces it in every possible way.
To begin with, the western
academic scholars themselves (see TALAGERI 2008:132-135 for details) have
classified the books of the Rigveda into two groups: the family books (2-7) and
the non-family books (1, 8-10), and testified, on the basis of their own
analyses, that the family books were composed and compiled before the
non-family books. Further, they have detached book 5 from the other family
books and concluded that it agrees with the non-family books rather than with
the other family books. By their analysis, the books of the Rigveda can be
classified into three categories: the earlier
family books (2-4, 6-7), the later
family book (5), and the later
non-family books (1, 8-10). This fully agrees with my own classification into
Early books (6,3,7), Middle (4,2) and Late books (5,1,8,9,10); except that the
Early and Middle books are clubbed together in one category in the western
classification, and the internal order within the groups is not analyzed. [In
sum, we get four categories: Early family books 6,3,7; Middle family books 4,2;
Late family book 5; and Late non-family books 1,8,9,10]
It will be seen that every
analysis of the data reinforces this classification:
An analysis of the (ancestor-descendant)
relationships between the composers of the hymns establishes the chronological
order 6,3,7,4,2,5,8,9,10 (1 alongside 4-10) (TALAGERI 2000:37-50).
An analysis of the references
within the hymns to earlier or contemporaneous composers (TALAGERI 2000:53-58)
and to the kings and (non-composer) ṛṣis
mentioned within the hymns (TALAGERI 2000:59-65) confirms the above
chronological order.
An analysis of the (adherence
to ‘purity’ of the) family identity of the composers of the individual books
(TALAGERI 2000:50-52) confirms the exactitude of the above chronological order,
with a steady progression in dilution of the family identity of the composers
from book 6 (in which every single hymn and verse is composed by composers
belonging to one branch of one family) to book 10 (where every single family
has hymns, and a large number of hymns are by composers who are either
unaffiliated to any family or whose family is unidentifiable).
An analysis of the system of
ascriptions of hymns to composers (TALAGERI 2000:52-53) shows a quantum change
from the Early and Middle books (6,3,7,4,2), where hymns are composed by
descendant ṛṣis in the name of their
ancestor ṛṣis, to the Late Books
(5,1,8,9,10), where hymns are composed by ṛṣis
in their own names.
An analysis of a large
category of personal name types shared in common by the Rigveda with the Avesta
and the Mitanni (TALAGERI 2008:20-43) shows a fundamental distinction between
the Early and Middle books on the one hand and the Late books on the other, with
these name-types being found in 386 hymns in the Late books (and in all other
post-Rigvedic texts), but found in the Early and Middle books in only 8 hymns
which have been classified by the western academic scholars as Late or
interpolated hymns within these books.
An analysis of another
category of personal names shared by the Rigveda with the Avesta (TALAGERI
2008:16-20, 47-48) shows a fundamental distinction between the Early books on
the one hand and the Middle and Late books on the other, with these names being
found in 60 hymns in the Middle books and in 63 hymns in the Late books (and in
all other post-Rigvedic texts), but completely missing in the Early books.
An analysis of the
geographical names and terms in the Rigveda (TALAGERI 2000:94-136, TALAGERI
2008:81-129) shows a progression from east to west, with the eastern names
found distributed throughout the Rigveda and the western names appearing in the
books in chronological progression. And again, these names (found in all other
post-Rigvedic texts) reinforce the above chronological order: the Indus and rivers to its west are found named in the
Middle and Late books, but are missing in the Early books. The names of western
animals, places, mountains and lakes are found in the Late non-family books,
but are missing in the family books (Early, Middle and Late).
An analysis of other important
and historically significant words (TALAGERI 2008: 48-49, 189-200) again
reinforces the above chronological order: for example, spoked wheels, or
spokes, invented in the late third millennium BCE, and camels and donkeys,
domesticated in Central Asia around the same time, are found in the Late books,
but missing in the Early and Middle books.
An analysis of the meters used
in the composition of the hymns of the Rigveda (TALAGERI 2008:54-80) again
reinforces the above chronological order. The dimetric meters used in the
Rigveda clearly developed from each other in the following order: gāyatrī
(8+8+8), anuṣṭubh (8+8+8+8), pankti (8+8+8+8+8), mahāpankti (8+8+8+8+8+8) and
dimeter śakvarī (8+8+8+8+8+8+8). Gāyatrī and anuṣṭubh are found throughout the
Rigveda; pankti is found in the Late (family and non-family) books, but missing
in the Early and Middle books; mahāpankti and dimeter śakvarī are found in the
Late non-family books, and are missing in the family books (Early, Middle and
Late).
An analysis of the sacred
numerical formulae in the Rigveda (HOPKINS 1896b) shows that the use of certain
numbers, in sacred numerical formulae used as phrases in the hymns, is commonly
found in the Late books, but missing in the Early and Middle books.
A detailed and path-breaking
analysis (HOPKINS 1896a) shows large categories of words found in the Late
books (1,8,9,10, and often 5), but missing in the Early (6,3,7) and Middle
books (4,2) except in a few stray hymns classified by the western academic
scholars as Late or interpolated hymns within these books. These include such
categories as words pertaining to ploughing or to other paraphernalia of
agriculture, words associated with certain occupations and technologies (and
even with what could be interpreted as the earliest references to the castes),
words where the r is replaced by l (playoga
and pulu for prayoga and puru), a very
large number of personal names (not having to do with the name types, common to
the Rigveda, Avesta and Mitanni records, analyzed by me), various suffixes and
prefixes used in the formation of compound words, certain mythical or
socio-religious concepts (Sūrya as an Āditya, Indra identified with the Sun,
the discus as a weapon of Indra and the three-edged or three-pointed form of
this weapon, etc), various grammatical forms (cases of the resolution of the
vowel in the genitive plural of ā stems, some transition forms common in later
literature, the Epic weakening of the perfect stem, the adverb adas, etc.), particular categories of
words (Soma epithets like madacyuta, madintara/madintama, the names of the most prominent meters used in the
Rigveda, etc.), certain stylistic peculiarities (the use of reduplicated
compounds like mahāmaha, calācala, the use of alliteration, the
excessive use of comparatives and superlatives, etc.), and many, many more.
