Is "Bṛbu" a "non-Aryan" name in the Rigveda?

 

Is "Bṛbu" a "non-Aryan" name in the Rigveda?

Shrikant G Talageri

 

At the moment, I am engaged in a detailed study of the New Words in the Rigveda, for a much more expanded and detailed version of my earlier article "The Chronological Gulf Between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda". Understanding the fact that there is a massive chronological gulf between these two chronologically distinct parts of the Rigveda is The Key to any logical analysis of Rigvedic history, and, as I do not know of anyone else who will undertake this vital task (at least in my lifetime), I feel it is necessary for me to undertake and complete it before "death do us (myself and other students of Rigvedic history) part".

I did not want to interrupt that work at the moment in order to write on any other topic, but I now feel the need (in the course of my study) to write this small article to settle this particular question of this particular name in the Rigveda: Bṛbu. This is a name/word regularly touted by AIT enthusiasts as the name of a "non-Aryan chieftain" who gave lavish gifts to the composer of hymn VI.45, and unlike practically all the other such touted names, which appear in the New Rigveda, this one appears in the Old Rigveda, and hence must be dealt with:

I. "Non-Aryan" remnants in the Rigveda.

II. The Logic of Redacted Hymns.

 

I. "Non-Aryan" remnants in the Rigveda.

 

One of the biggest setbacks for AIT "historians" is that the Rigveda firmly refuses to record any non-Indo-European name for any "non-Aryan" person with whom the "Aryan invaders" had their much-imagined battles, skirmishes and conflicts. The AIT "historians" (Witzel is the most prominent name which comes to mind) have done their best to try and discover "non-Aryan" words and names in the Rigveda, but have failed miserably in doing so: all their claims require their admirers to suspend their logic and common sense and accept these scholarly claims purely on faith with complete disregard to linguistic rules. At least, any word which these scholars claim to be "non-Indo-European" or "non-Indo-Aryan", based on their own dogmatic "linguistic rules" for what qualifies any word to be "Indo-European" or "Indo-Aryan", automatically becomes "non-Aryan" even if it does not also prove to be based on the "linguistic rules" of any other known non-Indo-European language family. So we have these scholars proposing totally unrecorded and unknown "languages" (like Witzel's "Language X" of the Harappan Civilization) to "explain" these words. When Witzel makes up rules to brand words as specifically "Austric/Munda" words, he lands in a mess: for example, his rule that all words beginning with ki-, ku-, etc. should be treated as "Munda-related" words (even when not found in any Munda language) borrowed by the "invading Aryans" from the Munda-speaking Harappan natives, makes the name of Kikkuli (the Mitanni writer of the famous horse-training manual from Syria-Iraq) also a "Munda" name and confirms him to be an emigrant from Vedic India.

Witzel similarly tries to derive the names of the Rigvedic rivers from "non-Aryan" sources, an exercise vital for the AIT claim that newly-arrived "Aryans" composed the Rigveda after intruding into an originally "non-Aryan" area. We need not try to deal with his wishful claims here: a colleague of his, Václav Blažek, in his article "Hydronymia Ṛgvedica" gives the IA derivations for 27 of the 29 rivers in his list, with also alternative Dravidian derivations for 3 of them, and in the case of the remaining 2 rivers he gives Burushaski derivations! As the two rivers (Gaṅgā and Krumu) for which he gives Burushaski derivations also have known Indo-Aryan derivations (which he summarily rejects), and his Burushaski derivations go against the views of all other Indologists in respect of the Gaṅgā, and only bank on one earlier speculation on the Krumu, it is clear that all this just part of the speculative non-Aryan" hunting cottage industry fostered by the AIT dogma.

The powerful impact of all these Indo-Aryan names, and the total absence of non-Indo-Aryan names, in the names of rivers, is damning evidence against the AIT. As Witzel himself had admitted in a much earlier article: "In Europe, river names were found to reflect the languages spoken before the influx of Indo-European speaking populations. They are thus older than c. 4500-2500 B.C. (depending on the date of the spread of Indo-European languages in various parts of Europe).” (WITZEL 1995a:104-105). But, in sharp contrast, “in northern India rivers in general have early Sanskrit names from the Vedic period, and names derived from the daughter languages of Sanskrit later on" (WITZEL 1995a:105). This contrasts with the situation all over the world: many rivers in the USA-Canada still have original indigenous American Indian names: Athabasca, Chattahoochee, Mississippi, Mississagi, Missouri, Ottawa, Potomac, Saskatchewan, Tennessee, Yukon, Wabash, etc). Likewise many Australian rivers still have Australian aboriginal names: Barwon, Waikato, Yarra, Murrumbidgee.

Witzel wishfully suggests (without any data or evidence beyond the requirements of the AIT) that "the substitution of Indo-Aryan names for local ones, was powerful enough from early on to replace local names, in spite of the well-known conservatism of river names. This is especially surprising in the area once occupied by the Indus Civilisation where one would have expected the survival of older names, as has been the case in Europe and the Near East. At the least, one would expect a palimpsest, as found in New England with the name of the state of Massachussetts next to the Charles river, formerly called the Massachussetts river, and such new adaptations as Stony Brook, Muddy Creek, Red River, etc., next to the adaptations of Indian names such as the Mississippi and the Missouri". According to Witzel, this alleged "failure to preserve old hydronomes even in the Indus Valley" is indicative of "the extent of the social and political collapse experienced by the local population" (WITZEL 1995a:106-107). Clearly only determined religious fanatics (the AIT is practically a religion in such matters) would accept such arguments.

 

In the case of the names of the "non-Aryan" indigenous natives of India whom the invading Aryans are alleged to have invaded, conquered and destroyed, this total absence of recognizably "non-Aryan" linguistic elements (specifically Dravidian, Austric, Sino-Tibetan, Burushaski, Sumerian, Andamanese, Semitic, Uralo-Altaic, or anything else) in the Rigveda is equally damning. The composers of the Rigveda who are supposed to have started entering through Central Asia only after 2000 BCE, and composed the Rigveda between 1500 and 1200 BCE, seem to have developed a complete amnesia about the names and identities of their alleged predecessors in the area (the teaming millions of whom seem also to have disappeared into thin air without leaving any trace)!

In these circumstances, names which can be alleged to be not having "clear" Indo-Aryan etymologies are the only refuge for these word-hunters. As most of these allegedly "non-Aryan" names appear only in post-Rigvedic texts or the latest hymns of the New Rigveda, we need not bother to examine them. As I have pointed out in my earlier articles, in the New Rigveda (which chronologically coincides with the Mature Harappan Age), the Harappan civilization had become a center of commercial and related activities, and some people from other parts of India had settled in the north and become part of the Rigvedic/Harappan culture: most prominent among them being composers from the Dravidian South like Irimbiṭha and the Agastyas.

 

However, one name from the oldest part of the Old Rigveda, Book 6, Bṛbu as mentioned above, is regularly touted as a "non-Aryan" name because it is claimed that this word does not fit into the phonetic rules which govern Indo-Aryan or Indo-European words, and is therefore automatically "non-Aryan". That it simply does not fit into the phonetic rules which govern any other known non-Indo-Aryan language in India either, is a matter of little concern for these "scholars": after all, which non-Indo-Aryan language in India could have had the purely Indo-Aryan (IE) sound "ṛ", or could have had some other unattested sound which could have been "Indo-Aryanized" into the sound "ṛ"?

While there is absolutely no evidence for the "non-Aryan" identity of the word bṛbu, there is very definite evidence showing that it was an Indo-Aryan word:

1. the root bṛb- in the word bṛbu, which the Indologists insist is not Indo-Aryan, is not an isolated one in the Rigveda: we also have bṛbaduktham in VIII.32.10 and bṛbūkam in X.27.3, both in the New Rigveda. Both the words are epithets of Indra, and Jamison translates them as follows: bṛbaduktham as "him of stammering speech", and bṛbūkam as "stammerer". Jamison does not really have any logic for translating the terms as having to do with stammering, and indeed it is clearly a speculative translation, as in the first case she seems to classify it among "words with apparently non-Indo-Aryan phonology", and in the second as part of "the thoroughly obscure last pāda of that verse".

2. But there is absolutely no logic as to why Indra should be referred to in praise as stammering. Clearly the words have nothing to do with stammering, and are merely derived from a different form (√bṛb) of the root √bṛh, from which we get the name of a composer, "bṛhaduktha" (=bṛbaduktha), meaning "of wide fame" or "highly praised" (the root indicating "to grow big, to expand, to become wide"), which is found in the following verses, again only in the New Rigveda: V.19.3;  X.56.7;  54.6. The root √bṛh (found throughout the Rigveda) is clearly found in the New Rigveda with an alternate form √bṛb, which gave rise to these three words: bṛbu, bṛbaduktham, and bṛbūkam.