Also, Hopkins notes many words which are used in one sense in the earlier
books, and in a different sense in the later books: words like muni, tīrtha, vaiśvānara, hita, etc., or which are only used as
adjectives in the earlier books, but figure as names in the later books (he
cites śaviṣṭha, svarṇara, durgaha, prajāpatin, adhrigu as examples) [note also words like atri, kutsa and auśija (TALAGERI 2000:79-88), which have
a different sense in the earlier books as against the later books, and even the
word trita, which is a name in the
later books but occurs once with the meaning ‘third’ in book 6].
The evidence in support of the
chronological order 6,3,7,4,2,5,(1),8,9,10, given in my book, and most
especially for the division into Early, Middle and Late books, is too massive,
overwhelming and uni-directional to be dismissed on the basis of dates derived
by any ‘astronomical’” analysis of references in the Rigveda, even were we to ignore the fact that these
references are actually fictitious or non-existent ones as we saw above. In
fact, the very fact that his methods give Achar a range of dates which cut
across the different books should lead him to radically rethink the validity of
his approach and conclusions”.
As can be seen, when Hock writes,
in his Indology list post of 22/06/2015, that “Talageri’s
attempt to use words ending in aśva to
justify a chronology of the Rig Veda that conflicts with that of Arnold or
other traditional scholars, thus, is not supported by the evidence”, he is talking through his hat. My chronology is not
based only on “words ending in aśva”,
it is based on all the massive above listed data and evidence (of which
“words ending in aśva”
form one miniscule part) and it is fully “supported by the evidence”.
And it does not “conflict” with “that of … other traditional
scholars”: Hopkins,
after much analysis, had arrived at the same conclusions as myself, and “other
traditional scholars” have not yet managed to dent his conclusions,
although they may have managed to ignore them. And as for Arnold…
3. E.V.Arnold:
Hock, in his Indology post of 22/6/2015,
writes that my “chronology of the Rig Veda …. conflicts with that of
Arnold or other traditional scholars”, and (for some reason attributing my
chronological conclusion to the presence of a single name!) accuses me of
claiming “that the Kaṇva portions of book 8 are recent because they contain
the name śyā́vāśva (without even attempting to refute Arnold’s
argument that much of this material is among the most ancient)”. Further, he continues with the theme in his Indology
post of 24/6/2015:
“In his detailed study of ‘Vedic metre’ and other chronological issues in
the Rig Veda, Arnold came to the conclusion that the Kaṇva hymns of Book 8 are among the oldest hymns of the Rig
Veda. (Other scholars may have disagreed on specific judgments but esssentially
agree that hymns of Book 8 cannot automatically be rejected as late.) To reject
this conclusion, Talageri would have had to engage in a detailed discussion of
Arnold’s (and other scholars’) criteria; but evidently he hasn’t done that (in
fact, if memory serves, he doesn’t even refer to Arnold’s monograph and only
mentions a much shorter publication of his.)” (Indology List post of 24/6/2015)”.
Hock,
not for the first time, shows that, in his crusading zeal, he has totally
abandoned all pretense of moral and intellectual integrity:
a)
Like Witzel in earlier exchanges, who kept chanting the name of Oldenberg
without uttering one syllable to show in what way Oldenberg’s writings would
have made any dent in my hypothesis or in the evidence for my hypothesis, Hock
now chooses to chant the name of Arnold without bothering to point out
what exactly is the evidence Arnold has cited to prove that “the
Kaṇva hymns of Book 8 are
among the oldest hymns of the Rig Veda”. Naturally, he can not point
out Arnold’s
evidence, since Arnold
has provided no such clinching evidence, and, in any case it is clear that Hock
himself knows little about Arnold’s
writings beyond hearsay!
Incidentally,
I can paraphrase Hock’s own words as follows: “To reject my conclusions, Hock
would have had to engage in a detailed discussion of my criteria, data,
evidence and conclusions; but evidently he hasn’t done that (in fact, if memory
serves, he doesn’t even refer to the actual mass of evidence presented by me,
and only engages in polemics, selective misquoting, special pleading, and
chanting of names)”.
b) Arnold’s evidence
consists of circular reasoning. Because the pragātha metres and
many words and grammatical expressions which are found mainly in the Kaṇva hymns of Books 1 and 8 are also found in the Avesta,
and because things common to the Rigveda and Avesta must necessarily (by the
logic of conventional Indo-Iranian theory) be “early” elements, he reasons that
this is evidence for the Kaṇva hymns
being among the oldest in the Rigveda. But Hopkins dealt in detail with this
kind of logic: see Hopkins’ quote above, beginning with “to point to the list of words common to the
Avesta and viii with its group, and say that here is proof positive that there
is closer relationship with the Avesta, and that, therefore, viii after all is
older than the books which have not preserved these words, some of which are of
great significance, would be a first thought….”. Hopkins has torn apart the very foundations
of Arnold’s
logic.
c) The
main fallacy in Arnold’s chronological conclusion for the the Kaṇva hymns of Books 1 and 8 (and in Hock’s advocacy of
Arnold’s conclusion as a counter to my chronology) is that he ignores the fact
that in every respect these Kaṇva
hymns of Books 1 and 8 fall in one category in company with the hymns in
Books 5, 9 and 10, and with all post Rigvedic literature going as far down the
chronological lane as the Epics and Purāṇas,
while the hymns in the Old Books 2-4, 6-7 fall in a totally different
category.
Take
the list of Rigvedic hymns which have elements in common with the Mitanni names.
The most common Mitanni
prefix is biriya- (priya-). About this, Hopkins (well before the Mitanni
evidence was even suspected to exist) had pointed out that “priya compounds [fn. That is, with priya as the first
member of the compound] are a formation common in Smṛti [....] Epic [....] In AV, VS, and Brāhmaṇa [....] but
known in RV only to books viii, i, ix, x” (HOPKINS 1896a:66). That is, even
as a grammatical or lexical form, and not just in names, words beginning in priya-
are totally absent in the Old Books (2-4, 6-7) and are a post-Old
Books development. Likewise the very word Yami/Yama (found as an element in
two names among the Mitanni, including Yamiuta on par with Indrota)
is found in the Rigveda only in Book 10 (accepted by everyone as the very
latest part of the Rigveda) and in some contemporaneous late hymns in Book
1, except for one reference in a Family book, VII.33.9, which is
in a hymn classified by Oldenberg as one which was interpolated or redacted at
a later stage (i.e. at the time of composition of the New Books): I.35.6;
38.5; 83.5; 116.2; 163.2; 164.6. X.10.7,9,13-14;
12.6; 13.4; 14.1,5,7-15; 15.8; 16.9; 17.1;
18.13; 21.5; 51.3; 52.3; 58.1; 60.10;
64.3; 92.11; 97.16; 123.6; 135.1,7; 154.4-5;
165.4. Yama is a very important figure in all post-Rigvedic
Vedic, Epic, Puranic and popular Sanskrit literature.
It is not therefore a question
only of “words ending in aśva” (much less a single
name “śyā́vāśva”), or of “Kaṇva hymns”, as Hock
feigns to think it is. It is a question of the entire chronological sequence of
the Vedic and post-Vedic literature. What I have called “late words” in the
Rigveda are found abundantly in all the books classified by a consensus of
Indologists as “New Books” (1, 5, 8-10), and in all post-Rigvedic Vedic,
Epic, Puranic and popular Sanskrit literature (along with the Avestan and
the Mitanni records), but are totally missing in the Old Books (2-4,
6-7) proper, i.e. except in a few hymns or verses classified by Oldenberg and
others as hymns which were interpolated or redacted at a later stage
(i.e. at the time of composition of the New Books). As I pointed out in
my book:
“The third way in which all
the evidence could be overturned is simply by deciding that the scholars and
linguists were wrong all the time in
placing the Family Books before the non-family Books, and that it is actually the other way round: the non-family
Books (1, 8-10) are the oldest books of the RV, Book 5 comes next, followed by
Book 4, and that the bulk of the other Family Books (2-3, 6-7 — except
the very hymns in these books singled out by Oldenberg as late, which
are, in fact, now to be taken as actually being earlier than the rest of
the hymns in these Books) constitute the latest parts of the RV, by
which time the incoming Vedic Aryans had lost all contact with the Western
areas through which they had immigrated into India, and all the Avestan [and
Mitanni] type names and name-elements had gone completely out of fashion,
which is why there are no references to those areas, and no names of the
Avestan [and Mitanni] type, in these Books. [Of course, in the
post-Rigvedic texts, and all later traditions, those names and name-elements
mysteriously came back into fashion with a vengeance!]” (TALAGERI
2008:140). Unless of course all those post-Rigvedic texts and traditions are also
to be placed before Books 2-4,6-7 of the Rigveda!
4. “Prefixes”
and Suffixes”: Finally, in a
climax of moral and intellectual bankruptcy, Hock writes, in his Indology post of 22/6/2015: “In fact, his use of the
terms ‘prefix’ and ‘suffix’ to refer to members of compounds and the
claim that ‘In the Early Rigvedic
period, we find that suffixes as such had not yet come into vogue in personal
names or, at any rate, not suffixes in common with the Avesta’ suffer from a
lack of a clear definition and an appearance of arbitrariness. For instance,
Talageri labels the dívo in dívo-dāsa as a prefix (indicating that the
compound must be old), but gives no rationale against considering -dāsa a
suffix (which by his reasoning should indicate that the compound is late.)”
He goes
on with this theme in his post of 24/6/2015: “Certainly,
poorly defined criteria such as ‘prefix’ and ‘suffix’ are no substitute for
proper scholarly engagement with earlier literature. But this approach is the
foundation for Talageri’s attempt at establishing the relative chronology of
the Rig Veda on the basis of naming patterns”
If Hock had really done any “close
reading” of my book, he would not have fallen back on this pathetic
clutching at straws and fig-leaves. In my book, I have clearly written: “Names
in the Rigveda and Avesta are generally of two types: simple names and compound
names. Compound names consist of (generally) two hyphenated or hyphenable
elements: a prefix with a word, or a word with a suffix. In most of the cases,
the compound name is a combination of two independent words. Technically,
these can not be called either a prefix or suffix (since a prefix or suffix is,
strictly speaking, a grammatical element which can not function as a word by
itself); however, for convenience, we will, in this chapter and elsewhere,
refer to the first component word as
a prefix, if it appears to be used as
a regular first component word in combination with different other words, and
to the second component word as a suffix if it appears to be used as a
regular second component word in combination with different other words.”
(TALAGERI 2008:5-6).
I will continue to use the words
“prefix” and suffix”, if for no other reason than to be able to allow Hock the
hollow satisfaction of continuing to steadfastly ignore all the evidence and to
continue clutching at this straw as long as it pleases him.
Two
final points:
1. As
we saw, the broad consensus, from Oldenberg through Witzel to Proferes,
is that the Rigveda was, in the words of Michael Witzel (see TALAGERI
2008:132), “composed and assembled” in different stages, and they
can broadly be divided into two groups: the Old Books 2-4, 6-7, and the New
Books 1, 5, 8-10. If the writings of any scholar contradict this broad
consensus, as, for example, Arnold’s conclusion that “the Kaṇva hymns of
Book 8 are among the oldest hymns of the Rig Veda”, then it should
automatically be suspect until examined in detail and proved right (as I wrote
in regard with Narhari Achar above: “the very fact that his methods give
Achar a range of dates which cut across the different books should lead him to
radically rethink the validity of his approach and conclusions”). And if my
conclusion (as that of Hopkins
earlier) fits in perfectly with this broad consensus, it should be considered
at least feasible until examined and proved wrong. It is certainly suspicious
that Hock so vehemently upholds, without examination, Arnold’s opinions which go against the
consensus, against the massive criteria, data and evidence furnished by
Hopkins and me which fit in with the consensus.
2. The whole of Indological
analysis of the Rigveda, from Day One, has been based solely on examination and
analysis of the words and data in the Rigveda. To take one example: if today
there is an almost total consensus that the Rigveda was composed primarily on
the banks of the Sarasvati, and not of the Brahmaputra, Kaveri, Godavari or
Narmada (which are not named in the Rigveda) nor of the Ganga or Yamuna
(although they are named in the Rigveda), it is because of the occurences,
and patterns of occurences, of the words and grammatical features in the hymns
and verses of the Rigveda. Conclusions, right or wrong, have often been reached
at on the basis of single occurences. My analysis has been based on a complete
analysis of all the occurences of all the relevant words and data
in the Rigveda. Any Indologist who chooses to reject this outright, without
serious examination, on the basis of ego or vested interests, does so at his
own peril.