It must be noted that the word bṛbu is found in a Redacted Hymn, and Redacted Hymns contain New words. In this case, the person praised is a paṇi, or trader, and he is called by an epithet or phrase "bṛbu" indicating that he is an expansive-hearted giver of gifts to the composer. Indeed the verses say just that (Jamison's translations): "Bṛbu has stood stood upon the highest head of the niggards [/Paṇis]; he is as broad as the girth of the Ganges" (VI.45.31), "Bṛbu, the best giver of thousands, the best winner of thousands" (VI.45.33).

Unfortunately for the AIT enthusiasts, this slender thread of hope, that a person with a "non-Aryan" name could be found mentioned in the oldest hymns, albeit as a giver of gifts to the Vedic composer of the hymn rather than as a "non-Aryan" enemy survivor from the pre-invasion days, stands dashed to the ground.

 

II. The Logic of Redacted Hymns

This brings us to an important point; how does a hymn in the Old Rigveda, even if a Redacted Hymn, contain a "name" from the New Rigveda? For those who have read and understood my books and articles, and the logic of Redacted Hymns, this does not pose any mystery: the very identity of the Redacted Hymns is that they are Old Hymns of the Old Rigveda which were kept separate from the others, and then inserted into the Old Books (2-4, 6-7) only in the New Period, by which time (unlike the rest of the hymns in the Old Books 2-4, 6-7), they were very much modified and redacted with the addition of New Words and in many cases the recasting into new metrical forms. In this case, there is nothing to indicate that Bṛbu was the name of the donor, he is referred to in praise with the epithet Bṛbu to indicate the broadness of his heart in its generosity, and it is this new form (√bṛb) of the old root (√bṛh) which is used to form an epithet in his praise. And like all other New Words, this New Word also could be used in the Redacted Hymns.

It must be kept in mind that redactions take place naturally only in respect of language and not in respect of history and geography. The logic is that in every period of time, stories and texts are modified in the natural course of events in respect of language and cultural props (which reflect the cultural environment of the modifiers or redactors, when they may have no particular reason to be aware that certain words or cultural props which are common in their own time were not common in the time of the original events or texts and must therefore not be used). Hence such new words and cultural props can find their way into the modified stories or texts. But when the persons making the modifications are aware that certain persons, places and cultural props are definitely not part of the original texts, periods or events, there is no chance (except in deliberate parodies) of those persons, places or cultural props being interpolated or introduced into the original story or text.

 

Thus, although the Ramayana and Mahabharata texts refer in general descriptions to the Yavanas and Romakas (Greeks and Romans) and the Pandyas, Cholas and Cheras (the Mauryan era kingdoms of the South), who were all part of the cultural knowledge and environment in the North India of Mauryan times (when these texts were first set down in writing), none of these find direct participation in the events of the two texts.  And Ayodhya and Mithila are located in their original setting in eastern Uttar Pradesh and not transferred to the South.

Likewise, when in the sixties of the last century, the film Sampoorna Ramayan showed Rama and Sita (after Sita is kidnapped by Ravana) seeing each other's images in a Sitaphal and Ramphal respectively, neither the makers of the film nor the general public was aware of the fact that these fruits, so "local" to their culture, were actually brought to India from Latin America by the Portuguese four centuries ago, and could not have been known to Rama and Sita. However, few film-makers would have thought of showing Rama and Sita eating that so very "English" fruit (though it actually originated in Afghanuistan): the apple.

Likewise, no modern writer or film producer would seriously introduce Chandragupta Maurya, or Adi Shankaracharya, or Sant Dnyaneshwar, or Chhatrapati Shivaji, or Mahatma Gandhi, as characters in any retelling of the Ramayana or the Mahabharata, since it is known that they all belong to different later eras. On the other hand, "Puranic" personalities like Viśvāmitra, Vasiṣṭha, Durvāsa, Agastya, Kaṇva, Atri, Parśurāma, Hanuman, etc. are freely introduced into different "Puranic" stories (or new stories invented to fit them in). It is all a matter of the state of knowledge of the redactor or modifier or reteller.

 

In the case of the Redacted Hymns, I have pointed out the process of their composition and redaction in my book in 2008. To begin with, the list of Old Hymns and Redacted Hymns is as follows:

 

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
II. 1-31, 33-40 (39 hymns).	II. 32, 41-43 (4 hymns).
III. 1-25, 30-50, 54-61 (54 hymns).	III. 26-29, 51-53, 62 (8 hymns).
IV. 1-14, 16-29, 33-36, 38-47, 49, 51-54 (47 hymns).	IV. 15, 30-32, 37, 48, 50, 55-58 (11 hymns).
V. 1-24, 29-39, 41-50, 52-60, 62-77, 79-81, 83-86 (77 hymns).	V. 25-28, 40, 51, 61, 78, 82, 87 (10 hymns).
VI. 1-14, 17-43, 53-58, 62-73 (59 hymns).	VI. 15-16, 44-52, 59-61, 74-75 (16 hymns).
VII. 1-14, 18-30, 34-54, 56-58, 60-65, 67-73, 75-80, 82-93, 95, 97-100 (87 hymns).	VII. 15-17, 31-33, 55, 59, 66, 74, 81, 94, 96, 101-104 (17 hymns).