III. A Parallel
between Indic and Babylonian Sacrificial Ritual
In this 1934 paper published in
the JAOS, Albright and Dumont examine a
parallel between Indic and Babylonian sacrificial ritual, and try to analyze
the “elements recognized as common to both Mesopotamian and Indic
civilizations” (107) in the two rituals to arrive, among other things, at
the possible direction of influence. The rituals in question are the aśvamedha
or horse-sacrifice ritual in the Vedic texts, and similar animal sacrifices
involving horses, but also asses and oxen, in Sumerian/Babylonian texts.
They find many features in the
sacrificial rituals in the two cultures which are similar enough, and peculiar
enough, to warrant the conclusion that there were influences between the two
cultures.
We can examine this paper from
the bearing that it has on two aspects:
IIIA. Specifically, the
directions of influence between different ancient cultures.
IIIB. More generally, its
implications in respect of chronology of the Vedic texts.
IIIA. The Directions of Influence
between Different Ancient Cultures.
Throughout the course of the
paper, the two scholars discuss the particular details of the common elements
between the Vedic aśvamedha or horse-sacrifice ritual, and various
sacrificial rituals of ancient Babylonia (Mesopotamia) involving in the final version the horse,
but, in earlier versions, the ass or the ox/bull. The following summary of the
points, occuring towards the close of the paper, including the final paragraph,
gives us the problem as well as their speculated solution to it:
“Turning
now to the comparison of the Vedic and the Babylonian rites, we note several
extraordinary similarities. In both rituals the priest murmurs incantations
into the ears of the horse, so that only the horse can hear the words. Both
incantations are calculated to praise and please the animal….In the
incantations whispered into the bull’s ears, the animal plays exactly the same
role….In both rituals we are dealing with a bloody sacrifice which is
primarily intended, at least in certain parts of the ceremony, to increase
fertility…Note especially the incantation muttered by the adhvaryu
on the first day of the consecration of the sacrifice, and the words of the
first bull incantation…The most remarkable resemblance is undoubtedly in
the role played by a white tuft or group of seven tufts of hair, identified
with the Pleiades, in both rituals” (124).
“the
ritual of the Babylonian horse-sacrifice seems to go back to the ritual of
bull-sacrifice, as we have seen. Moreover, the coincident elements of the
ritual are all found in the bull-sacrifice. Most remarkable of them is the role
played by the Pleiades, represented by a tuft of hair. But in Babylonia the
word for ‘Pleiades’ means originally ‘tuft of hair,’ and this very word is
employed in one of the rituals in question…/…there is ample Babylonian
testimony to the origin of the calendaric role of the Pleiades in an association
with the inundation, while there does not seem to be any Indian evidence of
corresponding cogency. The balance, therefore, seems to incline slightly in
favor of an ultimate Babylonian origin of part, at least, of the homologous
rites which we have discussed in this paper” (127-128).
In
short, the scholars feel that “an ultimate Babylonian origin of part, at
least, of the homologous rites which we have discussed in this paper” is
the most likely solution, since: a) it is only in Babylonia, but not in India,
that the Pleiades are associated with inundation, and therefore most
suited for a role in a sacrifice “intended, at least in certain parts of the
ceremony, to increase fertility”, and b) it is only in the Babylonian
language, but not in the Indic, that “the word for ‘Pleiades’ means
originally ‘tuft of hair,’ and this very word is employed in one of the rituals
in question”. And these two arguments are unanswerable. So it does not
appear that Albright and Dumont can be
challenged in this conclusion.
The
two scholars are not biased in favour of proving any particular direction of
influence, or the “precedence” of any culture or civilization over others, and
they can not be accused of being anything but truly objective in their analysis.
Firstly, they repeatedly proclaim the possibility that “the horse-sacrifice is probably of ultimate
Indo-Iranian, if not Indo-European origin” (113), giving references from
Iranian, Greek, Roman sources, and also note that “the earliest
archaeological illustration of the sacrifice in question seems to belong to the
Indo-Iranian outposts in southern Palestine, and dates at all events/ from the
seventeenth or sixteenth century B.C.” (113-114). Their conclusion in
respect of the horse-sacrifice as such is that it “is difficult to reach a decision concerning the
ultimate source of the ritual practices which we have examined in this paper.
The horse-sacrifice may go back to Indo-European times, or it may have
originated among the Indo-Iranians; it may also have been borrowed by the
latter from another people of the great plains. The Babylonians certainly
borrowed the practice of sacrificing the horse from the Indo-Iranians”
(127)
Also,
the scholars are aware that cultural elements in the different cultures were
always changing “It does not necessarily follow that the details of the
ritual which we have described were originally attached to the sacrifice of the
horse. When we consider the Mesopotamian parallel, we shall see that details of
ritual may easily be borrowed by one type of sacrifice from another. This
borrowing, or application of analogy, within the limits of a single national
religion, is not only natural, but is the usual thing, and the priests
established elaborate ritual codes, developed largely by the operation of
analogy. Even when the sacrificial animal was changed, the ritual often
remained unchanged, or little altered. As might be expected, the details of our
ritual were borrowed in part from the sacrifice of cattle, just as in Babylonia.” (114).
Sacrificing
animals in rituals may have been a phenomenon which arose independently in
different societies, but the details of the sacrifices (as to the animal
sacrificed, the particular rituals followed, and the symbolic meanings of the
rituals) were constantly changing and evolving, and being interchanged between
different cultures. Here, it appears that the choice of the horse for sacrifice
was originally Indo-Iranian or Indo-European (i.e. it was not Babylonian,
although ultimately “it may also have
been borrowed by the latter [the
Indo-Iranians or Indo-Europeans] from another people of the great plains.”), which was borrowed by the Babylonians, but certain
particular elements of the rituals (originally part of bull or ass sacrifices)
were a sort of Babylonian “return gift” to Indic ritual, both parts of the give
and take among various ancient cultures.
As
elaborated in my books, in my Indian homeland hypothesis, the three great
northern conglomerates of proto-Indo-European tribes in northern India had
spread out in pre-Rigvedic times up to Afghanistan and Central
Asia. The domesticated horse, a native of the areas beyond Central
Asia, was introduced to the Druhyus (the outermost of the three tribal
conglomerates, who represented the linguistic proto-ancestors of most of the
later extra-Indian branches of Indo-European languages) by some other “people
of the great plains” to their north, and, through the middle layer of the Anus
(the second tribal conglomerate, which included the proto-Greeks and the
proto-Iranians), this animal (and perhaps also its use in ritual sacrifice) was
transmitted to the Pūrus (the Vedic Aryans or “Indo-Aryans” in
linguistic terms). As a rare, iconic and seminal animal, the horse became the
object of the grandest (since associated with royalty and conquest) of the
Vedic sacrificial rituals. The ritual must have constantly evolved with time,
accepting perhaps more and newer elements from different sources, including,
much later (in terms of Vedic history), the above described ritual elements from
the Babylonians.
Albright
and Dumont, of course had no reason to doubt
the theory of an Aryan invasion of (or migration into) India, current
at the time, and so they speak of the “great Indo-Iranian (Aryan)
irruption into India
and Western Asia during the first centuries of
the second millennium” (107-108). But what are
their views on the chronology of the events, and do these views (or
conclusions) fit in with the AIT scenario, or do they fit in with the OIT
scenario (never envisaged by them) outlined in my books?
IIIB. The Chronology of the
Vedic texts.
Albright and Dumont
speak of the “great Indo-Iranian (Aryan)
irruption into India
and Western Asia during the first centuries of
the second millennium” (107-108) as it is/was the
generally accepted scenario (although “in the second half” would have
been more representative, of the generally accepted scenario, than “during
the first centuries”). In general, however, they are not too rigid on the
question of Vedic chronology, and they are quite objective in summarizing “the
situation now existing with respect to Vedic chronology” by listing the views
of different prominent Indologists who had studied the question: Bloomfield,
“the oldest part of the Rgveda about 2000 B.C.”; A Macdonell, “the
thirteenth century B.C. as the approximate date for the beginning of the
Rgvedic period”; A.B. Keith, “800 B.C.…the lowest possible
date for the completion of the Rgveda”; Winternitz, “the
beginning…probably goes back to 2500-2000 [B.C.]”; etc.
But
what are the dates suggested by their study of the parallel between Indic and
Babylonian sacrificial ritual?
Before
examining the dates which their study suggests, it would be interesting to note
a frank admission made in the article: “Indian archaeology is only in
its infancy, and Indian literature has no such means at its command for
purposes of chronology as have the documentary records of Western
Asia. We shall, therefore, be at a loss in many cases to date our
materials precisely.” (109). It is my contention that, unlike many of the
present day Indologists who are rigid in their views, hardened by over two
centuries of almost dogmatic belief, the Indologists of the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries were more receptive to accepting new ideas if those new
ideas were based on a more detailed study of the available data. And my
analysis of the common name types in the Mitanni material, the Avesta and the (New
Books of) the Rigveda, which uses the “documentary records of Western
Asia” in conjunction with the accepted internal
divisions of the Rigveda to produce a method which enables us to more or less “date
our [Vedic] materials precisely”, would have met with their
interested and enthusiastic support.
In any
case, here are the chronological points inadvertently raised by their paper:
1. For
there to have been mutual influence between the Vedic and Babylonian
sacrificial rituals, there should have been reasonable contact between the
Babylonian priests and their Vedic counterparts, facilitated by contacts between
the two cultures. Albright and Dumont note the
following:
“The discovery of the Indus
Valley culture has shown that commercial, cultural, and possibly racial relations
existed between India and Mesopotamia at a very remote age, going back to the beginning
of the Early Bronze (cir. 3000 B.C.), if not far back into the Chalcolithic of
the fourth millennium. Though these relations were not close, there may have
been a considerable transfusion of culture in the course of many centuries
during which the Indus
Valley culture
flourished. The great Indo-Iranian (Aryan) irruption into India and Western
Asia during the first centuries of the second millennium may well have brought
with it a new ease of movement from one end of the far-flung Indo-Iranian occupation
to the other, especially since the Indo-Iranians introduced the swift two-man
chariot wherever they advanced, thus creating a far more efficacious means of
rapid transportation than any which had been in ordinary use before in these
regions” (107-108).
In short, we have ample evidence
of trade and cultural contacts between Mesopotamia and Harappan India from as
far back as at least 3000 B.C., but not really very much of it between
Mesopotamia and the Vedic people during the time of composition of the Brāhmaṇas
and Sūtras and the perfection of the Vedic rituals. The transmission of the
horse sacrifice from the Vedic people to the Babylonians can be explained on
the basis of the “new ease of movement from one end of the far-flung
Indo-Iranian occupation to the other, especially since the Indo-Iranians
introduced the swift two-man chariot wherever they advanced” and to the
resultant “Indo-Iranian outposts in southern
Palestine”, but somehow these can not explain the subsequent
transmission of particular new rituals and symbols from the Babylonians to the
composers of the Brāhmaṇas and the Sūtras
– unless and until we accept the identity between the Harappans and the
Vedic people, or more properly between the Harappans and the “Indo-Iranians”.
2. The chronology suggested by
Albright and Dumont for the rituals are significant: the Babylonian text which
describes the horse sacrifice and provides the “closest
Mesopotamian parallel is found in a ritual text from Assur, the southern
capital of Assyria, the cuneiform text of which was published by Ebeling in
1920” (114).
About the chronology of this
text: “In its present form our text is naturally
posterior to the introduction of the horse into general use, between 1800
and 1600 B.C. Obv. 2-8, however, does not mention the horse at all, but the
ass…”. Because part of the text shows that it predated the introduction of
the horse, by referring instead to the ass, and due to “the repeated mention
of Marduk, god of Babylon, and his temple Essakil (Sumerian Esagil), as well as
by the fact that it belongs to the Babylonian Samas-Adad ritual” (117)”,
they conclude: we are forced to date the first recension of our text between
2100 and 1800 B.C.” (117-118).