 

In the case of the five Old Books (2-4, 6-7) which constitute the Old Rigveda, there is what I call a "chronological gulf" between the Old Hymns and the Redacted Hymns: the huge mass of New Words that I have listed in my earlier article "The Chronological Gulf Between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda" are found in the Redacted Hymns but completely missing in the Old Hymns. [My forthcoming article "The New Words and Other New Elements in the Rigveda" will show all this in even more and sharper details].

On the other hand, Book 5 is not an Old Book: it is a New Book and part of the New Rigveda (Books 1, 5, 8-10). And in Book 5,  the huge mass of New Words is found in both the Old Hymns and the Redacted Hymns, since both these groups of hymns belong to the New Period.

 

However, when it comes to the historical and geographical references, there is no difference between the Old Hymns and the Redacted Hymns in any of the five Old Books in the Old Rigveda, since the redactions did not change or modify the historical and geographical references:

 

Eastern Geographical Words in the Old Rigveda:

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
II. 1.11;  3.7,8;  10.1;  30.8;  34.3,4;  36.2.	II. 32.8;  41.16-18.
III. 4.8;  5.9;  23.4,4,4,4,4,4;  45.1;  46.2;  54.13;  58.6.	III. 26.4,6;  29.4,4;  53.11,14.
IV. 4.1;  16.14;  18.11;  21.8.	IV. 58.2.
VI. 1.2;  4.5;  8.4;  17.11;  20.8;  27.5,6.	VI. 45.31;  49.7;  50.12;  52.6;  61.1-7,10-11,13-14.
VII. 2.8;  9.5;  18.19;  35.11;  36.6;  39.5;  40.3,3;  44.5;  69.6;  95.11-2,4-6;  98.1.	VII. 96.1,3-6.

 

Western Geographical Words in the Old Rigveda:

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
II.  NONE.	II.  NONE.
III.  NONE.	III.  NONE.
IV. 43.6;  54.6.	IV. 30.12;  55.3.
VI.  NONE.	VI.  NONE.
VII.  NONE.	VII.  NONE.

 

Then note the references in Book 5:  all the geographical references, both eastern and western, are in the Old Hymns and none in the Redacted Hymns: again a different kind of uniformity.

Eastern Geographical Words in Book 5:

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
V. 5.8;  29.7,8;  42.12,15;  43.11;  46.2;  52.17;  55.6;  57.3;  58.6;  60.2.	V. NONE.

Western Geographical Words in Book 5:

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
V. 41.15;  53.9,9,9,9,9,9.	V. NONE.

 

When it comes to historical references, note the references to Divodāsa in Book 6, which represents his period; and the references to Sudās in Books 3 and 7, which refer to his period. Again the references are found in both the Old Hymns as well as the Redacted Hymns:

References to Divodāsa and Sudā s in their respective Books:

Old Hymns.	Redacted Hymns.
III. 33 (though not by name)	III. 53.9,11.
VI. 26.5;  31.4;  43.1.	VI. 16.5,19;  47.22,23;  61.1.
VII. 18.5,9,15.17,18,23,25;  19.3,6;  20.2;  25.3;  53.3.	VII. 32.10;  33.3.

 

Therefore, while the study of the New Words in the Rigveda is extremely vital in noting the vast chronological gulf between the Old Rigveda and the New Rigveda in terms of the vocabulary and the time period,  and in examining any and every historical question regarding Vedic ("Indo-Aryan"), "Indo-Iranian" and Indo-European history, at the same time the linguistic state of any particular hymn does not invalidate the actual geographical and historical data in that hymn, since the inflow of New Words did not affect the geographical and historical data, which remained unchanged.

 

[As I have pointed out in detail in TALAGERI 2000:66-72, long before I started analyzing the Rigvedic vocabulary, the only two historical names from the New Rigveda which were interpolated into the Old Rigveda were the names of the two Tṛkṣi/Ikṣvāku kings, Purukutsa and Trasadasyu. I will not bother to repeat it all here, since I have already dealt with this subject again in my article "The Ikṣvākus in the Rigveda" and elsewhere].