Another
more complete text, “which was published by Thureau-Dangin in 1920” is “not
later than about the eighth century [B.C.]” (118), and it describes in
great detail the rituals of the sacrifice of an ox/bull. This also refers to
the mark of the Pleiades. “How early the ritual may be dated escapes
us completely…The oldest incantation series go back only to the last
third of the third millennium [B.C.]” (122).
Therefore,
the common (with Indic) ritual portions of the horse sacrifice in Babylon had already been
transmitted from the earlier bull/ass sacrifice to the horse sacrifice at
some time between 2100 B.C. and 1600 B.C. by the latest. While the horse
sacrifice was borrowed from the Indo-Iranian migrants into West
Asia, the particular ritual details were transmitted from their
own existing rituals. The transformed horse sacrifice (with these aaditional
details) was then retransferred back from the Babylonians to the Vedic priests.
But
at what point within Vedic chronology were these new ritual elements
incorporated into the Vedic aśvamedha?
It was clearly not transmitted to the pre-Rigvedic Indo-Aryans alleged to be on
their way towards India during the alleged “great Indo-Iranian
(Aryan) irruption into India”, since the “the horse-sacrifice was known in India long before the
composition of the Brāhmaṇas; it is the theme
of two hymns of the Rigveda (I, 162 and 163), in which the details vary
considerably from those of the rite as described in the Brāhmaṇas. Moreover, in the Satapathabrāhmaṇa there are passages which suggest that in earlier times
the deity of the aśvamedha was not Prajapati but Indra or Varuna. Such an
important change in the ritual seems to require the passage of a respectable
interval…” (112).
Therefore
we have the Rigvedic horse sacrifice which originally had different rites and
rituals from the one found described in the later Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras, and the new sacrificial rites adopted from
the Babylonians (found in the Brāhmaṇas and
the Sūtras) must therefore have been incorporated into the Vedic religion at
some time between the period of the older Rigvedic horse sacrifice and the
newer version described in the Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras.
It is
in the New Books of the Rigveda (mainly in the prolific New Book
8, which, as we see in every respect, shares all its
features with the other New Books 1, 5, 9 and 10, and with all
subsequent texts and literature, rather than with the Old Books 2-4,
6-7), that we see the Vedic people emerging out of their cocoon within India
and coming into contact with the western world. This is not just the
conclusion derived by me in my books on the basis of my analysis of the data;
even die-hard proponents of the traditional Aryan invasion theory find that in
Book 8, western things “appear” at a “later” point of time
near the “borderlands”: Witzel (in his 1995 paper “Rgvedic history:
Poets, Chiftains and Polities”) writes: “Certain sections of the Rgveda
will be marked as later by some generations than the rest. It is
immediately apparent that few ‘dynasties’ emerge, and many individual rulers
lacking pedigree are mentioned (especially in book 8, which also lists
many tribes that were unknown to other books”; “Book 8
concentrates on the whole of the west cf. camels, mathra horses, wool
sheep. It frequently mentions the Sindhu, but also the Seven Streams, mountains
and snow”; “camels appear (8.5.37-39) together with the Iranian
name Kaśu ‘small’ (Hoffman 1975), or
with the suspicious name Tirindra and the Parśu
(8.6.46). The combination of camels (8.46.21,31), and wool, sheep and dogs
(8.56.3) is also suggestive: the borderlands (including Gandhara) have
been famous for wool and sheep, while dogs are treated well in Zoroastrian Iran but not in
South Asia” (see TALAGERI
2000:123).
The
“westward ho” (to use Witzel’s phrase) nature of Book 8 (in company with the
other New Books 1, 5, 9-10) is clear from all the evidence:
A. The New
Books share a very large body of name types with the Avestan and the
Mitanni names: these are found in as many as 386 hymns in the New Books
(Book1= 78, Book 5= 47, Book 8= 69, Book 9= 69, Book 10= 123), but in only 8
hymns in four of the six Old Books (Book 6= 3, Book 3= 3, Book 7= 1,
Book 4= 1), all 8 hymns being among those few hymns from the Old Books
which have been classified as late interpolated or redacted hymns by
Oldenberg and in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa
(TALAGERI 2008:3-43). These name types are obviously Vedic as well as Iranian,
and therefore show the development of a common culture between the Vedic Aryans
(the Pūrus) and the proto-Iranians (the Anus)
to their immediate west in northern India, in the period of the New
Books.
B.
These New Books also show a new and progressive increase in knowledge of
areas to their west: first mention of Saptasindhava (in northern
Pakistan) and Gandhara and the Gandharvas (in northern Afghanistan);
progressive mention of more and more rivers to the west of the Indus; first
references to the western animals (camels, goats, sheep, mathra horses,
the northwestern boar varāha); first references to the Soma-growing areas, lakes and
mountains of the northwest; etc. Note that things which were known to the Old
Books as rare and imported items (horses, wool and Soma) suddenly become
familiar and prolific: there is a sudden flurry of names with aśva
(including a name aśvamedha) and ratha accompanied by references to a
new technological invention in the form of spoked-wheels, there are references
to sheep and shepherds, there are actual references to the Soma growing areas
as now familiar ones and a sudden outburst of importance of the Soma rituals,
etc. (see TALAGERI 2000:95-136; TALAGERI 2008:81-129, 189-201)
C. Apart from common names with
“Indo-Iranian” roots and counterparts in both the Rigveda and the Avesta, we
now also find names of patron kings which have been identified by western
Indologists (including Witzel) as actual proto-Iranian names: I.51.13;
VIII.4.19; 5.37-39; 6.46; 23.28; 24.28;
25.2; 26.2; 32.2; 46.21,24; X.86.23 –
only in the New Books (particularly Book 8). These are therefore,
probably Iranians who had already moved slightly further west than the actual
Avestan Iranians.
D. Apart from having name types
in common with the Mitanni kings of West Asia, there are some names in the New
Books which are identical to the Mitanni names, and therefore must
have been popular ancestral family names among the Mitanni kings (who had
already become Hurrianized in West Asia in most other respects): Vedic
Mitrātithi, Devātithi, Subandhu, Indrota and Priyamedha, and Mitanni
Mittaratti, Dewatti, Subandu, Indarota, Biriamasda. All these are found only in
the New Books (particularly Book 8): I.45.3-4; 139.9;
V.24 (as composer); VIII.2 (as composer); 3.16;
4.20 (and as composer); 5.25; 6.45; 8.18; 32.30;
68 (as composer); 69.8,18 (and as composer); IX.28
(as composer); X.33.7; 57-60 (as composer); 73.11;
75 (as composer).
E. Finally, we finally come to
the westernmost areas: the kingdoms of Mesopotamia
or Babylonia or Sumeria in Iraq. While the
Mitanni kingdom was also situated in Iraq, the Mitanni kings were descendants
of a people who had left the ancestral Vedic areas sometime during the period
of the New Books of the Rigveda, and, although they retained their ancestral
names and perhaps some ancestral skills (horsemanship, etc.) and religious items
(the names of some Vedic Gods), had, by and large, become completely
West-Asianized and had lost all contacts with their ancestral areas. So we can not
expect to find peculiarly Mitanni
elements (acquired outside India)
in the Vedic texts. But can we expect to find elements relating to the actual
Babylonians or Mesopotamians?
As Albright and Dumont
have convincingly shown, certain elements of ritual, which seem to have originated
among the Babylonians, made their way into Vedic ritual by the time of
formulation of the sacrificial rituals described in later Vedic texts. As they
also point out, there were commercial and cultural relations between the Indus civilization and Babylonia
going back as far as 3000 BCE. Have these relations left no linguistic
traces in the Vedic texts or in the Indus
sites? It must be remembered that the languages of Babylonia
and of the Vedic people were unrelated to each other. While linguistic clues
have been discovered in Mesopotamian records of contacts with the Indus sites, are there no linguistic traces of Babylon in the Vedic
texts? Although the transferred/acquired elements between the later Vedic
authors (situated deeper inside India)
and the Babylonians must have passed through many filters, particularly Iranian
ones, surely at least one tell-tale word must have survived the filters and
lived to tell the linguistic tale?
Finding a linguistic trace of the
religious/ritual elements of Babylonia
in the later Vedic texts, or of the commercial elements of Babylonia in the Indus
sites would have been interesting. But what we do actually find is even
more interesting: we find (if all the Indologists who have accepted these
identifications are right) two linguistic traces of commercial elements
of Babylonian trade with the Indus sites, in the most well-preserved portion
of the later Vedic Age: i.e. in the New Books of the Rigveda (in
Book 8). [As I have pointed out in my books, the composition of the other Samhitās
and the earliest Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras must have already commenced during the
period of the New Books of the Rigveda; only, those other texts, being
less sacred and canonical, and more in practical use in regular ritual, were
continuously redacted and therefore do not represent any more the earliest
linguistic forms in which they were composed, while the New Books of the
Rigveda, being sacred and canonical, were preserved almost unchanged in the
original linguistic form]:
1. Hopkins, in his seminal article much cited by
me, points out to a Babylonian word in the Rigveda: “It is only in the
eighth book that the Babylonian manā (67.2) appears” (HOPKINS 1896a: 91). This
word has been identified as Babylonian by many prominent Indologists (including
Weber, Indische Studien, 1853, Vol.xvii, p.202, and Zimmer, Altindisches
Leben, 1979, pp.50-51) and by many historians (including Rawlinson, Intercourse
between India and the Western World: From the Earliest Times to the Fall of
Rome, Cambridge University Press, 1916, p.15, fn.4).
2. The second
example of a possible Babylonian word, associable with trade, in Book 8 of the
Rigveda is bekanāṭa (in VIII.66.10),
meaning a "money-lender". Hopkins, in his article Pragathikani,
p.44, writes: "In a contract tablet of Nabonnidos (555-538 B.C.) occurs
bakatun, which, 'from the context here seems to be connected with
money-lending' (Barton)"
[Note: VIII.67.2
referred to by Hopkins
is actually VIII.78.2. Since many Indologists adopted an ill-advised
innovation in which the 11 Valakhilya hymns (VIII.49-59)
were removed from the middle of Book 8 and placed at its end, and all the hymn
numbers after VIII.48 were changed accordingly, there is this
discrepancy and confusion in all references to hymns in Book 8 after VIII.48].
Apart from reinforcing our
general chronology, this also establishes an important point of identity:
As detailed in my books:
a) The New Books of the
Rigveda, and the later Samhitās and the Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras, represent a later phase of the
Vedic culture (while the Old Books represent an earlier phase),
and their geographical horizon is practically identical with the geographical
horizon of the Indus or Harappan Civilization.
b) Within this
geographical horizon, the easternmost areas represented the original
geographical horizon of the Vedic Aryans and of the Old Books, and these
areas therefore continued to be the area of the most orthodox Vedic elements
(who, as composers of most of the Brāhmaṇas and Sūtras, often showed their disapproval of the
less orthodox western areas).
c) Further west, outside
this Harappan horizon, were the areas of what Albright and Dumont
refer to as “the far-flung Indo-Iranian occupation” (108), the areas of
the Iranian groups who had already moved off further westwards from the
Harappan areas.
That two possible Babylonian words,
manā, referring to a measure of weight, and bekanāṭa, referring to usury – typical words to be
borrowed or exchanged between two civilizations having trade relations – should
be found once each in the New Books of the Rigveda, when the trade
relations are known to have been between the Babylonians and the Indus/Harappan
people, certainly affirms (especially in the context of all the other evidence
already cited in my books) the identity between the Indus/Harappan Civilization
and the Vedic people during the period of composition of the New Books.
Bibliography
HOPKINS 1896a: Prāgāthikāni. Hopkins,
Edward W. pp. 23-92 in JAOS (Journal of the American Oriental Society), Vol.
17.
HOPKINS 1896b: Numerical Formulae in the Veda. Hopkins, Edward W. in
JAOS (Journal of the American Oriental Society), Vol.16.
TALAGERI 2000: The Rigveda – A
Historical Analysis. Talageri S.G. Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, 2000.
TALAGERI 2008: The
Rigveda and the Avesta – The Final Evidence. Talageri S.G., Aditya
Prakashan, New Delhi,
2008.
Dear Sir,
ReplyDeleteThis is absolutely brilliant! Have read the entire thing and have re-read many of the portions in this superb rebuttal. No wonder the AIT-ans did not respond. Whatever doubts they could raise, you have pretty much covered everything, and systematically dismantled their pretensions of serious "scholarship".
In the presence of such staggering evidence for OIT and against AIT, and of specific concrete dates for Rig Vedic mandalas, it is nothing but sheer racism, chauvinism, arrogance, and misplaced superiority that these AIT-ans are refusing to see things for what they are. They commented on your work, without having bothered to read a single line .. that is poor poor scholarship.
The implications of what you have just said are TRULY staggering and merely buttress the fact that there is a geographic as well as time overlap between Harappans and RV New Book. [Plus as Shri Danino has shown in his IIT G lectures, there are some amazing similarities in Harappa and Vedic ratios, constructions, the evidence of drying up of Saraswati etc]. Which can only lead to one conclusion - RV New Book = Harappa people, as you have rightly said.
a. But then my question is, who are the Purus/ Old RV people (who were located eastwards) and what was their relation to the pre-Harappan/ early Harappan people?
b. And another point, I have read somewhere - RV does not mention bricks [iShTaka] (but mentioned in latter texts) - the hallmark of Harappa is baked-bricks, some opine - how can this be reconciled? I understand that absence of evidence is not the e of a, and I am just curious that's all.
c. Also as you may have heard/ read, recent findings by IITK as part of Project Sandhi has found 6000 yrs in continuous unbroken existence in Benares (to east of old RV areas). Just your opinion, what could be the relation between Old RV and eastern areas? Our historical tradition [ref Pargiter, Pradhan, Bhargava] is quite categorical of timelines and geographies which seem to overlap with both Harappan as well as RV domains ..
Warm Regards ..
The Purus, or more specifically the Bharata sub-tribe of the Purus, were originally in Haryana and the bordering areas of western U.P. By the period of the New Books, they had spread out westwards into the whole of the Punjab, and, together with the Anu residents of the Punjab and Sind, they jointly formed the mature Harappan civilization.
DeleteMeanwhile: the Vedic culture of the Bharata Purus had already become a pan-Puru culture and spread out eastwards into the rest of U.P., and in later times into the whole rest of India. Most (but not all) of the later Vedic texts were composed in the eastern areas (Aryavarta), the earliest of them in the same period as the New Books of the Rigveda (and as I pointed out above, preserved with less rigidity and precision than the New Books of the Rigveda). So we have later Vedic texts composed in the Bharata-Puru areas of Haryana, in the Puru-Anu areas of the Punjab, and in the non-Bharata Puru areas of U.P. This explains some of the points raised by you.
Indian historians (even anti-AIT ones and orthodox Hindu ones) make the mistake of treating Indian history in the same linear order as the Vedic texts: they treat Hinduism as starting out with the Rigveda, and "evolving" with the passage of time.
Actually, Hinduism is not derived from a parent Vedic culture: it is an amalgamation of all the cultures and religions of India. And the "non-Vedic" elements in Hinduism are not elements which "evolved later". They are elements which are as old as the Vedic elements (some maybe even older), which were parts of the cultures and religions of the eastern Puru or non-Puru people to the east and south, which became part of an expanding Vedic culture, and simply entered the pages of Vedic literature at a later stage. The incident of the Govardhan parvat in the Mahabharata may indicate elements of Yadu cultures becoming mainstream in Hinduism. The philosophical traditions (Buddhism, Jainism, even the Upanishadic philosophies, many of which are located in the courts of King Janaka) may have been ancient parts of the Ikshvaku cultures of easternmost U.P. and Bihar (note that Jains have traditions of ancient tithankaras who lived long before Mahavir). The many-splendoured aspects of idol-worship which form the central part of Hinduism today were ancient in other cultures of the east and south (including the Dravidian and Austric areas). Tantric rites and beliefs (already emerging in the Atharva Veda whose geography probably extends to Bengal) came from Indian people further east. And so on.
The eastern sites now being discovered by archaeologists are sites of the eastern people (the eastern Purus and Iksshvakus). Obviously, their civilizational types were not necessarily the same as those of the Harappan sites, although they were equally old and some maybe even older. Even today, the material culture of Mumbai (as it would be revealed in archaeological excavations a thousand years from now) is not necessarily the same as that of the culture of some rural/tribal areas a few hundred kilometres away.
Incidentally, the spread of Vedic religion and culture all over India from a centre in Haryana, its retention as the nominal all-India umbrella layer of a rich and vibrant all-India Hindu religion and culture (and as the face of classical Indian civilization) is nothing to be apologetic about, any more than the spread of Buddhism and Jainism all over India from a centre in Bihar is something to be apologetic about. But it (the Vedic/Harappan culture) should not be taken as the starting point of this culture.
Thank you for the detailed response - this clarifies a lot. Appreciate your taking the time to respond to my queries.
DeleteCan you post a link to pdf (preferred) or word to the same paper on the top, so that I can print and read.
ReplyDeleteThis is the only place on the internet where this article will be available, and I am not otherwise internet-savvy enough to answer your above question.
DeleteBut a procedure I always use to get articles from the internet (when no direct download facility is available) is to highlight the entire article with my mouse and keyboard, press "c" to copy the article, and then paste it (pressing "v") on a new word document opened on my computer. You can copy this article in the same way, and then take a print-out.
Thank you very much for sharing these.
ReplyDeleteThank you for your great work. You have very well used the two papers by P.E. Dumont to further strengthen the OIT theory. I have also read the two parts of "The Recorded History of the Indo-European Migrations". I am eagerly looking forward to reading Parts 3 and 4.
ReplyDeleteSalute sir to a great intellectual. You are doing a great job in ripping off these Indologists. Keep it up sir. I certainly wish that you come up with a popular book for the masses explaining your massive evidence against the AIT. It is definitely required for our brainwashed people. I would request a book from you in collaboration with another giant Michel Danino. Your arguments are phenomenal, but are very difficult for the lay reader to follow. Simplify them please and give it as a popular book. It is an urgent need of the hour for the country.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete