Aryan Invasion Theory - Fabrications and Fallout - Part 2prakashan.vivekanandakendra.org/sites/default/files/85323769... · ARYAN INVASION THEORY-FABRICATIONS AND FALLOUTS - VOLUME

1

VIVEKANANDA KENDRA PATRIKA ARYAN INVASION THEORY VOL-II

AUGUST 2010 - JANUARY 2011Vol.40 No.2, 80th Issue

VIVEKANANDA KENDRA PATRIKA

Founder-Editor : MANANEEYA EKNATHJI RANADE

Editor : P.PARAMESWARAN

EDITORIAL OFFICE :Vivekananda Kendra Prakashan Trust,

5, Singarachari Street, Triplicane,Chennai - 600 005.

Phone : (044) 28440042E-mail : [email protected]

Web : www.vkendra.org

SUBSCRIPTION RATES :Single Copy : Rs.125/-Annual : Rs.250/-For 3 Years : Rs.600/-Life (10 Years) : Rs.2000/-

(Plus Rs.50/- for Outstation Cheques)

FOREIGN SUBSCRIPTION:Annual : $60 US DOLLARLife (10 Years) : $600 US DOLLAR

The Vivekananda Kendra Patrika is a half-yearly cultural magazine of VivekanandaKendra Prakashan Trust. It is an official organof Vivekananda Kendra, an all-India servicemission with “service to humanity” as its solemotto. This publication is based on the samenon-profit spirit, and proceeds from its salesare wholly used towards the Kendra’scharitable objectives.

A DISTINCTIVE CULTURALMAGAZINE OF INDIA(A Half-Yearly Publication)

ARYAN INVASION THEORY-FABRICATIONS AND FALLOUTS - VOLUME TWO

2


ContentsEditorial 5Part ISwami Vivekananda : On Aryan Invasion 8‘A Philological Myth’ Sri Aurobindo on Aryan Invasion Theory 10‘A Perversion of Scientific Investigation’ 11Part II

Pre-Rig Vedic Mitanni? 19

On Perceiving Aryan Migrations inVedic Ritual Texts Vishal Agarwal 27

Indo-aryan And Slavic Linguistic And GeneticAffinities Predate The Origin Of Cereal Farming Joseph Skulj and others 44

Phonetic Clues Hint Language Is Africa-Born Nicholas Wade 86

Some Modern Genetic Studies on the AryanInvasion Issues (2009-2011) Swarkar Sharma and others 89

European Journal of Human Genetics(2010) 18, 479–484 Peter A Underhill and others 91

The American Journal of Human Genetics, Volume 89,Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011 Mait Metspalu 93

Part III

The Politics of the Aryan Invasion Debate Koenraad Elst 96

Racism and Indology Prof. Subash Kak 114

Who Owns India’s Past? Prof: Dilip K. Chakrabarti 121

Harappans and Aryans:Old and New Perspectivesof Ancient Indian History Padma Manian De Anza College 124

The Missionary’s Swastika: Racism as anEvangelical Weapon S. Aravindan Neelakandan 141

ARYAN INVASION THEORYVOLUME TWO

Satish S Mishra &Ravilochanan Iyengar

3


Moving Beyond Invasion and Race…

In this second volume on ‘Aryan Invasion Theory’ we explore the theme under threemajor headings. In the first we see how three great seers of India rejected the Aryanrace/invasion theory. They are Swami Vivekananda, Sri Aurobindo and Baba Saheb

Ambedkar. Even as the whole academicia was accepting the race theories propoundedby the Western scholars, these three original thinkers rejected the race theory ofstudying the Indian population. They did that not out of blind faith but through originalresearch and studies of Indic literature from Indic point of view. The first section thuspresents the view of the founding figures of Indian nation in the modern age.

Naturally a question may arise. How far can the observations of these great men beconsidered as empirically correct and scientifically valid?

Our next section answers this question. Of course ancient past is a deep mystery. Manytimes we make conjectures. But today science is offering us wonderful tool to test anyconjectures we may make. With the help of archaeology and linguistics, scholars probeinto the past. And in the post-colonial milieu scholars with their minds unfettered,discover that the colonial myths get shattered with every archaeological dig and everylinguistic reconstruction. Perhaps the myth of Sanskrit and Tamil emerging from thetwo sides of Siva’s drum may hold a more fundamental truth than all the colonial scholarly

Editorial

Vivekananda Kendra Patrika Vol.40 No.2, 80th Issue

ARYAN INVASION THEORY-FABRICATIONS AND FALLOUTS- VOLUME TWO

4


constructions put together. Aryan invasion model itself has mutated into somethingcalled ‘Aryan migration model’. Its nevertheless only old wine in old bottle with a newlabel. A scholarly look into the claims of this model also makes the model crumble intodust. Then there is molecular genetics which provides a very interesting tool to lookinto the deep ancestry of humanity. And painstaking reconstruction of the past byarchaeologists, geneticists and linguists again show us that nothing called Aryan invasionor migration ever happened in India’s past. In fact there was no such thing as ‘Aryanrace’ at all.

If so wrong, and if so completely proved wrong, then why does the Aryan InvasionTheory still persist in the common psyche? This is the most important question weneed to ask. Is there a vested interest, which has political and religious dimensions, inpromoting this unscientific colonial race theory? Are there sinister forces at workwhich want to create racial faultlines in India’s common psyche so that they can be laterused to create full blown civil wars? What shall be the logical extension of Aryan racetheory if applied to present Indian society? Who will benefit if India’s caste conflictsare projected as racial wars rooted in ancient history? Such a horrific scenario thatunfolds, reminds us why this Aryan race theory needs to be combatted at all levels.

We need to show every Indian that India is one. Whatever language, creed or socialgroup to which he or she may belong, India is spiritually one. The unity of a nation isnot racial or linguistic or political. It is deeply spiritual and cultural. India in thatsense is one nation. In India all spiritual traditions in the world have found a nurturingspace. Even the long destroyed pagan cultures of Europe and the spiritual traditionsof South America and Africa, can find in the cultural and spiritual elements of India, avalidation. To deconstruct such a nation with the help of a colonial pseudo-scientificmyth like ‘Aryan race theory’ is not just an exercise in futility but an injustice tohuman civilization itself. So through this Kendra Patrika we again dedicate ourself tothe grand vision of Indian seers who, as Kabir said, embrace the whole universe astheir Benaras and declare that from pole to pole humanity is of one blood and that allhuman made divisions are artificial.

S.Aravindan NeelakandanVKP Editorial Team

5


While the fabricators of Aryan Invasion Theory, the Western Indologists, claimedthat the idea of Aryan race as well as the theory of their invasion of India fromoutside India, were supported by literary evidence from Indian scriptures. ManyIndian scholars, who venerated the Western scholarship, also meekly acceptedthe Aryan invasion theory as historical fact.

But not all Indian agreed.

Swami Vivekananda, the patriotic monk of the spiritual as well as socialrenaissance of India, categorically denied the invasion theory and the idea thatAryans came from outside India. Here we present a collection of Swamiji’s viewson Aryan invasion and race theories culled out from many of his lectures.

We also present the views of Sri Aurobindo, a great modern Rishi, whoseinterpretations of the Vedic literature are so refreshingly in tune with the ancientvision of the Vedic Seers.

Next are the research findings of an unique historian and a great social reformer,Dr.Ambedkar. The architect of the modern Indian constitution, the modernSmrithi giver has thoroughly analysed the Aryan theories and had demolishedthem in a systematic manner.

His conclusions resonate with what Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo havesaid about the Aryan-Dravidian divide and race theories about India’s ancientpast. Together these three articles form a preamble for this Kendra Patrika.

Aryan Invasion - Monstrous Lies!

Part-I

6


What your European Pundits sayabout the Aryan’s swoopingdown from some foreign land,

snatching away the lands of theaborigines and settling in India byexterminating them, is all pure non-sense foolish talk! Strange, that ourIndian scholars too, say amen to them,all these monstrous lies are being taughtto our boys! This is very bad indeed.1

European worldview Imposed on VedicPeople!

…Wherever the Europeans find anopportunity they exterminate theaborigines and settle down in easeand comfort on their lands andtherefore think that the Aryans havedone the same. But where is proof?Guesswork!

In what Veda, what Sukta, do you findthat the Aryans came to India from aforeign country? Where do you get theidea that they slaughtered wildaborigines? What do you gain bytalking such nonsense?

Well, what is the Ramayana? Theconquest of the savage aborigines ofSouthern Inda by Aryans? IndeedRamachandra is a civilized Aryanbeing and with whom is he fighting?With the king Ravana of Lanka. Justread the Ramayana, and you will findthat Ravana was rather more and notless civilized than Ramachandra. Thecivilization of Lanka was ratherhigher and surely not lower than thatof Ayodhya . And then, when werethese vanaras (monkeys) and otherSouthern Indians conquered? Theywere all on the other handRamachandra’s friends and allies. Saywhat kingdoms of Vali and Guhakawere annexed by Ramachandra?

And may I ask you, Europeans, whatcountry you have ever raised t betterconditions? Where ever you havefound weaker races, you haveexamined them by the roots, as it were.You have settled on their lands, andthey are gone for ever. What is thehistory of your America, yourAustralia and New Zealand, your

Swami Vivekananda : On Aryan Invasion

7


Pacific Islands and South Africa?Where are those aboriginal racetoday? They are all exterminated, youhave killed them outright, as if theywere wild beasts. It is only where youhave not the power to do so, and thereonly that other nations are still alive.

But India has never done that. TheAryans were kind and generous, andin their hearts which were large andunbounded as the ocean and in theirbrains gifted with superhuman genius,all these ephemeral and apparentlypleasant but virtually beastlyprocesses, never found a place.

The object of the peoples of Europe isthe extermination of all in order tolive themselves. Te aim of the Aryansis to raise all up to their own level,nay, even to a higher level thanthemselves. The means of theEuropean civilization is the sword,ofthe Aryans ‘ the division into differentvarnas. This system of division intodifferent varnas is the stepping stoneto civilization, making one rise higherand higher in proportion to one’slearning and culture. In Europe it iseverywhere victory to the strong, anddeath to the weak. In the land of

Bharata every social rule is for theprotection of the weak.2

From where did the Aryans come?

According to some, they came fromcentral Tibet, others will have it, theycame from central Asia. There arepatriotic English men who think thatthe Aryans were all red haired. If thewriter happens to be a black hairedman the Aryans were all black haired.Of late, there was an attempt to provethat the Aryans lived on the Swisslakes. Some say now that they live atthe north pole. Lord bless the Aryansand their habitations. As for the truthof these theories, there is not one wordin scriptures, not one, to prove that theAryans ever came from anywhereoutside of India and in ancient Indiawas included Afganistan. There Itends. And the theory that the Shudracaste were all non-Aryans and theywere a multitude, is equally illogicaland equally irrational.3

1.The Complete Works of SwamiVivekananda, Jan 1989, Vol.V, p.534.2. CWSV, Vol V, The East and West.pp534,537.3. CWSV. Vol III, The Future of India.pp292-3.

8


Europe has formed certain viewsabout the Veda and the Vedanta, andsucceeded in imposing them on the

Indian intellect… When a hundred world-famous scholars cry out, “This is so”, it ishard indeed for the average mind, and evenminds above the average but inexpert inthese special subjects not to acquiesce…

Nevertheless a time must come when theIndian mind will shake off the darkness thathas fallen upon it, cease to think or holdopinions at second and third hand andreassert its right to judge and enquire in aperfect freedom into the meaning of itsown Scriptures.

When that day comes we shall, I think,discover that the imposing fabric of Vedictheory is based upon nothing more soundor true than a foundation of loosely massedconjectures. We shall question manyestablished philological myths, - thelegend, for the instance, of an Aryaninvasion of India from the north, theartificial and inimical distinction of Aryanand Dravidian which an erroneous

philology* has driven like a wedge into theunity of the homogenous Indo-Afghan race;the strange dogma of a “henotheistic”**Vedic naturalism; the ingenious andbrilliant extravagances of the modern sunand star myth weavers…

Religious movements and revolutions havecome and gone or left their mark but afterall and through all the Veda remains to usour Rock of the Ages, our eternalfoundation…. The Upanishads, mighty asthey are, only aspire to bring out, arrangephilosophically in the language of laterthinking and crown with supreme name ofBrahman the eternal knowledge enshrinedin the Vedas. Yet for some two thousandyears at least no Indian has reallyunderstood the Vedas.

I find in the Aryan and Dravidian tongues,the Aryan and Dravidian races not separateand unconnected families but two branchesof a single stock. The legend of the Aryaninvasion and settlement in the Punjab inVedic times is, to me, a philological myth.

‘A Philological Myth’Sri Aurobindo on Aryan Invasion Theory

9


That the theory of the Aryan raceset up by Western writers falls tothe ground at every point goes

without saying. This is somewhatsurprising since Western scholarship isusually associated with thorough researchand careful analysis. Why has the theoryfailed? … Anyone who cares to scrutinisethe theory will find that it suffers from adouble infection. In the first place, thetheory is based on nothing but pleasingassumptions and inferences based on suchassumptions. In the second place, thetheory is a perversion of scientificinvestigation. It is not allowed to evolveout of facts. On the contrary the theory ispreconceived and facts are selected toprove it.

The theory of the Aryan race is just anassumption and no more. It is based on aphilological proposition put forth by Dr.Bopp in his epoch-making book calledComparative Grammar, which appeared in1835. In this book, Dr. Bopp demonstratedthat a greater number of languages ofEurope and some languages of Asia must

be referred to a common ancestral speech.The European languages and Asiaticlanguages to which Bopp’s propositionapplied are called Indo-Germanic.Collectively, they have come to be calledthe Aryan languages largely because Vediclanguage refers to the Aryas and is also ofthe same family as the Indo-Germanic. Thisassumption is the major premise on whichthe theory of the Aryan race is based.

From this assumption are drawn twoinferences: (1) unity of race, and (2) thatrace being the Aryan race. The argument isthat if the languages have descended froma common ancestral speech then there musthave existed a race whose mother tongueit was and since the mother tongue wasknown as the Aryan tongue the race whospoke it was the Aryan race. The existenceof a separate and a distinct Aryan race isthus an inference only. From this inference,is drawn another inference which is that ofa common original habitat. It is argued thatthere could be no community of languageunless people had a common habitatpermitting close communion. Common

‘A Perversion of Scientific Investigation’- Baba Saheb Ambedkar (PhD History) on Aryan

Race Theory

10


original habitat is thus an inference froman inference.

The theory of invasion is an invention. Thisinvention is necessary because of agratuitous assumption, which underlies theWestern theory. The assumption is that theIndo-Germanic people are the purest of themodern representatives of the originalAryan race. Its first home is assumed tohave been somewhere in Europe. Theseassumptions raise a question: How couldthe Aryan speech have come to India? Thisquestion can be answered only by thesupposition that the Aryans must havecome into India from outside. Hence thenecessity for inventing the theory ofinvasion.

The third assumption is that the Aryans werea superior race. This theory has its originin the belief that the Aryans are a Europeanrace and as a European race it is presumedto be superior to the Asiatic races. Havingassumed its superiority, the next logicalstep one is driven to is to establish the factof superiority. Knowing that nothing canprove the superiority of the Aryan racebetter than the invasion and conquest ofnative races, the Western writers haveproceeded to invent the story of theinvasion of India by the Aryans and the

conquest of native races, and the conquestby them of the Dasas and Dasyus.

The fourth assumption is that the Europeanraces were white and had a colour prejudiceagainst the dark races. The Aryans being aEuropean race, it is assumed that it musthave had colour prejudice. The theoryproceeds to find evidence for colourprejudice in the Aryans who came intoIndia. This it finds in the Chaturvarnya - aninstitution by the established Indo-Aryansafter they came to India and whichaccording to these scholars is based uponVarna which is taken by them to meancolour.

Not one of these assumptions is borne outby facts. Take the premise about the Aryanrace. The theory does not take account ofthe possibility that the Aryan race in thephysiological sense is one thing and anAryan race in philological sense quitedifferent, and that it is perfectly possiblethat, the Aryan race, if there is one, in thephysiological sense may have its habitat inone place and that the Aryan race, in thephilological sense, in quite a differentplace. The theory of the Aryan race is basedon the premise of a common language andit is supposed to be common because ithas a structural affinity. The assertion that

11


the Aryans came from outside and invadedIndia is not proved and the premise that theDasas and Dasyus are aboriginal tribes ofIndia is demonstrably false.

Again, to say that the institution ofChaturvarnya is a reflection of the innatecolour prejudice of the Aryans is really toassert too much. If colour is the origin ofclass distinction, there must be fourdifferent colours to account for thedifferent classes, which comprise Chatur-varnya. Nobody has said what those fourcolours are and who were the four colouredraces who were welded together inChaturvarnya. As it is, the theory starts withonly two opposing people, Aryas and Dasas- one assumed to be white and the otherassumed to be dark…

Prof. Micheal Foster has somewhere saidthat ‘hypothesis is the salt of science.’Without hypothesis there is no possibilityof fruitful investigation. But it is equallytrue that where the desire to prove aparticular hypothesis is dominant,hypothesis becomes the poison of science.The Aryan race theory of Western scholarsis as good an illustration of how hypothesiscan be the poison of science as one canthink of.

The Aryan race theory is so absurd that itought to have been dead long ago. But farfrom being dead, the theory has aconsiderable hold upon the people. Thereare two explanations which account for thisphenomenon. The first explanation is to befound in the support which the theoryreceives from Brahmin scholars. This is avery strange phenomenon. As Hindus, theyshould ordinarily show a dislike for theAryan theory with its express avowal of thesuperiority of the European races over theAsiatic races. But the Brahmin scholar hasnot only no such aversion but he mostwillingly hails it. The reasons are obvious.The Brahmin believes in the two-nationtheory. He claims to be the representativeof the Aryan race and he regards the restof the Hindus as descendants of the non-Aryans. The theory helps him to establishhis kinship with the European races andshare their arrogance and their superiority.He likes particularly that part of the theorywhich makes the Aryan an invader and aconqueror of the non-Aryan native races.For it helps him to maintain and justify hisoverlordship over the non-Brahmins.

The second explanation why the Aryan racetheory is not dead is because of the generalinsistence by European scholars that theword Varna means colour and the

12


acceptance of that view by a majority ofthe Brahmin scholars. Indeed, this is themainstay of the Aryan theory. There is nodoubt that as long as this interpretation ofthe Varna continues to be accepted theAryan theory will continue to live. This partof the Aryan theory is therefore veryimportant and calls for fuller examination.It needs to be examined from threedifferent points of view: (1) Were theEuropean races fair or dark? (2) Were theIndo-Aryans fair? (3) What is the originalmeaning of the word Varna?

On the question of the colour of theearliest Europeans, Prof. Ripley is quitedefinite that they were of dark complexion.Prof. Ripley goes on to say: “We arestrengthened in this assumption that theearliest Europeans were not only long-headed but also dark complexioned, byvarious points in our inquiry thus far. Wehave proved the prehistoric antiquity of theliving Cro-Magnon type in SouthernFrance; and we saw that among thesepeasants, the prevalence of black hair andeyes is very striking. And comparing typesin the British Isles we saw that everythingtended to show that the brunet populationsof Wales, Ireland and Scotland constitutedthe most primitive stratum of populationin Britain… it would seem as if this earliest

race in Europe must have been very dark....It was Mediterranean in its pigmentalaffinities, and not Scandinavian.’

Turning to the Vedas for any indicationwhether the Aryans had any colourprejudice, reference may be made to thefollowing passages in the Rig Veda:

In Rig Veda, i. 117.8, there is a referenceto Ashvins having brought about themarriage between Shyavya and Rushati.Shyavya is black and Rushati is fair.

In Rig Veda, i. 117.5, there is a prayeraddressed to Ashvins for having savedVandana who is spoken as of golden colour.

In Rig Veda, ii. 3.9, there is a prayer by anAryan invoking the Devas to bless him witha son with certain virtues but of (pishanga)tawny (reddish brown) complexion.

These instances show that the Vedic Aryanshad no colour prejudice. How could theyhave? The Vedic Aryans were not of onecolour. Their complexion varied; somewere of copper complexion, some white,and some black. Rama the son ofDasharatha has been described as Shyama,i.e., dark in complexion, so is Krishna thedescendant of the Yadus, another Aryan

13


clan. The Rishi Dirghatamas, who is theauthor of many mantras of the Rig Veda,must have been of dark colour if his namewas given to him after his complexion.Kanva is an Aryan rishi of great repute. Butaccording to the description given in theRig Veda - x. 31.11 - he was of dark colour.

To take up the third and the last point,namely, the meaning of the word Varna. Letus first see in what sense it is used in theRig Veda. The word Varna is used in theRig Veda in 22 places. Of these, in about17 places the word is used in reference todeities such as Ushas, Agni, Soma, etc., andmeans lustre, features or colour. Beingused in connection with deities, it wouldbe unsafe to use them for ascertaining whatmeaning the word Varna had in the Rig Vedawhen applied to human beings. There arefour and at the most five places in the RigVeda where the word is used in referenceto human beings. They are: i. 104.2; i.179.6; ii. 12.4; iii. 34.5; ix. 71.2.

Do these references prove that the wordVarna is used in the Rig Veda in the senseof colour and complexion? ... The questionis: What does the word Varna mean whenapplied to Dasa? Does it refer to the colourand complexion of the Dasa, or does it

indicate that Dasas formed a separate class?...

The evidence of the Rig Veda is quiteinconclusive. In this connection, it will beof great help to know if the word occurs inthe literature of the Indo-Iranians and if so,in what sense.

Fortunately, the word Varna does occur inthe Zend Avesta. It takes the form of Varanaor Varena. It is used specifically in thesense of “Faith, Religious doctrine, Choiceof creed or belief.” It is derived from theroot Var which means to put faith in, tobelieve in. One comes across the wordVarana or Varena in the Gathas about sixtimes used in the sense of faith, doctrine,creed or belief… This evidence from theZend Avesta as to the meaning of the wordVarna leaves no doubt that it originallymeant a class holding to a particular faithand it had nothing to do with colour orcomplexion.

The conclusions that follow from theexamination of the Western theory maynow be summarised. They are:

(1) The Vedas do not know any such raceas the Aryan race.

14


(2) There is no evidence in the Vedas ofany invasion of India by the Aryan race andits having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus,supposed to be natives of India.

(3) There is no evidence to show that thedistinction between Aryans, Dasas andDasyus was a racial distinction.

(4) The Vedas do not support the contentionthat the Aryans were different in colourfrom the Dasas and Dasyus.

15


This part contains some technical papers on Aryan Race/Invasion/Migrationtheories.

Ravilochanan and Satish Mishra two linguists study the famous Mittani text andmake an indepth comparison of the language of the text with Rig Vedic language.This analysis challenges some of the long cherished beliefs in certain academiccircles that the Mitanni text predates the Rig Vedic and hence is a proof of Indo-Aryan migration from the west to east.

The article ‘On Perceiving Aryan Migrations in Vedic Ritual Texts’ is written byVishal Agarwal. Vishal Agarwal is an engineer who devoted himself to studyingthe Aryan invasion/migration debate. His excellent research articles have broughtout the weaknesses and inaccuracies embedded in the attempts of certain class ofacademics in sustaining the age old colonial myths for their own vested interests.In this research paper Agarwal shows how a text was mistranslated and text-tortured by a famous Harvard Professor so that the professor could support hisAryan migration theory. This article by Vishal Agarwal appeared in Puratattva(Bulletin of the Indian Archaeolgical Society), New Delhi, No. 36, 2005-06.

Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda etal present a massive evidence –both linguisticand genetic- that actually reverses the direction of human migration in deeptime. Perhaps language and farming along with humns migrated from east to thewest – rather than in the reverse direction.

Lastly we have presented three abstracts of genetic studies from 2009-2011 whichall consistently question or reject the Aryan invasion or migration into India.

Part-II

16


In all the technical papers presented here show how the common idea of AryanRace/Invasion/Migration theories are unscientific and based on shaky grounds.While one can perfectly understand why colonial scholarship of a bygone erafabricated and reinforced this pseudo-scientific theory what baffles one is theway a section of vested interests in the academia and also politics, is trying tostill sustain this race theory.

Lastly we have presented three abstracts of genetic studies from 2009-2011 whichall consistently question or reject the Aryan invasion or migration into India.

In all the technical papers presented here show how the common idea of AryanRace/Invasion/Migration theories are unscientific and based on shaky grounds.While one can perfectly understand why colonial scholarship of a bygone erafabricated and reinforced this pseudo-scientific theory what baffles one is theway a section of vested interests in the academia and also politics, is trying tostill sustain this race theory.

17


Abstract

The paper deals with the positionof Mitanni Indo-Aryan vis-à-visRig Vedic Indo-Aryan. The claim

about Mitanni Indo-Aryan (henceforth, IA)being pre-RigVeda is considered andproved to be wrong. It is shown thatMitanni IA does not affect the position ofthose scholars who advocate a much-higherantiquity for RigVeda (henceforth, RV) thanthe popular date of 1200 BCE.

Abbreviations UsedIA = Indo-Aryan; RV = RigVeda; Skt. =Sanskrit; Pa. = Pali; Pk. = Prakrit.

IntroductionWitzel (2005:361) has argued that“…remnants of IA in Mitanni, belong to anearly pre-Rgvedic stage of IA”. He claims– “…..Rgvedic is younger than the Mitanniwords preserved at c. 1450-1350 BCE”(Witzel 2005:364).

Mitanni seems to retain certain archaicfeatures lost in Vedic:a) Presence of ‘ai’ in the place of ‘e’

(precedes ‘ai>e’ & ‘au>o’)b) Presence of voiced sibilant ‘z’c) Presence of jh (precedes ‘jh>h’

found in Vedic)Witzel is not the only scholar to arrive atthis conclusion either.Fortson (2004:183) says about the fate ofdiphthongs in Indic – “In Sanskrit *ai and*au were monophthongised to e and o.....butthey were still diphthongs in the earliestpreserved Indic, the fourteenth-century-BC cuneiform documents...”. Burrow(1973:125) states that diphthongs werelost between the period of Proto-Indo-Aryans and Vedic. In the same page, Burrowcalls the Mitannis as Proto-Indo-Aryans ofNear East but also notes that their languagehad evolved beyond the Proto-Indo-Aryanstage (cf. šatta<sapta). Burrow (2001:33)mentions that the elision of z and loss ofdiphthongs occurred before the RV period.

Pre-Rig Vedic Mitanni? -An analysis of the archaisms in Mitanni IA and their repercussions on

the date of RV

Satish S Mishra & Ravilochanan Iyengar

18


These scholars are not the only ones to takeinto consideration these ‘pre-Vedic’ forms.Thieme had done it five decades ago. Hesays – “The pronunciation e and o can be asecondarily introduced change under theinfluence of the spoken language on thescholastic recitation” (Thieme 1960:302).It is well known that RV has undergoneseveral changes during the course of oraltransmission before the final redaction ofthe text. The metrical scars found in RVstand as testimony to this fact. Hence,Thieme is justified in stating that onecannot hold Mitanni IA to be older thanVedic based on such flimsy grounds.

Thieme has made it clear that one cannot‘prove’ Mitanni IA to be older than RVbased on these phonetic archaisms. In thispaper, we will show that some of these‘archaisms’ were definitely present in RVduring the composition of the hymns. Butthey were lost subsequently.

ArchaismsDiphthongs in RV

In Sanskrit grammar, a+i gives e (one ofthe long vowels in Sanskrit). This by itselfseems to confirm that ‘ai>e’ changeoccurred in Sanskrit. The question is: whendid this occur? As RV text uses ‘e’, Witzel

seems to think that this change occurredprior to Rgvedic period. But Thieme haspointed out that such changes could befrom post-RV period (when either thesechanges were incorporated into RV by theredactors or a change which crept intoscholiastic recitation from spokenlanguage of the day).

Both ai and e are long vowels according toSanskrit grammar. Therefore, any suchchange will not leave behind a metrical scar(as one long vowel is replaced by another).But we have some evidences whichestablish that RV preceded the ‘ai>e’change.

As early as 1905, Arnold (1905:5) hasnoted that “in a few words long vowels ordiphthongs are optionally to be read asequivalent to two syllables: thusœrécmha% as œráyicmha%..”. The termsœrécmha% and œráyicmha% seem to bethe result of dialectal variation. Macdonell(1916:16) notes that hiatus is common inSamhitas where the “... the original vowelsof contractions having often to be restoredboth within a word and in Sandhi; e.g.jyécmha mightiest as jyá-icmha..”.

We found more than 40 cases in RV wheree must be read as ayi (see Appendix I)1. A

19


dialectal variation between ai and ayi ismost natural. RV Prâtiúâkhya (14.43-44)also states that there is confusion between‘ai’ and ‘ayI’ (wrongly pronouncing one forother). That there are places in RV where emust be read as ayi is most important. Itshows that RV preceded the ‘ai>e’ change.This alone can explain the cases where emust be scanned as disyllabic in RV.

Thus, we have enough evidence to believethat the ‘ai>e’ and ‘au>o’ changes occurredin post RV period. Appendix I gives theinstances where ‘e’ must be scanned as ‘ayi’in RV.

[Note: Mitanni IA has tueisaratta as a form,which is an ai>e(i) change! The ei pointsprobably to a long vowel ei, but certainly aloss of the ancient ai.]

Voiced sibilant ‘z’In RV, we don’t find voiced sibilant ‘z’ inthe currently available text. But we can seethe remnants of a voiced sibilant in it. InRV, we find the word ‘dudukcan’(desiderative form of the root ‘dhugh-‘) inthree places (RV 7.18.4, 10.61.10 and10.74.4). In later period, we find that theword is given as ‘dudhukcan’. ByGrassmann’s law, if one aspirated syllableis followed by another then the former

loses its aspiration. Also, in Sanskrit, anyconsonant cluster with s becomesdevoiced and deaspirated. The desiderativeof ‘dhugh-‘ is formed in the following way:1) Reduplicated first syllable is

prefixed to ‘dhug-‘: dhu-dhugh-

2) ‘sa’ is suffixed to the word:

‘dhu-dhugh-sa’

3) ‘ghsa>kca’: s devoices anddeaspirates gh and the ruki rulechanges s to c.

4) ‘dhudhu-‘ becomes ‘dudhu-’ bythe application of Grassmann’sLaw.

5) The result will be ‘dudhukca-‘.This is the form used inSanskrit.

But RV has the form ‘dudukcan’ as notedabove. This shows that when Grassmann’sLaw was applied to the word, it must havecontained voiced sibilant. The form musthave been ‘dudugzhan’ (‘gh-sa’ becomes‘gzha’ under Bartholomae’s Law). It is clearthat ‘z>s’ postdates RV. This explains whyRV has the peculiar form ‘dudukcan’.

Once again, we see a secondarilyintroduced change under the influence ofspoken language on scholastic recitation.

20


‘jh’ in Mitanni IA

The presence of ‘jh’ in Mitanni IA isquestionable. It is based on a single word‘vasana-‘,derived from the root *vajh>vah = to carry,to transport, to convey [Mayrhofer1996:536 s.v. vah *wâzhanasi%a “of thetraining area”]. This seems to be odd, if onefollows the description in the Kikkuli Text.The word is mentioned twice in the KikkuliText [tablet III. IV 22; IV. Recto 26) as wa-Sa-an-na-Sa-ia na (gen.) and wa-Sa-an-ni(dat. Loc.). It is measured in height andwidth (Kammenhuber 1961, 121; 139;Raulwing 2006, 65 ff.): “na-as na-wa-ar-ta-an-ni wa-Sa-an-na-Sa-ya 1 DANNA 80IKU.HI.A par-ha-I a-na wa-Sa-an-ni-mapar-ga-tar-se-it 6 IKU pal-ha-tar-se-it-ma 4 IKU.HI.A. He drives then on the nine-rounder of the race-course; of the race-course the height (=long side) (is) [90meters], it width (is) [60 meters].”

Raulwing has the following comment onthis: “The scribe of Kikkuli Text tablet III.IV 24 explicitly mentions objects made ofwood [GIS*I.A] which surround thewasanna training area on its outside.”(From P. Raulwing: The Kikkuli Text, p. 14)This description of the enclosed trainingarea doesn’t point to a root *vajh > Ved.

Vah = carry, which doesn’t make sense, butrather to a root ‘vaj’ giving IA vAja = 1.Strength, vigour, speed (of a horse), 2. Arace, contest. The area is an enclosed place(normally vAsana) where races are held andthe strength and speed of the horses istrained. (vAja-nna).

There is another issue to consider: thechange jh>h will not leave any metricalscars. Hence, one cannot argue that jh>hchange pre-dates the date of compositionof RV. We can never say for sure. It is verymuch possible that the change is post-RVand affected RV hymns due to the effectof spoken language. In light of theevidences shown above regarding thechanges which affected RV hymns post-composition, it is prudent to consider thejh>h change to be post-RV.

Developed Mitanni IAMitanni IA seems to have developed/innovated new forms in several cases. Theyare certainly not pre-RV as Witzel may liketo claim. We will be seeing a few examplesof such innovations/developments.

1. ~ SauSSattar Text (ST)– a>zero: *bara becomes bar in bar-sasattar. But there is an older IA bara-ttarna.2. ~ El-Amarna Letters (EA)

21


– ai>ei>> i/zero: lost archaic*twaiSaratta> older tueiSaratta >>developed tuiSaratta;Another example:aitagama>etagama>itakkama [O’Callaghan(1948:59)] i>zero: tuiSaratta is fullydeveloped to the form tuSratta.– tr > tt/dd or zd >tt/dd: su-mi-t/d-t/da =sumitta/sumidda. Either this is*sumitra>sumitta, or *sumizda>sumidda(Dumont: equal to sumÑha). Either case, it is a developed form andshows an innovation.3. ~ Kikkuli Texts (KT): Developmentbefore ca. 1345 BCE gave rise to thefollowing case (due to Hittitisms?):– w>zero: haplology, or *nawa > na-a (Kboiii 2 Vs 36), variation na (Kbo iii 2 Rs 22);(And also *waruna>aruna in TT?) – wa>u:aSSwa to aSSu in aSSuSSa-nni;– p(a)t> tt: *sap(a)ta becomes satta4. ~ S-S Treaty Texts (TT): Developmentaround the middle of the 14th centuryBCE:– lost initial w of *waruna– metathesis eastern Hurrian: *waruna >(u+)ruwanaForms in –an(i) or –ana get elision by theHurrian suffix nna/i: *aSSuasani >aSSUsa-nni, Vasukhani > vasuka-nni, etc.5. v>b

-virya>biria; vIrajana>birazzana;vIrasena>biraSSena (similar developmentin modern Bengali) [O’Callaghan(1948:58)].

[Note: There is a possibility that ‘biria’could stand for ‘priya’. But ‘birazzana’and‘biraSSena’appear to be clear cases of ‘v>b’change.]

6. kc, ck > SS, kkKicku>kikku (cf. Skt. akca>Pa. akkha; Skt.puckara> Pk. pukkhara);Saukcatra>SauSSattar.

[Note: We identify Kikkuli as related toSkt. ‘Kicku’. The Mitanni IA name Kikkulihas an older occurrence in a UR III text, asKikkulu, but there it occurs as the name ofa MeluHHan resident (which may be takenanother clue for the IA nature of HarappanCulture.]

ConclusionFrom the above, it can be seen that anyattempt to consider Vedic as post-MitanniIA is on shaky grounds. There is not enoughevidence to decide one way or other aboutthe age of Mitanni IA vis-à-vis Vedic IA.While Mitanni IA does show some

22


developments, they could have taken placeafter the split occurred between VedicIndo-Aryans and Mitanni Indo-Aryans.Thus, one cannot hold them as post-RVsimply on the basis of these developmentsalone.

Thankfully, we have another methodology:Talageri (2008) has compared the MitanniIA and RV names. He has shown thatMitanni IA must have beencontemporaneous with late RV (or evenpost-RV) period. The most common nameelements (shared by Mitanni with RV) arefound in late RV. This is a clear verdictagainst any case for pre-RV Mitanni IA.After all, if Mitanni IA was pre-RV, thenthe common name elements would befound in early books of RV (and thengradually diappear, leaving the ground fornew developments). But what we find is anopposite situation. Most of the common

name elements appear to be laterinnovations or developments which findplace only in the later books of RV.

The only argument against a pre-MitanniRV (or at least pre-Mitanni early RV) wasthe presence of a few archaic forms inMitanni IA (which were lost in the oralPathas of RV). That argument has been putto rest in this paper. It has been shown thatsuch changes could be a result of laterdevelopments seeping into the oraltradition. Also, we have shown traces ofthe presence of these archaic forms in RVtext.

Thus, we can safely conclude that MitanniIA is certainly not pre-RV. One cannot hidebehind the few archaisms found in MitanniIA and defend the low dates given by theAIT/AMT scholars for RV Samhita andother Vedic texts based on that argument.

BibliographyArnold, E.V. 1905 Vedic Metre: In its Historical Development, Cambridge,

University Press

Burrow, T. 1973 ‘The Proto-Indoaryans’ in Journal of Royal Asiatic Society(1973, No.2, pg:123-140), Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britainand Ireland

Burrow, T. 2001 The Sanskrit Language, Delhi (Indian reprint), MotilalBanarsidass

Fortson, B.W. 2004 Indo-European Language and Culture – An Introduction,Oxford, Blackwell Publishing

23


Knudtzon, J.A. 1907-15 Die-El-Amarna-Tafeln, Leipzig, J.C. Hinrichs

Macdonell, A.A. 1916 A Vedic Grammar For Students, Oxford, Clarendon Press

Mayrhofer, M. 1996 Etymologisches Wörterbuch des Altindoarischen II,Heidelberg, Universitätsverlag C. Winter

O’Callaghan, R.T. 1948 Aram Naharaim, Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute

Raulwing, P. 2006 The Kikkuli Text’ in Les Équidés dans le monde méditerranéenantique edited by Armelle Gardesein (pg. 61-75), Lattes,Association pour le développement de l’archéologie enLanguedoc-Roussillon

Talageri, S. 2008 The Rigveda and The Avesta, New Delhi, Aditya Prakashan

Thieme, P. 1960 ‘The Aryan Gods of the Mitanni Treaties’ in Journal of AmericanOriental Studies (Vol. 80; No.4; pg. 301-17), American OrientalSociety

Turner, RL 1962-85 A Comparative Dictionary of Indo-Aryan Languages,London,Oxford University Press

Witzel, M. 2005 ‘Indocentrism: autochthonous visions of ancient India’ in The Indo-Aryan Controversy – Evidence and Inference inIndianHistory edited by Edwin F. Bryant and Laurie L.Patton (pg. 341-404), London & New York, Routledge

(Footnotes)1 In Rig Veda: a Metrically Restor ed Text, Barend A. van Nooten and Gary B. Holland havemade the change ‘-e-‘ to ‘-ayi-‘ in all the required places as a part of their metrical restoration. Fora knowledge of all such instances, the e-text of this excellent work can be found athttp://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/RV00.html

24


There are several other cases where ‘-e-‘ must be scanned as ‘-ayi-‘ in RV. Those, whowant to know all such places, can refer the e-text of Barend A. van Nooten and Gary B.Holland’s Rigveda: A Metrically Restored Text at http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/RV/RV00.html

Appendix IThe following table gives instances in RV where ‘-e-’ must be scanned as ‘-ayi-/-ayI-.

No jyáyicmha práyicmha yáyicmha dayisna

1 1.100.4 1.167.10 5.41.3 6.63.8

2 1.127.2 1.169.1 5.74.8 7.20.7

3 2.18.8 1.181.1 7.56.6 7.37.3

4 4.1.2 1.186.3 7.58.4

5 4.22.9 5.43.7 7.93.4

6 6.48.21 6.26.8

7 7.65.1 6.63.1

8 7.86.4 7.34.14 nayit- (7 instances) praGayit- (2 instances)

9 7.97.3 7.36.5 1.92.7 8.19.37

10 8.23.23 7.88.1 1.113.04 8.46.1

11 8.46.19 7.97.4 5.50.1

12 8.74.4 8.84.1 5.50.2

13 8.102.11 8.103.10 5.50.5

14 10.6.1 5.83.6

15 10.50.4 10.103.8

16 10.61.17

17 10.78.2

18 10.78.5

19 10.120.1

(19 instances) (13 instances) (3 instances) (5 instances)

25


1. Background:

Vedicists have generally agreed inthe last 150 years that the vastcorpus of extant Vedic literature,

comprising of several hundred texts, iscompletely silent on Aryan immigrationsfrom Central Asia into India. But, in alecture delivered on 11 October 1999 atthe Jawaharlal Nehru University (NewDelhi), historian Romila Thapar (1999)made a revisionist claim:

“... and later on, the Srauta Sutra ofBaudhayana refers to the Parasus and thearattas who stayed behind and otherswho moved eastwards to the middleGanges valley and the places equivalentsuch as the Kasi, the Videhas and theKuru Pancalas, and so on. In fact, whenone looks for them, there are evidencefor migration.”

Another historian of ancient India, RamSharan Sharma considers this passage asan important piece of evidence in favorof the Aryan Migration Theory (AMT).He writes (Sharma 1999: 87-89):

On Perceiving Aryan Migrations in Vedic RitualTexts

Vishal Agarwal

Puratattva (Bulletin of the Indian Archaeolgical Society), New Delhi, No. 36, 2005-06, pp. 155-165

“More importantly, Witzel produces apassage from the BaudhayanaSrautasutra which contains ‘the mostexplicit statement of immigration intothe Subcontinent’. This passagecontains a dialogue between Pururavaand Urvasi which refers to horses,chariot parts, 100 houses and 100 jarsof ghee.

Towards the end, it speaks of the birthof their sons Ayu and Amavasu, whowere asked by their parents, to go out.‘Ayu went eastward. His people are theKuru-Pancalas and the Kasi-Videhas.This is the Ayava kin group. Amavasustayed in the west. His people are theGandharas, the Parsavas and theArattas. This is the Amavasava kingroup.’”

Sharma is so confident of the ‘evidence’of the AMT produced by Witzel that heeven goes to the extent of co-relating thesetwo groups with various pottery typesattested in the archaeological record (ibid,p. 89). It is quite apparent that all these

26


claims of alleged Vedic literary evidencefor an Indo-Aryan immigration into theIndian subcontinent are informed by thefollowing passage writtenby a Harvardphilologist (Witzel 1995: 320-321):

“Taking a look at the data relating tothe immigration of the Indo-Aryansinto South Asia, one is stuck by thenumber of vague reminiscences offoreign localities and tribes in theRgveda, in spite repeated assertions tothe contrary in the secondaryliterature. Then, there is the followingdirect statement contained in (theadmittedly much later) BSS(=Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra)18.44:397.9 sqq which has once againbeen overlooked, not having beentranslated yet: “Ayu went eastwards.His (people) are the Kuru Panchala andthe Kasi-Videha. This is the Ayava(migration). (His other people) stayedat home. His people are the Gandhari,Parsu and Aratta. This is the Amavasava(group)” (Witzel 1989a: 235).”

That the above passage of the BaudhayanaSrautasutra (henceforth ‘BSS’) is the only‘direct’ evidence for an Indo-Aryanimmigration into India is clarified byWitzel in the same article later (p. 321).The reference (Witzel 1989a: 235) at the

end of the above citation pertains to anearlier article by Witzel, where he haselaborated it further (Witzel 1989: 235):

“In the case of ancient N. India, wedo not know anything about theimmigration of various tribes andclans, except for a few elusiveremarks in the RV (= Rigveda), SB(= Shatapatha Brahmana) or BSS ( =Baudhayana Shrauta Sutra). This textretains at 18.44 : 397.9 sqq. the mostpregnant memory, perhaps, of animmigration of the In do-Aryans intoNorthern India and of their split intotwo groups: pran Ayuh pravavraja.Tasyaite Kuru-Pancalah Kasi-Videha ity. Etad Ayavam pravrajam.Pratyan amavasus. TasyaiteGandharvarayas Parsavo ‘rattaity. Etad Amavasavam. “Ayu wenteastwards. His (people) are the Kuru-Pancala and the Kasi Videha. This isthe Ayava migration. (His otherpeople) stayed at home in the West.His people are the Gandhari, Parsuand Aratta. This is the Amavasava(group)”.

Finally, this mistranslation is found in aneven older publication of Witzel (1987:202) as well. This article intends to showhow this Sutra passage actually says the

27


reverse of what Witzel intends to prove,because Witzel’s translation is flawed. Asan aside, a Czech scholar Václav Bla•ek(2002: 216) relies on the mistranslationof the passage in Witzel (1995: 320-321)to reinforce his conclusion that the Arattaswere localized in the Helmand basin.Interestingly, in the ‘Acknowledgements’section (p. 235) of the paper, Bla•ekmentions Witzel. Therefore, we candiscount his interpretation as one that hasno independent value due to it beingdependent upon Witzel’s erroneousarguments.

2. Grammatical Flaws in Witzel’s Mis-translation of Baudhayana Srautasutra18.44-

In a review of Erdosy’s volume whereWitzel’s article appeared, Koenraad Elsttook issue with Witzel on the precisetranslation of the Sanskrit passage. Hestated (Elst 1999: 164-165):

“This passage consists of twohalves in parallel, and it is unlikelythat in such a construction, thesubject of the second half wouldremain unexpressed, and that termscontaining contrastive information(like “migration” as opposed to thealleged non-migration of the other

group) would remain unexpressed,all left for future scholars to fillin. It is more likely that a non-contrastive term representing asubject indicated in bothstatements, is left unexpressed inthe second: that exactly is the casewith the verb pravavrâja “he went”,meaning “Ayu went” and “Amavasuwent”. Amavasu is the subject ofthe second statement, but Witzelspirits the subject away, leaving thestatement subject-less, and turns itinto a verb, “amâ vasu”, “stayed athome”. In fact, the meaning of thesentence is really quitestraightforward, and doesn’trequire supposing a lot of unexpressed subjects: “Ayu went east, hisis the Yamuna-Ganga region”, while“Amavasu went west, his isAfghanistan, Parshu and WestPanjab”. Though the then locationof “Parshu” (Persia?) is hard todecide, it is definitely a westerncountry, along with the two othersnamed, western from the viewpointof a people settled near theSaraswati river in what is nowHaryana. Far from attesting aneastward movement into India, thistext actually speaks of a westward

28


movement towards Central Asia,coupled with a symmetricaleastward movement from India’sdemographic centre around theSaraswati basin towards the Gangabasin.”

Elst further commented (ibid):

“The fact that a world-classspecialist has to content himselfwith a late text like the BSS, and thathe has to twist its meaning thismuch in order to get an invasioniststory out of it, suggests thatharvesting invasionist informationin the oldest literature is verydifficult indeed. Witzel claims (op.cit., p.320) that: ‘Taking a look atthe data relating to the immigrationof Indo-Aryans into South Asia, oneis struck by a number of vaguereminiscences of foreign localitiesand tribes in the Rgveda, in spite [of]repeated assertions to the contraryin the secondary literature.’ Butafter this promising start, he failsto quote even a single one of those‘vague reminiscences’.”

If Elst’s critique is correct, the solitarydirect literary evidence cited by Witzel forthe AMT gets annulled. Elst’s revelationgenerated a very bitter controversy

involving accusations of a personal nature.We need not detail these here as thecontroversy is documented in my earlieronline article (Agarwal 2001). Dr. S.Kalyanaraman, referred the matter to Dr.George Cardona, an international authorityin Sanskrit language and author ofnumerous definitive publications onPanini’s grammar. Cardona clearly rejectedWitzel’s translation, and upheld theobjections of Elst on the basis of rules ofSanskrit grammar. In a message posted onan internet discussion forum, he stated(Cardona 2000):

“The passage (from Baudha_yanaS’rautasu_tra), part of a version of thePuruuravas and Urva’sii legendconcerns two children that Urva’siibore and which were to attain theirfull life span, in contrast with theprevious ones she had put away. Onp. 397, line 8, the text says: saayu.mcaamaavasu.m ca janayaa.m cakaara‘she bore Saayu and Amaavasu.’Clearly, the following text concernsthese two sons, and not one of themalong with some vague people.Grammatical points also speakagainst Witzel’s interpretation. First,if amaavasus is taken as amaa ‘athome’ followed by a form of vas, this

29


causes problems: the imperfect thirdplural of vas (present vasati vasata.hvasanti etc.) would be avasan; thethird plural aorist would be avaatsu.h.I have not had the chance to checkWitzel’s article again directly, so Icannot say what he says about apurported verb form (a)vasu.h. It ispossible, however, that Elst hasmisunderstood Witzel and that thelatter did not mean vasu as a verbform per se.

Instead, he may have taken amaa-vasu.h as the nominative singular ofa compound amaa-vasu-meaningliterally ‘stay-at-home’, with -vas-u-being a derivate in -u- from -vas. Inthis case, there is still what Elstpoints out: an abrupt elliptic syntaxthat is a mismatch with the earliermention of Amaavasu along withAayu. Further, tasya can only begenitive singular and, in accordancewith usual Vedic (and later) syntax,should have as antecedent the closestearlier nominal: if we take the textas referring to Amaavasu, all is inorder: tasya (sc. Amaavaso.h).Finally, the taddhitaanta derivatesaayava and aamaavasava then arecorrectly parallels to the terms aayu

and amaavasu. In sum, everything fitsgrammatically and thematically if westraightforwardly view the text asconcerning the wanderings of twosons of Urva’sii and the peopleassociated with them. There iscertainly no good way of having thisrefer to a people that remained in thewest.”

The noted archaeologist B. B. Lal (Lal2005: 85-88) has also stated clearly thatWitzel’s translation is untenable and is awillful distortion of Vedic texts to provethe non-proven Aryan migration theory(AMT). Lal’s criticism is along the samelines as that of Elst.

3. Translations of BSS 18:44 by otherScholars in English, German andDutch:

Let us consider the few publications wherethe relevant Baudhayana Srautasutra (BSS)passage has actually been studied, or hasbeen translated by other scholars.

3.1 Willem Caland’s Dutch translation:It is Caland who first published theBaudhayana Srautrasutra from manuscripts(Caland 1903-1913). In an obscure studyof the Urvashi legend written in Dutch, hefocuses on the version found inBaudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45 and

30


translates the relevant sentences of text(Caland 1903: 58). Translated into English,the relevant sentences in the Dutch originalread:

“To the East went Ayus; from himdescend the Kurus, Pancalas, Kasis andVidehas. These are the peoples whichoriginated as a consequence of Ayus’sgoing forth. To the West went Amavasu;from him descend the Gandharis, theSparsus and the Arattas. These are thepeoples which originated as aconsequence of Amavasu’s goingforth.”

The text, as reconstituted by Caland (andalso accepted by Kashikar - see below)reads ‘Sparsus’, which apparently stands forthe peoples who are known as ‘Parshus’elsewhere in the Vedic literature, and areoften identified as the ancestors ofPersians (or even of Pashtuns). Clearly,Caland interpreted this sutra passage tomean that from a central region, theArattas, Gandharis and Parsus migratedwest, while the Kasi-Videhas and Kuru-Pancalas migrated east. Combined with thetestimony of the Satapatha Brahmana (seebelow), the implication of this version inthe Baudhayana Srautasutra, narrated in thecontext of the agnyadheya rite, is that that

the two outward migrations took placefrom the central region watered by theSarasvati. Interestingly, the volume ofCaland’s Kleine Schriften have been editedas by none other than Michael Witzel(1990). Therefore it is all the moresurprising that in this entire controversy,Witzel did not allude to Caland’s translationof the passage at all!

3.2C. G. Kashikar’s English translation:Very recently, Kashikar (2003: 1235) hastranslated the relevant sentences of thetext as follows:

“Ayu moved towards the east. Kuru-Pancala and Kasi-Videha were hisregions. This is the realm of Ayu.Amavasu proceeded towards thewest. The Gandharis, Sparsus andArattas were his regions. This is therealm of Amavasu.”

3.3D. S. Triveda’s English translation:In an article (Triveda 1938-39) dealingspecifically with the homeland of Aryans,he titles the oncluding section as “Aryanswent abroad from India”. He commencesthis section with the following words (ibid,p. 68):

“The Kalpasutra asserts thatPururavas had two sons by Urvasi -Ayus and Amavasu. Ayu wenteastwards and founded Kuru -

31


Pancala and Kasi - Videha nations,while Amavasu went westwards andfounded Gandhara, Sprsava andAratta.”

In a footnote, the author gives the sourceas ‘Baudhayana Srautasutra XVIII. 35-51’.The address is wrong, but it is clear thatBaudhayana Srautasutra 18.44 is meant.Therefore, Triveda also takes the passageto mean that Amavasu migrated westwards,rather than staying where he was as Witzelwould translate it.

3.4 Toshifumi Goto’s GermanTranslation: In his recent study (Goto2000) of some parallel Vedic passagesdealing with the agnyadheya rite,Toshifumi Goto translates the relevantSutra passage into German (p. 101 sqq.).Loosely translated into English, this reads:

“From there, Ayu wanderedEastwards. To him belong (the groupscalled) ‘Kurus and Panchalas, Kashisand Videhas’ (note 87). They are thebranches/leading away (note 88)originating from Ayu. From there,Amavasu turned westwards (wanderedforth). To him belong (the groupscalled) ‘Gandharis, Parsus (note 89)Arattas’. They are the branches/leading away originating fromAmavasu. (note 90).”

{90}: It appears that the notion of‘Ayu’ as an normal adjectival sense‘living’, ‘agile’ underlies this name.Correspondingly, Krick 214interprets Amavasu as - “Westwards[travelled] A. (or: he stayed back inthe west in his home, because his namesays- ‘one who has his goods athome’)”.

Notes 87-89 in the German original areirrelevant to this present discussion and aretherefore left untranslated here. We willdiscuss the views of Hertha Krick referredto by Goto in greater detail later. What isimportant here is that four scholars havetranslated the disputed passage in the samemanner as Elst, and differently fromWitzel.

4. Pururava-Uruvasi (or Urvasi)Narratives in Vedic Texts, a Conspectus:

The Pururava-Urvasi legend is found innumerous Vedic and non-Vedic texts. In theformer, the couple and their son Ayu arerelated to the agnyadheya rite. Somepassages in Vedic texts that allude to thisrite/tale are - Rigveda 10.95; KathakaSamhita 26.7 etc.; Agnyadheya Brahmana(in the surviving portions of the Brahmanaof Katha Sakha) etc.; Maitrayani Samhita

32


1.2.7; 3.9.5; Vajasneyi (Madhyandina)Samhita 5.2; Satapatha Brahmana(Madhyandina) 11.5.1.1; BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18.44-45; Vadhula Anvakhyana1.1-2 etc. Note that the Kathaka Brahmanaexists only in short fragments, most ofwhich have been collected together bySuryakanta (1981), Rosenfield (2004) andalso by some other earlier scholars. Theagnyadheya brahmanam portion of theKathaka Brahmana survives (and isincluded in Suryakanta’s collection), but itdoes not shed any light on the question athand. Many of the above textual references,as well as those in Srautasutras (not listedabove), do not throw much light on thehistorical aspects of the legend. Severalpassages cursorily mention Urvasi asmother, Pururava as father, Ayu (equated toAgni) as their son and ghee as (Pururava’s)seed in a symbolic manner in connectionwith various rites (Taittiriya Samhita1.3.7.1; 6.3.5.3; Kathaka Samhita 3.4;Kapisthala Samhita 2.11; 41.5; KanvaSamhita 5.2; Maitrayani Samhita 2.8.10).Elsewhere, Urvasi is enumerated as anapsara and prayers are directed towardsher for protection (Kathaka Samhita 17.9;Kapisthala Samhita 26.8, Taittiriya Samhita4.4.3.2; Maitrayani Samhita 2.8.10). Atleast in one ritual context, Urvasi is takento represent all Devis (Taittiriya Samhita

1.2.5.2). Kathaka Samhita 8.10 narrates thetale in brief and may be paraphrased as:

“Urvasi was the wife of Pururava.She left Pururava and returned todevas. Pururava prayed to devas forUrvasi. Then, devas gave him a sonnamed Ayu. At their bidding, Pururavafabricated aranis (fire stick and baseused for the fire sacrifice) from thebranches of a tree and rubbed themtogether. This generated fire, andPururava’s desire was fulfilled. Hewho establishes sacrificial fires thisattains progeny, animals etc.”.

Thus, this passage also equates Ayu withAgni. In addition, some passages ofSrautasutras mention them in the contextof caturmasya rites (E.g., KatyayanaSrautasutra 5.1.24-25).

The texts that are of most use for thepresent purpose are Rigveda 10.95,Satapatha Brahmana 11.5.1; BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18.44-45 and VadhulaAnvakhyana 1.1-2. Dozens of publishedsecondary studies examine the legendfrom the data scattered in Vedic, Puranicand Kavya texts. We need not dwell uponthe versions available in Brhaddevata,Sarvanukramani, Puranas etc., here becausethey are either too late or do not shed any

33


additional light on our problem. A surveyof a few of these is given in Shridhar (2001:311-345). Most of these studies do takeinto account the information contained inRigveda and Satapatha Brahmana. Very fewhowever analyze the information in theBaudhayana Srautasutra. Even Volume I.1of the Srautakosa (Dandekar 1958), whichstudies the agnyadheya rite in detail witha special emphasis on the BaudhayanaSrautasutra, ignores these sections. To myknowledge, only Willem Caland (1903),Hertha Krick (1982) and Yasuke Ikari(1998) have studied the relevant sectionsof the Baudhayana Srautasutra in detail.

5. Kuruksetra in BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18:45:

A very strong piece of evidence fordeciding the correct translation ofBaudhayana Srautrasutra 18.44 is thepassage that occurs right after it, i.e.,Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.45. I amreproducing the translation of Kashikar(2003: 1235) with minor modificationsthat do not affect the issue at hand:

“[....JAfter having returned from theAvabhrta (the king) saw her (Urvasi).The sons approached her and said, “Dothou take us there where thou are

going. We are strong. Thou hast put ourfather, one of you two, to grief.” [2]

She said, “O sons, I have given birth toyou together. (Therefore) I stay herefor three nights. Let not the word ofthe brahmana be untrue.” The kingwearing the inner garment lived withher for three nights. He shed semenvirile unto her.

She said, “What is to be done?” “What todo?”, the king responded. She said, “Dothou fetch a new pitcher?” She disposedit into it. In Kurukshetra, there wereponds called Bisavati. The northern-mostamong then created gold. She put it (thesemen) into it (the pond). From it (thebanks of the pond) came out theAsvattha tree surrounded by Sami. It wasAsvattha because of the virile semen, itwas Sami by reason of the womb. Such isthe creation of (Asvattha tree) born overSami. This is its source. It is indeed said,“Gods attained heaven through the entiresacrifice.”[3]

When the sacrifice came down toman from the gods, it came downupon the Asvattha (tree). Theyprepared the churning woods outof it; it is the sacrifice. Indeed,whichever may the Asvattha be, itshould be deemed, as growing onthe Sami (tree). [....]

34


^ 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 presentin Kurukshetra in their very lifetimes.There is no evidence that Ayu’s descendantstraveled all the way from Afghanistan toHaryana (where Kurukshetra is located)subsequently, nor is there any evidence thatshe took her sons from Kurukshetra toAfghanistan after disposing off the pitcher.Therefore, the disputed passage BSS 18.45would imply that the descendants ofAmavasu, i.e., Arattas, Parsus and Gandharismigrated westwards from the Kurushetraregion. Note that in Taittiriya Aranyaka5.1.1, the Kurukshetra region is said to bebounded by Turghna (=Srughna or themodern village of Sugh in the Sirhinddistrict of Punjab) in the north, by Khandavain the south (corresponding roughly toDelhi and Mewat regions), Maru (= desert)in the west, and ‘Parin’ (?) in the east. Thisroughly corresponds to the modern stateof Haryana in India.

6. Satapatha Brahmana IX. 5.1andPururava-Urvasi Narrative

The Satapatha Brahmana XI.5.1 is veryclear that the wanderings of Pururava, the

re-union with Uravashi (and from context,their initial cohabitation) were all in theKurukshetra region (and not in W Punjabor anywhere further west). Another pointto note is that Pururava is said to be theson of Ila, a deity again closely linked tothe Kurukshetra region and Sarasvati. Letme reproduce the relevant passages fromthe Satapatha Brahmana XI.5.1, astranslated by Julius Eggeling [1900(1963):68-74]:

“Then, indeed, she vanished: ‘Here Iam back,’ he said, and lo! She hadvanished. Wailing with sorrow hewandered all over Kurukshetra. Nowthere is a lotus-lake there, calledAnyatahplaksha: He walked along itsbank; and there nymphs wereswimming about in the shape ofswans. XI.5.1.4

They said, ‘Surely, there is not amongmen that holy form of fire by sacrificingwherewith one would become one ofourselves.’ They put fire into a pan, andgave it to him saying, ‘By sacrificingtherewith thou shalt become one ofourselves.’ He took it (the fire) and hisboy, and went on his way home. He thendeposited the fire in the forest and wentto the village with the boy alone. [Hecame back and thought] ‘Here I am back;’

35


and lo! It had disappeared: what had beenthe fire was an Asvattha tree (ficusreligiosa), and what had been the pan wasthe Sami tree (mimosa suma). He thenreturned to the Gandharvas.XI.5.1.13[....]”

The mention of a lotus pond atKurukshetra in the Satapatha Brahmananeeds to be noted by the reader because itis consistent with the information providedby Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.45, whichalso refers to the presence of Pururava andUrvasi by a lotus pond surrounded byPeepul (Asvattha) trees in Kuruksetra, andperformance of rituals at the site. It is clearthen, that Urvasi and Pururava themselveswere present in Kuruksetra for the birthof Ayu according to the author of both theSatapatha Brahmana and BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18.44-45. In conclusiontherefore, Ayu or his descendants did notmigrate to India from Afghanistanaccording to these texts.

7. Vadhula Anvakhyana Version of theNarrative

The relevant portion of the text has beenpublished only recently, first by Y Ikari(1998:19-23), and more recently by BrajBihari Chaubey (2001). Based on Ikari’stext, Toshifumi Goto (2000) has studied

the legend in detail, comparing it withparallel passages in Vedic texts, inparticular Baudhayana Srautasutra 18.44-45. The Vadhula Anvakhyana Brahmana 1.1-2 (Chaubey 2001: pp. 34-35, 1-3 ofdevanagari text) does not add anyadditional geographical information exceptstating that Pururava and Urvasi traveled toUrvasi’s father’s home for the birth of theirson Ayu. This might again be interpretedby Aryan invasionists as proof that Ayu wasborn in Afghanistan. They would argue thatUrvasi was an apsara, and therefore, shebelonged to the gandharvas who aresometimes placed in Afghanistan byscholars still believing in the AryanInvasion Theory (AIT). For instance, MalatiShengde (1977: 111) suggests that thegandharvas were the priests of peoplewho resided in the Kabul valley. Suchspeculations however are very tentative andtenuous, and do not constitute evidence ofany type. They certainly cannot over-riderules of Sanskrit grammar in interpretingSanskrit texts such as BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18.44. Moreover, the Vadhulatext does not mention the separation ofPururava and Urvasi. It does not mentionAmavasu or his birth at all, and statesinstead that Pururava left the home of hisin laws with his son Ayu, and with theknowledge of yajna. The section 1.1.2 of

36


this text explicitly equates Ayu with Agni,that eats food for both humans and theDevas (“.... aayurasi iti jaatamabhimantrayate sa vaa esha aayuhpauruuvasa ubhayeshaandevamanushyanaam annaadoagnibhagavaan ubhayeshaam... “). Italso states explicitly that Urvasi wasactually a human who had been given overto the gandharvas. So much for theAfghani provenance of Urvasi andPururava!

8. Hertha Krick’s study (Krick 1982) onthe agnyadheya Rite:

Hertha Krick presents her translation, orrather an interpretation of BaudhayanaSrautrasutra 18.44 (p. 214) in her PhDthesis that was published posthumously(Krich 1982). She first suggests that thedescendants of Amavasu migratedwestwards, but them proposes an alternateinterpretation that Amavasu stayed west inhis home, and only Ayu migrated eastwards.Later on too, she refers (page 218-219)to her second interpretation that thedescendants of Ayu migrated toKurukshetra region and thence to otherparts of Madhyadesha where Vedicorthodoxy/orthopraxy was establishedeventually by Brahmins, whereas the

Amavasus stayed back in western regionsof Gandhara etc. She also links Ayu and hisdescendants with symbolism related toMoon and Soma, and reproduces passagesfrom later Sanskrit texts on the progenyof Pururava and Urvashi. None of thisreally sheds light on our problem at hand.It should be noted that the entire work ofKrick is written under the Aryan invasionist(AIT) paradigms. Her major argument forsituating Urvasi in the Gandhara region isthat Urvasi resided with sheep and goatsand rearing of these animals was especiallyimportant for residents of Afghanistan andits adjoining areas! Parpola (1980: 8)translates the relevant sentences fromGerman,

“Urvasi calls them (pair of sheep) herchildren, and becomes desperatewhen they are robbed, whilePururavas boasts of having ‘ascendedthe sky’ through the recapture of theram. This shows that the generativeand fertility power of the royal familyand thereby the whole kingdom wasdependent upon these sheep. Thiscomponent of the tale should bebased upon the actual old customs andcultic conceptions of a countrysubsisting in sheep raising, such asGandhara... .(p. 160)”.

37


But such an argument is not conclusivebecause sheep and goat herding have beenimportant occupations not just inAfghanistan and North Western FrontierProvince region of Pakistan, but also inmuch of Rajasthan, Punjab and parts ofHaryana down to present times. Notsurprisingly, scholars who still adhere toAIT and its euphemistic interpretations(such as Aryan migration theory) continueto torture Vedic texts and see ‘evidence’for Indo-Aryan migrations into India.Therefore, Krick’s interpretations havealso found support in her obituary writtenby Asko Parpola, another scholar who tillthis day believes not just in one, but inmultiple Aryan invasions of India. Parpola(1980:10) remarks sympathetically:

“Such feasts dedicated to gandharvasand apsarases have been celebratedat quite specific lotus pondssurrounded by holy fig trees in theKuruksetra. The analysis cited abovesuggests, however, that the originallocation of the legend was a countrylike Gandhara, where sheep-raisingwas the predominant form ofeconomy. This eastward shift, whichis in agreement with the model ofthe Aryan penetration into India,starting from the mountains of thenorthwest, is corroborated. Hertha

Krick points out, also by thegeneology of the peoples as givenin the Baudhayana-Srautasutra(18,44-45): while Amavasu stayedin the west (Gandhara), Ayu went tothe east (Kuruksetra).”

Likewise, in a later publication, Witzel(2001a) too draws solace from the fact thatKrick interprets ‘Amavasu’ as one who‘keeps his goods at home’, and ‘Ayu’, as‘active/agile/alive’. According to Witzel,Krick and Parpola, BSS 18.44 designatesthe homeland of Gandharis, Parsus andArattas as ‘here’ (‘ama’ in ‘amavasu’).Prima facie, this suggestion is illogical,because the territory inhabited by thesethree groups of people is a vast swathe ofland comprising a major portion ofmodern-day NWFP/Baluchistan provincesof Pakistan, and much of Afghanistan. Todenote such a vast swathe of territory bythe word ‘here’, while contrasting it withsupposed migrations of Kurus and otherIndian peoples from ‘here’ to ‘there’ (=northern India) is somewhat of a stretch.Muni Baudhayana (or whoever wrote BSS18.44) was definitely a resident of northernIndia, and for him, Afghanistan andnorthwestern Pakistan would be ‘there’,and not ‘here’ or ‘home’ (which would behis region of northern India).

38


Now, in an online paper, Witzel (Witzel 2001:16, fn. 45) tries to minimize the importance hehad placed earlier on BSS 18.44 as the onlyimportant ‘direct evidence’ for an Indo-Aryanimmigration. In this paper, Witzel refers to hisearlier publication ‘Witzel (1980)’ as proof thatArattas were ‘Arachosians’ (= residents ofHelmand valley in S W Afghanistan). But whenthe present author checked this publication(Witzel 1980: fn. 3), it was found to place theArattas in the Badakhshan area in extreme N EAfghanistan! In other words, Witzel nowmisquotes his own earlier publication incorrectlywhile defending his mistranslation!

9. Conclusion- Imposing ColonialParadigms on Ancient Ritual Passages:

Rather than insisting on seeing evidence for‘movement’ or ‘migration’ in the word ‘Ayu’,and correspondingly ‘remaining in their home’in the word Amavasu, it is perhaps less tortuousto interpret this passage figuratively in a mannerthat is more consistent with the Indian tradition.How then do we interpret the Vedic narrativesabout the birth of Ayu and Amavasu? Traditionholds that the Kuru-Panchalas, and later theKashi-Videhas conformed to Vedic orthoproxy(i.e., they performed fire sacrifices to the Devas)and were therefore ‘alive’. On the other hand,the progeny of Amavasu did not sacrifice to theDevas and hoarded their wealth in their homes.

An over-arching theme in the versions of thePururava-Urvasi legend in the Vedic texts is thesemi-divine origin of the Vedic ritual. The yajnais said to have reached mankind throughPururava, who got it from semi-divine beings,the gandharvas, via the intervention of Urvasi,who herself was an apsaraa and belonged tothe gandharvas. Coupled with the BaudhayanaSrautasutra 18.44-45 passage, we may interpretthe names of Ayu and Amavasu to mean that theformer represents the mythical ancestor ofpeoples (Kuru-Panchalas and Kasi-Videhas)who are ‘alive and bright’, and ‘vibrant’ or‘moving’ because they sacrificed to the Devas.Vadhula Anvakhyana 1.1.1 explicitly declaresthat before the birth of Ayu, humans did notperform Yajna properly due to which they haddeveloped only the trunk part of their body andnot their limbs-”...naanyaani kaanichanaangaani... “. In contrast, the Gandharis,Parsus and Arattas did not perform Vedicsacrifices for Devas and hoarded their‘possessions in their homes’, due to which theywere ‘stationary’ or ‘dead’ and ‘devoid of light’,like the ‘amavasya’ or moonless night. Thisinterpretation would be completely consistentwith later traditions concerning the conformityto Vedic orthopraxy by the Kurus, Panchalas,Kashis and Videhas; and the lack of the same inthe case of Arattas, Gandharis and Parshus. In‘modern idiom’, the former group are progenyof ‘fire’ or ‘light’, and the latter are progeny of

39


‘darkness’ and ‘death’ from the perspective ofVedic orthopraxy.

Whatever be the ritual interpretation of thispassage, there is no convincing way to upholdWitzel’s mistranslation or over-interpretation ofBaudhayana Srautasutra 18.44. One must beextremely wary of using at least the Vedicversions of this legend to construct real historyof human migrations, otherwise we would haveto deduce an outward from India towardsCentral Asia. There is absolutely no need to readmodern and colonial Aryan invasion andmigration theories into ancient ritual texts.Therefore, we may conclude there still existsno Vedic evidence for an Aryan immigrationinto India. All such attempts by Witzel (andfollowing him R Thapar, and R S Sharma) mustbe considered as over-zealousmisinterpretations eventually derived fromcolonial theories such as the Aryan invasiontheory. Eminent historians must not fall into thetrap of seeing ‘evidence’ for Aryan migrationsor invasions in texts that are chronologicallyremoved by a 1000 years from the period ofthese supposed demographic movements.Doing so is bad historiography and not just acase of “when one looks for them, there areevidence for migration” (Thapar 1999). TheVedic texts, comprising of several thousandpages of printed texts, indeed do not have a

single statement may serve as literary evidencefor AIT or AMT unless one wants to imagineevidence that does not exist.

Acknowledgements: At my request,Koenraad Elst translated the Dutch passage inCaland (1903:58), while Nitin Agrawal (myyounger brother) consulted Kashikar (2003:1235) promptly. Professor Shiva Bajpaiprovided several useful suggestions, although allerrors are mine. The paper was presented atthe World Association For Vedic Studies’conference at Houston (USA) held on 8-10 July2006.

Bibliography

Agarwal, Vishal. 2001. The Aryan MigrationTheory, Fabricating Literary Evidence,available at http://vishalagarwal.voiceofdharma.com/articles/indhistory/amt.htm

Bla•ek, Václav. 2002. ‘Elamo-Arica’. In TheJournal of Indo-European Studies, Vol. XXX,Nos. 3-4 (Fall/Winter 2002): 215-242

Caland, Willem. 1903-1913. The Baudhayanasrauta sutra belonging to the Taittiriyasamhita (3 vols.). Calcutta: Bibliotheca Indica

__. 1903. “Eene Nieuwe Versie van de Urvasi-Mythe”. In Album-Kern, Opstellen

40


Geschreven Ter Eere van Dr. H. Kern. Leiden:E. J. Brill (pp. 57-60)

Cardona, George. 2000. Message no. 3 (datedApril 11, 2000) in the public archives of theSarasvati Discussion list. (The website of thediscussion list was http://sarasvati.listbot.com/.The list is now defunct and messages are nolonger available).

Chaubey, Braj Bihari. 2001. Vadhula-Anvakhyanam, Critically edited withdetailed Introduction and Indices. Hoshiarpur:Katyayan Vaidik Sahitya Prakashan

Dandekar, R. N. (ed). 1958. Srautakosa,Volume I, Part I, English Section. Poona: VaidikSamsodhana Mandala

Eggeling, Julius. 1900. The Satapatha-Brahmana according to the Text of theMadhyandina School, Part V London:Clarendon Press. Repr. By Motilal Banarsidass(Delhi), 1963

Elst, Koenraad. 1999. Update the AryanInvasion Debate. New Delhi: Aditya Prakashan

Goto, Toshifumi. 2000. ‘Pururavas und Urvasi”aus dem neuntdecktem Vadhula-Anvakhyana(Ed. Y. Ikari)’. In Tichy, Eva andHintze, Almut(eds.), Anusantatyai, Germany: J. H. Roll (pp.79-110)

10 Ikari, Yasuke. 1998. “A Survey of the NewManuscripts of the Vadhula School - MSS. ofK1 and K4-” In ZINBUN, no. 33: 1-30

Kashikar, Chintamani Ganesh. 2003.Baudhayana Srautasutra (Ed., with an Englishtranslation). 3 vols. New Delhi: MotilalBanarsidass/IGNCA

Krick, Hertha. 1982. Das Ritual derFeuergründung. Vienna: ÖsterreichischeAkademie der Wissenschaften

Lal, B. B. 2005. The Homeland of Aryans,The Evidence ofRigvedic Flora and Fauna& Archaeology. New Delhi: Aryan BooksInternational

Olivelle, Patrick. 2000. Dharmasutras,annotated text and translation. New Delhi:Motilal Banarsidass

Pandey, Umesh Chandra. 1971. BaudhayanaDharmasutra (with Govindswami’scommentary, and a gloss by ChinnaswamiShastri). Varanasi: Chaukhamba Sanskrit Series

Parpola, Asko, 1980. Hertha Krick (1945-1979) in memoriam. Wiener Zeitschrift für dieKunde Südasiens und Archiv für indischePhilosophie 24: 5-13

Rosenfield, Susan. 2004. Katha BrahmanaFragments - A Critical Edition, translationand study. PhD thesis, Harvard UniversitySharma, Ram Sharan. 1999. Advent of theAryans in India. New Delhi: Manohar Shengde,Malati. 1977. The Civilized Demons. NewDelhi: Abhinav Publications Shridhar, PremChand. 2001. Rgvedic Legends. Delhi: Kalinga

41


Publications. pp. 311 -345 Suryakanta. 1981.Kathaka-sankalanam. New Delhi:Meharchand Lachhmandas Publications

Thapar, Romila. 1999. Lecture delivered on11th October 1999, at the Academic StaffCollege, JNU, titled “The Aryan QuestionRevisited”, available online at http://members.tripod.com/ascjnu/aryan.html

Triveda, D. S. 1938-39. “The Original Homeof the Aryans”. In Annals of the BhandarkarOriental Research Institute, vol. XX: 49-68

Witzel, Michael. 2001. ‘Autochthonous Aryans?The Evidence from Old Indian and IranianTexts.” In Electronic Journal of Vedic Studies,vol. 7, issue 3. Online paper available at http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0703/ejvs0703article.pdf

__. 2001a. ‘Addendum to EJVS 7-3, notes45-46’, in Electronic Journal of VedicStudies, Vol. 7, issue 4, available online at http://users.primushost.com/~india/ejvs/ejvs0704/ejvs0704.txt

__. 1995. “Rgvedic History: Poets, Chieftainsand Politics” in The Indo-Aryans of AncientSouth Asiaed. byErdosy, George. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter__. 1990. Kleine Schriften, Willem Caland.Stuttgart: F. Steiner

___. 1989. “Tracing the Vedic Dialects”. InDialectes dans les littératures indo-aryennes,Publications del’Institut de civilisation indienne, Série in-8,Fascicule 55, ed. by C. Caillat, Paris : Diffusionde Boccard

___. 1987. “On the Localisation of Vedic Textsand Schools”, pp. 173-213 in India and theAncient World ed. byGilbert Pollet; Keuven: DepartementOrientalistiek; Keuven

___. 1980. ‘Early Eastern Iran and theAtharvaveda’, inPersica, vol. IX: 86-128

42


INDO-ARYAN AND SLAVIC LINGUISTICAND GENETIC AFFINITIES PREDATETHE ORIGIN OF CEREAL FARMING

Joseph Skulj, Jagdish C. Sharda, Snejina Sonina, RatnakarNarale

The Hindu Institute of Learning, Toronto, CanadaPaper read at: The Sixth International Topical Conference: Origin of Europeans in Ljubljana,

Slovenia June 6th and 7th 2008.Abstract

Linguistic comparisons between Indo-Aryan languages, Vedic Sanskrit inparticular, and Slavic languages show evidence of remarkable similarities inwords of elemental nature and those describing the process of domestication

of animals specially the terminology regarding the sheep and the cattle. Similarly,Haplogroup (Hg) R1a1 (HG3 in Rosser’s nomenclature), the male lineage Y-Chromosome genetic marker found at high frequencies both in the Slavic and the Indo-Aryan male populations points to a common genetic origin of a large percentage ofspeakers of Slavic and Indic languages. Judging from the linguistic evidence, theseparation of these Indo-European branches appears to predate the advent of cerealdomestication. Applying Alinei’s ‘Lexical Self-Dating’ (LSD) methodology to date thelinguistic and the genetic evidence, we estimate that the split between Indo-Aryans andthe ancestors of Slavs occurred, after the domestication of the sheep and cattle, about10,000 years ago, but before cereal farming became a common industry amongst theancestors of Slavs in Europe and Indo-Aryans on the Indian sub-continent. Moreover,the genetic evidence does not indicate that there were any major migrations of peoplefrom Europe, including the ancestors of the present day Slavs, to the Indian sub-continentduring the last 8,000 years. The migration appears to have come from the Indian sub-continent to Europe. However, there is a record of many military incursions over themillennia into the sub-continent.

43


Introduction

The earliest evidence of Paleolithichuman presence in the Indo-Pakistani sub-continent consists of stone implementsfound in the Soan River Valley in northernPakistan. These tools appear to indicate thepresence of hominids in the sub-continentas early as 200,000-400,000 years ago(Qamar et al. 2002). However, accordingto C. Renfrew, when W. Jones first spokeof the early literature of India he hadabsolutely no idea of the antiquity of Indiancivilization. For many years, the materialrecord did not go back much before thetime of King Ashoka in the 3rd century BC,and the brief accounts of north India leftby the commentators upon Alexander the

Great travels and conquests in the previouscentury. It was in 1921 that the greatdiscovery of the Indus Valley civilizationwas made, with the investigation of two ofits great cities at Mohenjodaro andHarappa. This civilization was alreadyflourishing shortly after 3000 BC. Otherarchaeological excavations in westernPakistan have found evidence of thecultivation of cereal crops such as barley,einkorn, emmer and bread wheat preceding6000 BC (Renfrew 1987: 183, 190).

Based on archaeological evidence, it isgenerally accepted that the agricultureoriginated in the Fertile Crescent of theNear East about 12,000 years ago and that

Furthermore, based on the linguistic, genetic, zooarchaeological and populationgrowth evidence, the coalescence of R1a1 in an ancestor common to many Indo-Aryansand Slavs, probably occurred during the hunting-gathering era and there is evidence thatthe close contact between the ancestors of Indo-Aryans and Slavs continued during thesheep and cattle domestication, up to and including the nomadic pastoral age. Based onthis evidence, the major population expansion from the Indian sub-continent into Europeappears to have come, before the age of cereal farming.

Also the patrilineal Y-Chromosome genetic marker Hg R1a1, that accompanied thisexpansion, appears to be more than 100,000 years old, based on its relative highfrequency, diversity and wide distribution extending from the Balkans to the Bay ofBengal. This estimated age, based on the reproductive rates of historical individuals, isconsiderably older than the molecular ages calculated on the basis of mutation rates asreported in the literature.

44


new cereal crops, as well as domesticatedsheep, goat and probably cattle spread viaAnatolia all over Europe. It has also beensuggested that the global expansion offarming included also the dispersal ofgenes and languages (Haak 2005, Renfrew1987: 266). However, genetic evidencesuggests firmly that there were at least twoindependent domestications of cattle,sheep, pig and water buffalo. In addition tothe Fertile Crescent, cattle and sheep werealso domesticated on the Indian sub-continent (Loftus 1994, Bradley 2000). Inthis paper, we will attempt to demonstratethat there is genetic and linguistic evidencethat the expansion of herding, from theIndian sub-continent, was alsoaccompanied by the dispersal of genes andlanguages.

From the Greek historian Herodotus,who was describing notable eventsoccurring during his lifetime and the timesbefore ~2,500 years ago, we learn that theIndians were more numerous than anyother nation that he was acquainted withand paid tribute exceeding that of everyother people, 360 talents of gold-dust, tothe Persian king Darius. From his accountswe also learn, that in his day, the tribes ofIndians were numerous and did not allspeak the same language; some were

nomads others not (Herodotus 1942: 259-264).

It is noteworthy how little have thingschanged in the last 2,500 years, sinceHerodotus. Even now, the population of theIndian sub-continent, including Pakistan,Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Indiaproper, is the largest on the planet andtotals nearly 1.5 billion humans,representing ~23% of the world’spopulation. This is higher than thepopulation of China or any other nation.Many languages are still spoken in India;Hindi speakers being the largest population

Similarly for the Slavs in Europe:Herodotus writes, »The Thracians are themost powerful people in the world, except,of course, the Indians; and if they had onehead, or were agreed among themselves, itis my belief that their match could not befound anywhere, and that they would veryfar surpass all other nations. But such unionis impossible for

them, and there are no means for everbringing it about. Herein, therefore,consists their weakness. The Thracians bearmany names in the different regions oftheir country, but all of them have likeusages in every respect, excepting only theGetae, the Trausi and those who dwellabove the people of Creston« (Herodotus:

45


374). Alinei has advanced a hypothesisbased on the historical and linguisticevidence that Thracians was the nameHerodotus gave to the Slavs owing to thefact that the Thracians were one of the mostpowerful and representative elites of theSlavic speaking Eastern Europe (Alinei2003). Modern day relative populationnumbers appear to reflect those of theancient world. The population on the Indiansub-continent is still the largest in theworld and the Slavic speakers form themost numerous language group in Europeand they occupy more than one half of thelandmass of Europe (Rand McNally 1980).

Linguistic comparisons

It is necessary to mention that over themillennia many changes occurred in Indianlanguages and that these changes resultedin the origin of a number of tongues, formany of which Sanskrit can be regarded asproto-language. The changes of this type(ancestor-descendent) are illustratedbelow by Sanskrit and Hindicorrespondences. It is obvious that throughthe ages many changes were happening inthe Slavic proto-language as well, whichresulted in the formation of modern Slavictongues. The differences of this type(sister-sister) are illustrated below and in

the Appendix by the comparison of Russianand Slovenian. The tables in the Appendixalso allow the comparison of the two Slaviclanguages with their more remote cousinHindi together with their ancestor Sanskrit.We cite here the most striking similaritiesfrom elemental and agro-pastoralvocabulary (for more complete lists seeSkulj et al. 2006) and semanticallystructured comparisons of cereal farmingterminology. The corpus for farmingcomparisons was initially extracted fromRussian proverbs related to agriculturecollected by V. I. Dal’ (1994: 563-567) andlater completed with semantically andmorphologically related words.

C. Renfrew notes that, despite theconfusion which surrounds the question ofthe origins of the Indo-European languages,there remains much value in thecomparative method, and the approach isindeed one of the most useful ways tostudy the relationship between them. If thelanguages with the related words aregeographically far apart, the linguisticpalaeontologist can argue that borrowingfrom one by another is unlikely. Thus thebasic principle of linguistic palaeontologyis that if the Indo-European can be shownby linguistic analysis to have had the nameof a specific thing within their proto-lexicon, then they can be assumed to have

46


been acquainted with the thing itself(Renfrew 1987: 183).

M. Alinei has taken this concept, in aninnovative way, a step further, naming it‘lexical self-dating’ and has shown that itcan be applied to the dating of historicalevents (Alinei 2004).

It is evident from the linguisticcomparisons as shown in the Appendicesthat, Sanskrit and Slavic languages sharemany cognates of the pre-pastoral andpastoral terminology, which would indicatea common origin or a common homelandprior to and during the

domestication of the livestock such ascattle and sheep. However, this closelinguistic affinity does not continue withthe domestication of the cereals. At thecereal farming stage of their development,this linguistic similarity ends abruptly.

In the Appendix under Farming, it isvery apparent that there is no obvioussimilarity in the cereal farmingterminology between Slavic and Indo-Aryan languages. This lack ofresemblances in the terminologydescribing the cereal farming instruments,methods and products is evident, despitean attempt to select the words that areclosest in sound and meaning. Somesimilarities would be expected, particularly

in the names of the plants and cereals usedfor food, given that wild grasses (wildcereals) were utilized by Levantineforagers as early as 19,500 years ago andhave been inferred to have been used byaboriginal Australians perhaps as far backas 30,000 years ago (Fuller 2002).Herodotus writing ~2500 years ago alsoreports: »There is another set of Indianswhose customs are very different. Theyrefuse to put any live animal to death; theysow no corn, and have no dwelling-houses.Vegetables are their only food. There is aplant which grows wild in their country,bearing seed about the size of millet-seedin a calyx: their wont is to gather this seedand having boiled it, calyx and all, to use itfor food« (Herodotus 1942: 61).

All of this gives credence to M. Snojwho in his etymological dictionaryproposes that Slovenian ‘•ito’ meaninggrain, cereals has its origin in ‘•ive•’,‘•ivilo’ meaning food, provisions,foodstuff and ultimately in ‘•iveti’ (pron.zhiveti) to live; this corresponds to ‘•iti’(zhiti) meaning to live (Snoj 1997). Thisis analogous to Sanskrit ‘jîv (jîvati)’meaning to live; ‘jîvâtu’ meaning life (RV)and also victuals, food and ‘jîvala’ meaningfull of life, animating (AV).

Renfrew cites W. Lehmann, whoconcluded that on the basis of modern

47


linguistics, the terms for ‘herd’, ‘cow’,‘sheep’, ‘wolf’,‘ grain’ etc. and the lack ofspecific terms for grains or vegetablesindicates a heavy reliance on animals forfood. This led to the notions that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were nomads. TheComparative Method has also been appliedto the localization of their homeland byfocusing on the features of the naturalenvironment such as names of certainanimals and trees. This method has alsobeen used to make chronologicalinferences (Renfrew 1998: 78-82).

Similarly, we are making analogouschronological inferences, based onlinguistic and genetic comparisonsbetween Indo-Aryans and Slavs, that theancestors of Slavs and Indo-Aryans had acommon pre-pastoral sojourn involvinghunting and gathering, followed bydomestication of sheep and cattle and thennomadic pastoral society. The splitbetween them appears to have occurredduring their nomadic pastoral stage, beforethe development of agriculture. Slavs werealso known historically by other namessuch as Sclavenes, Antes and also Venedi,Venethi (Curta 2001: 7); Wenden, Winden,Winedas (Little 1957); Veneti>Windisch,Vandals (Priestly 1997); Sarmati(Ramusio 1604). In addition, theMacedonians and the Veneti both belonged

to the numerous family of nations that wasusually designated by the collective termThracian (Sotiroff 1971). Furthermore,the cultures of Scythians and Sarmatiansare believed to have been Slavic (Šavli1996: 74), but most linguists consider thelanguages to have belonged to north-eastern Iranian family.

We know that three-quarters of thepopulation on the Indian subcontinentspeak

the I-E languages, which are based onSanskrit. Also in Europe, Slavic languagesshare many linguistic and grammaticalsimilarities with Sanskrit, particularlyVedic Sanskrit. It is enigmatic that theSlovenian language, bordering on Italy andAustria, still shares more linguisticsimilarities with the Sanskrit, than with theneighboring languages. In addition,Slovenians also have greater geneticsimilarity, with respect to R1a1 frequency,to the extant Indo-Aryan speakingpopulations of India, than to their Europeanneighbors to the west. Furthermore,Slovenian language, due to its archaiccharacter, still preserves many lexical andgrammatical forms present in the Sanskrit,but no longer used in the present day Indiclanguages and most I-E languages. The stillactive daily usage of the dual in thegrammatical forms of the nouns and the

48


Sanskrit Slovenian Russian OCS* Hindi EnglishSing. Asmi sem ja jest’ iesm’ maim hum I am

Asi si tyjest’ iesi tuhai you areAsti je on jest’ iest’ vahai he is

Dual Sva sva X jesve X XStha sta X jesta X XSta sta X jeste X X

Plural Sma smo my jest’ jesm ham haim we areStha ste vyjest’ jeste tum ho you areSanti so onijest’ sut’ ve haim they are

* OCS is a common abbreviation for the Old Church Slavonic (or Slavic)Transliteration Legend:

Russian transliteration generally follows the guidelines of The Random HouseCollege Dictionary.Slovenian pronunciation is similar to Russian: c is pronuciated as TS; è as CH; j asY; š as SH; z as ZH.Sanskrit transliteration of Devanagari follows primarily A Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary com-piled by M. Monier-Williams and Sanskrit for English SpeakingPeople by A. Ratnakar, where English is used as the base but: æ is pronounced asCH; œ as SH; dot under a letter denotes a cerebral letter.Hindi transliteration follows the Sanskrit. In the Appendix: m. meansmasculine; f. feminine; n. neuter; f.p. feminine plural; v. verb

Table 1. The Present Tense Conjugation and the Imperative of the verb ‘to be’

Table 2. Imperative of Sanskrit verb ‘bhû,bhavati’ meaning to be, become

Sanskrit Slovenian Russian OCS Hindi EnglishSing. bodhi bodi bud’ ho beDual bhavatâm boditaPlural bhavata bodite X X X

verbs is noteworthy. The conjugation of theverb ‘to be’ is illustrative of this similaritywith Sanskrit (Skulj & Sharda 2001, Narale2004p.101).

49


Slovenian language shows more similar-ity with Sanskrit than Russian and Hindi:it kept all the forms and the dual closerto Sanskrit. A very similar picture can beobserved in the comparison of noun de-clensions. The Sanskrit noun ‘mâti’, cho-sen as a typical example and shown be-low declined in singular number, has

Table 3. Declination of the Sanskrit noun ‘mâti’Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi English

nominative mâtâ mati mat’ mâtâ motheraccusative mâtâram mater mat’ mâtâ ko motherinstrumental mâtrâ materjo materju mâtâ ne, se by motherdative mâtre materi materi mâtâ ke liye to motherablative mâtur matere - mâtâ se from mothergenitive mâtur matere materi mâtâ ka of mother, mother’slocative mâtari materi materi mâtâ men on mothervocative mâtar mati - he mâtâ mother

Furthermore, in addition to similarities in vocabulary (see Appendix),declensions and conjugations, there are also additional morphological similarities,as reflected in many derived forms.

eight forms. In all compared languages,same or similar endings and suffixes areused to construct declension forms butboth modern Russian and Hindi lack sev-eral forms if compared to Sanskrit. Onceagain Slovenian language shows moresimilarity with Sanskrit than Russian andHindi: it kept more forms and also thedual along with the plural.

50


The examples above show that manyderived Slovenian nouns formed on verbalstems use derivative suffixes that are verysimilar to the corresponding suffixes inSanskrit. Both Slovenian and Russian keptone of the most archaic suffixes ‘-tih’ (Cf.Meillet 1 964 p.273) in the noun ‘bitje-bytije’ corresponding to Sanskrit ‘bhûtî’.However in other verbal nouns, Russianoften appends on more suffix in additionto the initial form of the verbal noun: it

can be the suffix ‘-nije’ corresponding tothe very characteristic Sanskrit suffix ‘-na’(stojanije, otvjaz(anije)) or the typicalRussian suffix’-, ec, ic(a) (mertvjec,stan(ica)). Some corresponding Russianwords changed their meaning or have to bequalified as archaic. Hindi often has nocorresponding noun at all or uses a verbalperiphrase (hastî, astitva, muta karnâ).

The situation is more or less the samein the formation of verbal adjectives.

(p.p.) - past participle

Table 4. Verbs > nouns (Suffixes -sna, -nje, -n’; -ti, -tje)

Sanskrit Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi EnglishVerb Noun Noun Noun Noun Nounbhî bhiyas bojazen bojazn’ bhay fear, apprehensionbhû bhûtî bitje bytije hastî,astitva being, existencejîv jîvana •ivenje(arch.) •izn’ jîvan lifejîv jîvitva •ivetje (arch.) •itje (arch.) astitva (living) lifejîv jîvina •ivina (cattle) •ivotina jîv living beingjna jñâna znanje znanie jñâna knowledgemi mâra mor, mora mor maran death, pestilencemi mitaka mrtvak mirtvjec mritak dead man, corpseprach praœna (v)prašanje vopros praœ question, queryprach prasa prièa pritèa (fable) priææha statement in debatesnâ snâna sna•enje X snâna bathing, cleansingsthâ sthâna stanje sostojanije sthiti state, conditionsthâ sthâna stan stan(ica) sthân abode, dwellingutthâ utthâna vstanje vstavanije utthân rising, resurrectionutthâ utthâya vstaja stoja (p.p.) utthanâ standing upudvâs udvâsa odveza otvjaz muta karnâ setting free

(yvanije)

51


Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi Englishjîv Jîvati •iveti •it’ jînâ to live, be alivejîv Ajîjivat o•iveti o•ivit’ jîlânâ restore to life, make alivepâ pibati, pâti piti pit’ pînâ to drink, swallowpâ -yayati, pîyate pojiti poit’ pîlanâ to cause to drinkpâ pû (drinking) pupati pit’ pînâ to drinkPi pay ate pitati pitat’ pâlanâ to fatten, cause to swell

Sanskrit Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi EnglishVerb Adjective Adjective Adjective Adjective

Table 7. Verbal nouns: active > causative (Stem change to -o-)Sanskrit Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi EnglishVerb Noun Noun Noun Noun Nounmi mityu mrtje umiranie maranâ dyingmi mâraa morjenje morjenje mâranâ killing, causing to diepâ > pî pîti pitje pitjo pînâ drinkingpâ pâyana pojenje pojenije pîlânâ causing or giving to

drink

Table 5. Verb > verbal adjective (Suffixes -ena, -ev; -ta)

bhî bhiyasâna bojazen bojazjen bhîru fearful, timidjîv Jîva •iv •iv jîvit living, alivejna Jña znan znakom jânnâ familiar withmi Mita mrtev mjortv mrit dead, rigidpâ Pîta pitan upitan (fed) piye-hue drunk, suckledprî priyatva prijeten prijaten priya pleasing, being

dearprî Purna poln napolnen pûrn filled, fullsnâ Snâta sna•en èišèen snât washed, cleansedsiv Syûta šivan, sešit sšit sewn

The verbal adjective is derived directly from the verbal root and not from a tensestem (Beekes 1995: 250). Slovenian shows most similarities with Sanskrit, Russianoften adds a prefix or another suffix, and Hindi often lacks corresponding adjective.

Examples below illustrate similarities between Sanskrit and Slavic languages information of active and causative verbs and nouns.

Table 6. Verbs: active > causative (Prefix o-, stem change to -o-)

52


Just as Sanskrit, Slavic languages use prefixes (o•iveti, o•ivit’) or change the stemvowel to ‘-o-’ (pojiti, poit’; morjenje, morjenje; pojenje, pojenije) to form the caus-ative but Hindi does not allow to discern a similar pattern.Many prefixed verbs and corresponding nouns show similarities between Indic and Slaviclanguages.

Table 8. Prefixed verbs (pra-, ud-)

Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi Englishpra-dru (-dravati) pridrveti prepustit pradrava to hasten towards, rush uponpra-pat (-patati) propasti propast’ prapâd to fall down, loseprati-vah (-vahati) privesti privest’ pravâãalânâ to lead or draw towardsud-â-vas (vasati) odvzeti udvas to removeud-â-vah (-vahati) odvesti otvest’ vahan karnâ to lead away; marryud-i (eti) oditi ujti / otojti ua to go, march off

Table 9.Prefixed verbs and corresponding nouns (Suffixes -va, -na , -nje)

Sanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi Englishverb pra-dhâ (-dhatte)pradhâna prodati predat’(give out) pradânkarnâ to give

away, sellverb pra-dî (-dîryate) predreti(pierce) prodrat’ phanâ to split opennoun Pradara Prodor, razdor (quarrel) Pradara rout of an army

prodorverb pra-stu (-stauti) predstaviti predstavit’ prastut karnâ introduce as a

topicnoun prastâva predstava predstavljenije prastut introductionverb prati-budh (-budhyate) pradara prebuditi prabodh karnâ to awaken,noun pratibodhanâ prebud, prebujenje probu•djenije pratibodhân awakingVerb prati-jñâ (-jânâti) priznati priznat’ pratijñâ to admit, consentnoun pratijñâna priznanje priznanije pratijñâ admission, assertionverb jalam-pâ (pâti) •lampati hljupat’ jalpinâj to drink water thenoun jalap âna •lampanje hljupanjej alpînâ drinking water

Behind phonetic changes occurred inSlavic languages, it is still possible torecognize prefixes corresponding to theSanskrit prefixes ‘pra-’ and ‘ud-’. Russian,however, changed the meaning of derivedverbs or used a different suffix to form anoun more often than Slovenian.

The morphological tendencies illustratedabove are confirmed by the view fromanother angle. Above we were looking atthe same type of derivatives from differentstems. Below we show different type ofderivatives from the same stem.

53


Table 10. Verbal family of derivatives from stem ‘vid > vedati, vidati, vindati’; toknow, percieve, understandSanskrit Slovenian Russian Hindi Englishvid > veda (n.) veda vedjenije veda knowledgevid > vedi (n.) vedec v’ed’ma (witch) vidvân wise manvid > vedin (adj.) veden svedušè vidvân knowingvid > vitta (adj.) viden vedom gñat knownvid > vindu (adj.) (Vind > Venet)? jânkâr familiar or

acquainted with(n.) - noun (adj.) - adjective

As in all other examples, the closestphonetic and semantic correspondencescan be observed between Sanskrit andSlovenian words. Two out of four Hindiwords diverse more from Sanskrit thanSlovenian ones in form (phoneticepenthesis ‘vidvân’) and one word does notexist because the corresponding adjectiveuses a different stem (‘gñat’). Russianexamples also confirm the derivationtendencies noticed earlier: it looks like theRussian language normalized its derivativesuffixes (vedje-nije, (s)ved-ušè, ved-om)unlike the Slovenian that often keeps theoriginal form of the word. Typical for theRussian examples change of meaning alsooccurs within this derivative paradigm. TheRussian word ‘ved’ma’ meaning ‘a witch’can be linked to the Sanskrit stem ‘vid’ fortwo reasons: first, because all other wordsof the family show the same phoneticchange ‘vid > ved’; second, because the

suffix ‘-ma’, according to Meillet (1964:274), is known to form agent nouns inSanskrit (Cf.: dhar-ma- ‘qui tient’ = ‘theone who holds’; brahma- ‘prëtre’=’priest’)and corresponds to the Indo-Europeansuffix ‘-men’. The corresponding Greeknoun ‘ßä-ìùí’ [id-mon] meaning ‘the onewho knows’(‘qui sait’ in Meillet 1964:275) also helps to link ‘ved’ma’ to ‘vid’ withthe meaning ‘a woman who possesses someesoteric knowledge’.

The fact that Slovenian seems to be closerto Sanskrit than other Slavic languages isimportant in different regards. From thelinguistic point of view, Sanskrit -Slovenian -Russian comparisons provideunexpected insights into etymology. Forinstance, while working on this paper wewere able to see many missing links thatcannot be discovered by comparingSanskrit with Old Church Slavic, as it is

54


usually done in Indo-European linguistics(Cf.: Meier-Brügger 2003) for the simplereason that old scriptures use quite limitedvocabulary. For instance, it is possible tosee that the Russian verb ‘hljupat’ - ‘makeugly noises while drinking’ can be linkedto the Sanskrit compound ‘jalam-pâ (pâti)’-‘drink water’ only after coming across theSlovenian compound verb ‘•lampati’ withthe meaning close to Russian. From thegenetic point of view, this study ofdifferent degrees of language resemblancecan be inspiring for a research seeking tounderstand to what extent linguisticaffinities can be backed by geneticsimilarities.

Genetic comparisons

Two localities are considered more alikeif the same haplogroups occur at similarfrequencies and if the various haplogroupsdiffer by fewer mutations. Clines areusually associated with distinct populationmovements. Demic diffusion, which is acombination of demographic growth, rangeexpansion and limited admixture, is anexample of a form of directionalpopulation expansion causing allele-frequency clines. Clines maybe generatedby loss of genetic variation or by admixturebetween two genetically distinct groupsinitially separated by a non-populated area

(Karafet et al. 2001).

Bradley (2000) shows that the motif ofdual domestication is a common one inlivestock. On the basis of mtDNA results,he demonstrates that sheep and cattle weredomesticated both in the Fertile Crescentand also on the Indian sub-continent. It canbe inferred that the domestication of thesheep and cattle on the Indian sub-continentis the likely source of the linguisticsimilarity between Indo-Aryan and Slavicterminology relating to the sheep and cattle(Skulj et al. 2006).

In addition to linguistic similarities, thecomparisons of the human genetic markerson the Y-Chromosome also indicate closerelationship. Geneticists, studying thehuman DNA note that a Y-Chromosomegenetic marker which they named,according to Y Chromosome Consortium,haplogroup R1a1 (HG3 according toRosser 2000 nomenclature) is the mostcommon among the Slavic populations inEurope and Indo-Aryans in India, at 47%and 30% respectively; but is found to beas high as 51% in Punjab (Kivisild et al.2002) - (Figure 1). If we do the math, usingthe published statistics, we see that inEurope, ~61 million Slavic speaking maleshave this genetic marker, but on the Indiansub-continent, the number is almost four

55


times higher, at ~240 million males.

Some may argue that this genetic (Figure1) and linguistic affinity (Tables 1-9 andAppendix) is due to the recent arrival ofthe Vedic Aryans from India into CentralEurope, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.However, such a recent migration from theSoutheast Asia, would have also picked upand brought a Finno-Ugric genetic markerHaplogroup N3 (HG16 of Rosser’snomenclature) to the Balkans, since it iswidely distributed in Russia and Ukraine-between Black Sea and the Baltic Sea(Rosser et al. 2000) - (Figure 3). TheUralic-speaking people are suggested tohave been descendants of the hunter-gatherers who lived in the periglacial zonebetween the Carpathian Mountains and theVolga River during the last glacialmaximum and have inhabited the Balticarea for ~10,000 years (Laitinen et al.2002).

It is significant that this Hg N3 geneticmarker has not been found either south ofthe Carpathian Mountains, central Europenor in the Balkans. This would indicate thatthe populations carrying the Hg R1a1 came

to the Balkans before the Finno-Ugricpopulation spread into NortheasternEurope, European Russia and Ukraineabout 10,000 years ago. Therefore, theR1a1 expansion from the Indian sub-continent to the Balkans must haveoccurred prior to this Finno-Ugricexpansion ~10,000 years ago; thus avoidingan mixing with the populations with theFinno-Ugric genetic marker.

The reverse major population movement,from Europe to India, within the last10,000 years, is highly unlikely. Such amigration would have brought a Finno-Ugric genetic marker Hg N3 and also thepalaeolithic, more than 20,000 years oldHg I to India. This Hg I genetic marker iscommon throughout Europe; the highestfrequencies have been found in the Balkansand is a likely signature of a Balkanpopulation re-expansion after the LastGlacial Maximum (Marjanovic et al. 2005,Pericic et al. 2005). It is important to notethat these two genetic markers, Hg N3 andHg I, have not been detected in India(Cordaux et al. 2004, Sengupta et al. 2006).

56


Table 11. Hg R1a1 & Hg I Y-chromosome frequencies in EurasiaPopulation HgR1a1 HgIBasques % 0 Rosser et al 2000 % 6 Rootsi et al 2004Irish 1 Rosser et al 2000 11 Rootsi et al 2004Western Europe 4 Kivisild et al 2002 3-39 Rootsi et al 2004Germans 30 Rosser et al 2000 20 Rosser et al 2000Poles 54 Rosser et al 2000 18 Rootsi et al 2004Sorbs 63 Behar et al 2003 18 Behar et al 2003Czechs 38 Rosser et al 2000 14 Rootsi et al 2004Slovaks 47 Rosser et al 2000 14 Rootsi et al 2004Slovenians 37 Rosser et al 2000 38 Rootsi et al 2004Croats 29 Semino et al 2000 38 Rootsi et al 2004Bosniacs 15 Marjanovic et al 2005 48 Marjanovic et al 2005Macedonians 35 Semino et al 2000 30 Rootsi et al 2004Belarussians 39 Rosser et al 2000 19 Rootsi et al 2004Ukrainians 44 Kharkov et al 2004 22 Rootsi et al 2004Russians/North 43 Nasidze et al 2005 5 Rootsi et al 2004Russians/Moscow 47 Rosser et al 2000 19 Rootsi et al 2004Russians/Tashkent 47 Nasidze et al 2005Anatolia & Caucasus 5 Kivisild et al 2002 0-6 Rootsi et al 2004Central Asia 2 Rootsi et al 2004Iran 11 Kivisild et al 2002 0 Rootsi et al 2004Pakistan 37 Firasat et al 2007 1 Sengupta et al 2006Burusho 28 Qamar et al 2002Pathan 45 Qamar et al 2002Sindhi 49 Qamar et al 2002India 30 Kivisild et al 2002 0 Sengupta et al 2006

Cordaux et al 2004Punjab 51 Kivisild et al 2002Gujarat 24 Kivisild et al 2002West Bengal 39 Kivisild et al 2002Sri Lanka 24 Kivisild et al 2002Nepal/Kathmandu 35 Gayden et al 2007Bangladesh (W. Bengal) 39 Kivisild et al 2002

57


Figure 1: Hg R1a1 Y-Chromosome frequencies in Europe, West Asia and Indian sub-contintent

Figure 2: Hg I Y-Chromosome frequencies in Europe, West Asia and Indian sub-contintent

11 1 8. A 1 9 1 914-,-, 3-39 47 22

58


Figure 3: Hg N3 Y-Chromosome frequencies in Europe, West Asia and Indian sub-contintent

The human population growth overmillennia

Until Meave Leakey of Kenya found newevidence, it was believed that the first andoldest species of our family Homo habilis,evolved into Homo erectus, and finally intoHomo sapiens. New evidence shows thatthe two earlier species lived side by sideabout 1.5 million years ago in Kenya andthat they have a common still-undiscoveredancestor that probably lived two to threemillion years ago. After studying thefossils, Leakey’s team announced theirfindings and concluded that is was time toredraw the family tree and rethink otherideas about human evolutionary theory,especially about our most immediateancestor, Homo erectus (Borenstein2007).

Now the homo sapiens population isestimated at 6.5 billion. Over the millenniathe human population growth has beenclosely associated with the socialorganization and with the technologicallyassisted food production. Historically,human population has grown very slowlyand the exponential growth did not beginuntil the last few centuries.

From Hanson (2000) we learn that manyauthors have informally summarized worldhistory as continually accelerating change,and that many others have described humanhistory as sequences of specific growthmodes. Human history has also beendescribed as slow expansion of hunter-gatherers, followed by faster growth withthe domestication of animals and plants and

59


then followed by even faster growth withscience and industry. The age of humanpopulation has been estimated by Hawkset al. to be 2 million years. From 2 millionyears ago up to about 5,000 BC hunterswere dominant, then, as the worldpopulation grew to approximately 5million to 20 million, farmers began todominate (Hanson 2000, U.S. CensusBureau 2007).

McEvedy and Jones (1978) estimated that12, 000 years ago the human populationwas at approximately 4,000,000; then ittook 11,500 years of near linear growth toreach 425,000,000 in the 15th century.After 1500 AD, the exponential populationgrowth began and it took only 400 yearsfor the population to reach 1.6 billion inthe year 1900 AD and then only 100 yearsfor the population to reach 6 billion.

On the other hand, Kremer (1993), wentback further into pre-history and estimatedthat 1 million years ago, there was alreadya human population of 125,000, whichgrew, albeit very slowly, and reached 4million people 12,000 years ago andincreased to 425 million in 1500 AD.

The question arises, how many male or Y-chromosome lineages were in existenceor came into existence due to mutations

over a span of 1 million years and how manyof them are extinct now? A widely acceptedhypothesis amongst the geneticists is onethat places all modern humans in Africa,within the past 200,000 years, and assignsa genetic date of the ancestor of all humanmales at 40,000 to 140,000 years ago(Wells 2003: 54-55). At the present time,due to mutations, there are 153 differentknown haplogroups world-wide (The YChromosome Consortium 2002). Indiansub-continent shows great geneticdiversity, since 36 of them are present inIndia and Pakistan (Sengupta et al. 2006)and Hg R1a1 being the one with the highestfrequency of 30% in India (Kivisild et al.2002, Wells 2003: 167).

Origin of’Satem’ Indo-EuropeanLanguages

In our paper, we do not address the originsof human language, which some believe hasits beginnings 150,000 years ago (TheEconomist, September 22nd 2007) nor ofthe Indo-European languages, which somebelieve that they have their beginnings incentral and eastern Anatolia and othersposit their origin north of the Black Sea.From Anatolia, according to somehypotheses, the distribution of the earlyform of the language and its successorsspread into Europe in association with the

60


farming (Renfrew 1987: 205). However,Bandelt et al. (2002) point out that, tostretch the origin of language families tothe Fertile Crescent or nearby regions maynot explain the real processes, which couldactually have run in the opposite directionor have involved other centers of origin.In our paper, we demonstrate that the Slavsand Indo-Aryans share both genetic andlinguistic affinities and that the distributionof their ancestors stretching from theBalkans, central and northern Europe, alsonorth of the Black Sea and along north-eastern shores of the Caspian Sea and onthe Indian sub-continent from Punjab to theBay of Bengal and Sri Lanka (Table 11), isassociated with the nomadic-pastoral ageand that the subsequent split into Slavic andIndo-Aryan speakers predates the origin offarming.

At present, there are a number ofhypotheses that propose to account for thegreater similarity of Indians with westernEurasians than with the Mongoloid peopleto the east of India. First, there is a widelyknown hypothesis of an invasion ofnomadic Indo-Aryan tribes around 4,000years ago into India, either from the westor from the Central Asian steppes in thenorth. Second, there is a more recentlyproposed postulate, which is based on the

fact that 8,000-9,000 years ago severalvarieties of wheat and other cerealsreached India, presumably from the FertileCrescent. This hypothesis is supported bylinguistically based suggestions of a recentcommon root for Elamite and Dravidiclanguages (Kivisild et al. 2000, Wells2003: 167).

In addition to the invasion theories, thetheory of the indigenous origin of theAryans on the Indian subcontinent has beenadvocated by a number of scholars. Theindigenous theory is credible since, thereis no evidence to show that the VedicAryans were foreigners or that theymigrated into India within traditionalmemory. Sufficient literary materials areavailable to indicate, that the Vedic Aryansthemselves regarded Sapta-Sindhu as theiroriginal home (Ghosh 1951: 220). Ghoshalso cites H. Güntert and F.R. Schröder whohave shown that Western Europe is one ofthose areas that were Aryanized last (Ghosh1951: 214). This is in agreement with thefrequency of R1a1; only 4 % in WesternEurope, 1 % in Irish and 0% in the Basqueswho are the farthest from the Indian sub-continent. This is in contrast to highfrequencies amongst the male Slavs inEurope at 47 % the males in India at 30 %(Kivisild et al. 2002, Rosser et al. 2000)

61


numbering 61 million and 169 millionrespectively and 237 million for the wholeIndian sub-continent.

Kivisild et al (2000) have found that thenode of the phylogenic tree of the mtDNA,ancestral to more than 90% of the present-day typically European maternal lineages,is present in India at a relatively highfrequency. They estimate that the age ofthis ancestral node is greater than 50,000years. They have also found that mtDNAhaplogroup U is the most abundant mtDNAvariety in India as it is in Europe.Furthermore, they believe that there arenow enough reasons to question the recentIndo-Aryan invasion into India some 4,000years ago and alternatively to considerIndia as a part of the common gene poolancestral to the diversity of humanmaternal lineages in Europe.

Age of Hg R1a1 (time sincecoalescence)

Bandelt et al. (2002) express some caveatsregarding the coalescence times, whichplay an integral part in historical genetics,because there has been an over-emphasison superficial population-geneticsformalizations and insufficient attention tothe resources of other disciplines. Inaddition, geneticists are calculating thecoalescence times using the model of

random-mating populations of constantsizes. This can lead to potentially dramaticmiscalculations of coalescence times.

Kharkov et al. (2004) attempt to clarify theethnogenesis of the Slavs in general andEastern Slavs in particular, by studying theY-chromosome diversity in the Ukrainiansand other populations of Eurasia. Theyagree with some of the publishedestimates, that Hg R1a1 coalesced in acommon ancestor 2,500 to 3,800 yearsago. Although, in their paper, they alludedto the relatively high frequency of R1a1 inIndia and Pakistan, they did not inquire intothe significance of such large numbers ofR1a1 carriers, both on the Indian sub-continent and amongst the Slavs, in Europe.They also failed to demonstrate how R1a1could become one of the most widespreadand also the most numerous geneticmarkers both in Europe and on the Indiansub-continent during a relatively shortperiod of time, i.e. less than 4,000 years.

They note that haplogroup (Hg) R1a1 is themost common Y-chromosome variantamong the Ukrainians at ~ 44%. Uponfurther analysis of the published results inthe literature, it appears that Hg R1a1 isone of the most frequent genetic markersin the world. It is most frequent in thepopulations speaking ‘satem’ I-E languages,

62


namely the Slavic speakers in Europe andthe Indo-Aryan speakers on the Indian sub-continent. If we do the math, using the USCensus I. P. Center population figures andthe percentages published in the literature(Rosser et al. 2000, Semino et al. 2000,Pericic et al. 2005, Sengupta et al. 2006,Kivisild et al. 2002) we see that in Europe,~61 million Slavic speaking males have theHg R1a1 genetic marker; but in India thenumber is more than two and a half timeshigher, at ~170 million males. Whenconsidering the Indian sub-continent as awhole, the number is ~240 million oralmost four times higher than in the Slavicpopulations. In addition this geneticmarker is also present in smaller numbersin Western Europe, Scandinavia, BalticStates, Caucasus, Turkey and Central Asiancountries and totals ~25.5 million. In totalthis represents more than 10 % of the malepopulation of the world. Sengupta et al.(2006) also report that the R1a1 frequencyin I-E speakers of Upper Castes is at 45%,which is similar to frequencies in the Slavicpopulations of Europe. This would indicatethat a similar increase of Hg R1a1, relativeto populations with other genetic markers,took place among the Slavic populationsof Europe as in the caste populations ofIndia.

In order to do a ‘reality check’ on the ageof Hg R1a1, we will use a macro-analyticalapproach with a global perspective andconsider the recorded genealogies ofknown historical individuals, some in aposition of privilege, others just commonmen. We will then compare the resultswith the estimated coalescence dates of HgR1a1-M17 lineage found in the literature,where the micro-analytical approach, basedon mutation rates, is used for determiningthe ages of Y-Chromosome mutations.

Mutation Rate is defined as the rate atwhich a genetic marker mutates or changesover time (Kerchner 2007). There is as yetno general agreement on the mutation rateat an average Y-Chromosome short-tandemrepeat locus; the range is quite wide;0.00069 per 25 years (Zhivotovsky et al.2004); 0.00069 per locus per mutation,with an intergeneration time of 25 years(Gayden et al. 2007); 0.00026 per 20 years(Forster et al. 2000); 0.002 per generation(Kerchner 2007) and 0.0018 pergeneration (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001).The subsequent calculated age estimatesare then based on these mutation rates.Understandably, there is also no consensuson the length of time from coalescence,for the first male with Hg R1a1 mutation,which is the most recent common ancestor

63


for the largest percentage of Indo-Aryansand Slavs. These ages vary from 1,650-4260 years (Kayser et al. 2000); 2,500-3,800 years (Kharkov et al. 2004); 3,800years (Zerjal et al. 1999); 7,500 years(Karafet et al. 1999); 10,000-15,000 years(Wells 2003:176) and Semino et al.(2000) posit that it expanded from thepresent day Ukraine after Last GlacialMaximum 20,000 to 13,000 years ago.

Passarino et al (2001) are very candidabout dating: »Unfortunately, poorknowledge of the molecular basis of 49a,fsystem and the complete ignorance of themutational rate do not allow any attemptto date this phylogeny. However, anattempt to date the Eu19 (R1a1 - M17)lineage was made by combining the micro-satellite variations resulting from theanalysis of 243 Y chromosomes. By thetwo approaches used, ages of 7,654 and13,031 years were obtained.«

For this reason, it is worthwhile to comparethe age estimates, which are based onmutation rates, with the reproductivecapabilities of some known historical men,since the number of their descendants, overknown time period, integrates all thefactors that influenced their procreationand in some cases made their progenygrow, not only in numbers, but also in

relation to the population of the world. Bycomparing these dates with the onesobtained by the mutation rates, it ispossible to test the validity of the resultsobtained by the mutation rate method andalso to determine, what is a reasonable timeinterval, for more than 325 million men,representing ~ 10 % of the world’s malepopulation, now living with this Hg R1a1mutation, to come into existence; startingfrom a single individual. For example:

A. Confucius. Year 2009 will coincidewith the 2,560th anniversary of this greatphilosopher’s birth. He now has about 3million descendants, which includesfemale relatives, world wide. This numberrepresents ~ 0.23 % of the population ofChina and 0.046 % of the world’spopulation. From the growth rate it can beseen that Confucius’ clan grew at a fasterrate than the population of the world, whichis estimated to have been 95 million in 551BC (US Census Bureau 2007) and at birthhe represented only 0.000001 % of theworld’s population. On the average, anindividual born at the same time, asConfucius, would have only ~68descendants now.

Assuming a linear growth in relation to theworld’s population, it will require 217 timeperiods of 2560 years or 555,520 years

64


for the descendants of Confucius to reach10 % of the population world’s population.(10 : 0.046 x 2560 = 555,520)

B. Macedonian cavalry with Hg I-170/M223/M379 in Pakistan - Sengupta et al.(2006) and Firasat et al (2007) report that0.57 % and 0.3 % respectively, of thePakistani males are identified with thisgenetic marker. According to Firasat et al.(2007), this genetic marker may have beenbrought by the Greek slaves 150 yearsbefore Alexander the Great, but more likelyby the Alexander’s army of 25,000-30,000mercenary foot soldiers from Persia andWest Asia and 5,000-7,000 Macedoniancavalry during the invasion 327-323 BC.Hg I-M170, which is a component of theEuropean Y Chromosome gene pool andaccounts for 18 % of the total paternallineages, is widespread in Europe, but isabsent in India. In Europe sixsubhaplogroups of HgI-M 170 have beenreported (Rootsiet al. 2004).

In Pakistan only the subhaplogroup I-M223/M379 is found. The subhaplogroupI-M223 is relatively rare in Europe,nevertheless, it is also found amongst theSlavic speakers in the Balkans at 0.4 %(Marjanovic et al. 2005). Assuming that thegenetic marker was brought to Pakistan bythe Macedonian cavalry of the Alexander

the Great and by using the data provided byFirasat et al. (2007), it is apparent that ittook ~2,300 years for this genetic markerto reach ~ 0.43 % of the Pakistani malepopulation of 82.4 million or 354,000.From a global perspective, 354,000 malesrepresent 0.011 % of the world’s malepopulation. However, an average individualborn 2,300 years ago would now have only- 40 descendants.

Therefore, the Macedonian cavalryman,perhaps there was more than one individualwith this genetic marker, was reproducingfaster than the population of the world overthis period of 2,300 years. By giving creditto only one individual and thus increase thecompounding rate, we can estimate thelength of time that, it would take for thedescendants to reach 10 % of the world’spopulation. Since it took 2,300 years toreach 0.011% of the world’s populationand assuming a linear growth in relation tothe world’s population, it will take them909 time periods of 2,300 years or2,090,700 years to reach 10% of theworld’s population (10 : 0.011 x 2,300 =2,090,700 years).

C. Giocangga. Geneticist Tyler-Smith(2005) has estimated that 1.5 millionChinese men are descendants ofGiocangga, the grandfather of the founder

65


of the Qing dynasty, from about 500 yearsago. His descendants were in a privilegedposition and the extraordinary number isthought to be a result of the many wivesand concubines his offspring took. Becauseof the special privileges, his childrenwould have had a good chance of survival,but an average individual has only ~20descendants, for that time period. Thisnumber of 1.5 million males represents0.23% of the total male population ofChina, estimated at 660,926,000 males.From a global perspective, 1.5 millionmales represent 0.046 % of the world’smale population of 3.25 billion.

Assuming a linear growth, in relation to themale population of the world, for thedescendants of Giocannga, it will require217 time periods of 500 years to reach10% of the world’s population or ~109,000years (10 : 0.046 x 500 = 108,696 years).

Cohen (2002) in estimating the populationgrowth modeled his estimates on thecompounding interest calculations. Withhis model, he attempted to take intoconsideration natural disasters and thesubsequent population bottlenecks.Consequently, when using the compoundinginterest calculations, he was concerned thatthe population growth could be greatlyoverstated. Recognizing this and using trial

and error method he estimated that priorto the adoption of the agriculture, about10,000 years ago, the growth rate had tobe very near zero, perhaps only 0.003%(rate of 0.00003) per year. From then, tothe time of Columbus, he estimated thatthe rate was also small, at 0.1 % (0.001);higher compounding rate would result in ahistorical population greater than it is. Hegave an example that at the 0.1%compounding rate, it would take a groupof 500 individuals more than a thousandyears to grow to 1500.

In our calculations, to estimate how longit would be necessary to reach 10 % of theglobal population, starting from a singleindividual, we used a somewhat differentapproach, by using the recordedreproduction statistics of the knownhistorical individuals and going past theexponential population growth of the pastcentury, when during this time period of1965-1970, the growth rate was ~2.1 %(0.021) per year. As a further refinement,the simultaneous global population growthwas also part of the equation used todetermine the incremental growth rate ofthese historical men against the populationas a whole. Since it is this incrementalgrowth rate that determines the time thatit would take to grow from one individualto millions of human beings representing

66


more than 10% of the world’s population.

From the above real time examples, whereall the descendants grew faster than theglobal population, it is apparent that growthof the human populations, having specifichuman traits, be it a genetic marker or asurname, relative to the rest of thepopulation, is a long term process. Theprocess of growth, relative to the rest ofthe population, has to be accompanied withspecial attributes not present in thesurrounding population. This ‘reproductivefitness advantage’ (RFA), can be in the formof fertility or reproductive fitness, specialprivileges or resistance to disease whichensures the survival of the progeny andallows the privileged population to growfaster than the surrounding population. Thisis analogous to the mechanics of a similarprocess such as language replacement,which C. Renfrew named ‘elite dominance’(Renfrew 1998: 95,132).

To account for the relatively highfrequency of Hg R1a1, there is no reasonto believe that the Slavic populations havean inherently higher reproduction rate thansurrounding populations, due toreproductive fitness. For example, thepopulation of Russia is now decreasing andwill continue to decrease into theforeseeable future, relative to other

countries (The Economist, June 2007).This creates a dilemma. How could themale population with this genetic markerhave grown to more than ~325 million?Obviously, higher rate of growth, relativeto other populations, coupled with a longtime period since coalescence was neededto achieve this. These are the only two waysthat could have created the necessaryconditions to have one man leave enoughdescendants to go from ~ 0 % to 10 % ofthe world’s male population. Factors suchas economic, cultural, physical, militarysuperiority or resistance to disease musthave been present to a higher degree tohave a higher population growth rate andthus allowed the males with this R1a1genetic marker to grow so dominantly andto preserve this status in relation to theother 152 Y-Chromosome haplogroups ofthe world’s male populations, so that nowone out of every ten males has this geneticmarker.

It is noteworthy that the majority of thepopulations on the Indian subcontinent whospeak the I-E languages, which are basedon Sanskrit also have a high frequency ofthe R1a1 genetic marker. Also in Europe,Slavic languages share many linguistic andgrammatical similarities with Sanskrit,particularly Vedic Sanskrit. Thus it is

67


possible to regard R1a1 as an Indo-Aryanand Slavic genetic marker. Wells (2003:167) calls it Indo-European as a contrastto Dravidian genetic markers.

Based on these linguistic and geneticsimilarities, it is not out of order tocombine the Slavic and Indian populationsand the relative percentages of Hg R1a1of 47% and 30%, respectively, as reportedby Kivisild et al. (2002). This means thatthe coalescence of the common ancestorof Hg R1a1 would have taken placeconsiderably earlier than the Ice Age. Onlythe early coalescence can account for thehigh frequency and wide distribution of HgR1a1 prior to modern day populationmigrations. This reproduction rate is in linewith that of the historical personage,Giocangga, whose descendents wouldrequire ~109,000 years, to reach 10 % ofthe world’s male population, based on theirpast reproduction rates. Taking intoconsideration the reproduction rates ofhistorical individuals, it can be concludedthat the time since coalescence of Hg R1a1must be at least 100,000 years, but verylikely much more, since this calculationis based on reproduction rate of anindividual not affected by the populationBotlenecks created by such events as theToba Volcano explosion on the last iceage.

This age estimate of ~100,000 yearssince coalescence of Hg R1a1, should notbe discounted as unrealistic, since that areaof the world has supported human life formore than 1 million years (Kremer 1993,Zerjal et al. 2002) and humans have beenspeaking for at least 150,000 years (TheEconomist, September 2007 p. 57). Newdiscovery of a human lower jawbone, datedto be 1.3 million years old, in a limestonecave in northern Spain (Hurst 2008), willundoubtedly lead to reappraisal of humanexistence in and outside Africa.

Direction of gene flow

Some would argue that genetic andlinguistic affinity between Slavs and Indo-Aryans is due to the recent arrivals fromthe east. However, a recent migration fromthe east would have also brought Hg N3 tothe Balkans, since it is widely distributedin Russia and Ukraine - between Black Seaand the Baltic Sea, but this genetic markerhas not been found in the Balkans. Thisindicates that R1a1 migration to theBalkans took place before Hg N3 arrivedin European Russia and Ukraine. Hg N3 hasthe highest frequency amongst the Finnsat 61% and has been considered a Finno-Ugric marker. Laitinen et al. (2002)estimate that Finno-Ugric tribes arrived in

68


the Baltic region 5,000-6,000 years ago.Therefore, the Hg R1a1 migration fromthe east to the Balkans must have occurredprior to the Hg N3 expansion and thusavoided the contact with the populationswhen Hg N3 was already present (Skulj etal. 2006).

Significantly, Hg I-M170 (Figure 2), whichis posited to be older than Hg R1a1-M17and is believed to have expanded from arefuge in the northern Balkans after LGM(Semino et al. 2000), has not been detectedin India (Sengupta et al. 2006). Hg I iswidespread throughout Europe; fromBritish Isles to Russia and from Baltic Seato the Balkan peninsula. The frequency isparticularly high in the Balkans, as high as~71% in the Croats of Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is frequent in Russia andUkraine at ~20%, and also the rest ofEurope, particularly in Scandinavia. InEngland the frequency is 18%, Germany20%, Denmark 39%, Norway 40%, southSweden 40% and Estonia 19%. Theestimated age of Hg I is 22, 000 years,which would give it an abundance of timefor expansion, and it is also considerablymore widely spread in Europe than HgR1a1. It should be stressed that, despitethe theories of Aryan home in Germany or

Germanic lands (Ghosh 1951: 213-214),Hg I has not been detected in India. Thiswould rule out Europe as the home of theAryans after the last Ice Age. Hg I-M170has been detected in Pakistan at 0.57 %(Sengupta et al. 2006) and at 0.3 % (Firasatet al. 2007), where it could have beenbrought by the army of the Alexander theGreat (Qamar et al. 2002, Firasat et al.2007). At lower frequencies, Hg I is foundin the Near East, Caucasus and Central Asiabut not in Iran. In the populations of CentralAsia, the frequency is only 1.5%(Marjanovic et al. 2005, Qamar et al. 2002,Rootsi et al. 2004).

Furthermore, another haplogroup canprovide some insights into the origins ofthe Indo-Aryans. It is Hg K*-M9, which iswidespread in Asia and appears at highfrequencies in Koreans at 69 %,Mongolians at 25 %, Uzbeks at 15 %,Kazakhs at 11 %, Tatars at 9 %, Russians/Tashkent at 6 % (Nasidze et al. 2005),Russians/Yaroslavl at 14 % (Malyarchuketal. 2004). In India it was not detected in asample of 728 males, but in Pakistan therewas one individual in a sample size of 176or 0.57 % (Sengupta et al. 2006). WhileKivisild et al. (2002) has found that Hg K*(HG26-M9) is absent in Punjab, AndhraPradesh and Sri Lanka, but is present at

69


0.8% in India as a whole, but at 3.2 % inWestern Bengal and 3.4 % in Gujarat andalso in Iran at 3.6 %. From Chatterji(1988) we learn that there is a Mongoloidstratum in the Himalayas and in the tractsimmediately to the south, in Assam, inNorth and East Bengal and that he observedSino-Tibetan influence is still presentthere.

It is significant, that Hg N3 and also Hg Idid not reach Iran and India. This can betaken as another indication that themigration(s) carrying Hg R1a1 did notoriginate in Europe. A northern, central oreast European origin of Hg R1a1, and thesubsequent expansions and migrationswould have picked up both Hg I and Hg N3chromosomes and the linguistic affinitieswith Sanskrit and taken them eastward inthe direction of India. However, highfrequency of Hg R1a1 chromosomes, andthe high linguistic affinities with Sanskritare primarily common only to Slavic andIndo-Aryan populations. This is not the casefor other European or eastern Europeangenetic markers such as Hg I and Hg N3,since Hg I and Hg N3 are absent from India.Also the virtual absence of Hg K* also rulesout central Asia or Siberia as the homelandof the Indo-Aryans.

As mentioned before, Hg N3, which is

widely distributed among Finno-Ugricpopulations where the high frequenciesoccur, is also frequent in the Slavicpopulations surrounding the Baltic andBlack Sea, where the largest absolutenumbers occur. This marker, which isconsidered to be as old as R1a1, has notreached the Balkans, nor has it migrated toIndia (Skulj 2007) (Figure 3).

Based on the above mentioned geneticmarkers, one has to conclude that Hg R1a1chromosomes came from India andreached the Balkans, before Hg N3expanded between the Baltic and the BlackSeas. Also the expansion of Hg I from theBalkans was impeded and did not reachIndia. All of this is in agreement andsupports Out of India Theory (OIT) of the‘satem’ branch of the Indo-Europeanlanguage family. Furthermore, thedomestication of cattle in the Indus valleyand no indication of domestication ofEuropean aurochs (Edwards et al. 2007)further support the OIT.

That is why it is very difficult to accept therelative young age of R1a1, which Karafetet al. (1999), Kayser et al. (2000), Kharkovet al. (2004), Zerjal et al. (1999) proposeto have coalesced in a common ancestorless than 10,000 years ago. If this R1a1genetic marker is one of the youngest, why

70


is it, in this Darwinian world, one of themost prolific and prior to the discovery ofthe Americas was also one of the mostwidely distributed haplogroups? At highfrequencies, it stretches like an arc northof the Black and Caspian Seas fromsouthern Adriatic in Europe to the Bay ofBengal and Sri Lanka on the Indian sub-continent.

However, the numerical success of theR1a1 in India and in Europe raises someobvious questions: 1) In the populationsnorth of Black Sea and Caspian Sea whereHg I and Hg N3 are at high frequencies:

- What has prevented the carriers ofostensibly much older genetic markersfrom blossoming and taking over the planetand leaving R1a1 chromosome in a minorrole?

- What prevented N3 fromsupplanting R1a1?

- What prevented Hg I from doing thesame, or Hg P which is considered to beeven older than Hg I?

2) In the populations south of Black andCaspian Seas:

- Why have the Anatolian and MiddleEast agriculturists, with older aplogroupssuch as Hg J and Hg E, lagged behind 1a1

populations in numbers, since they wouldhave had a head-start in time, agriculturalfood production and technology?

3) Was the agro-pastoral way of life thesole means to provide this advantage, orwas it a combination of some other formof the ‘elite dominance’ in culture, warfare,technology or resistance to particulardiseases that enabled the populations withthe high frequency of R1a1 chromosometo surpass in frequency all others inEurasia?

How can the high frequency of~10 % ofHg R1a1 in the world’s male populationbe accounted for, when the expectedpercentage is less than 1 %, since thelineage is just one out of 153 and at thesame time considered to be one of theyoungest. S. Wells (2003 p. 84) hasattempted to explain why certain geneticlineages are more numerous than others.He offers a rather simplistic explanation,based on intelligence and the ruthlessnessof the founder and his progeny. Theprogenitor was more intelligent than othermembers of his clan. He was also a betterhunter, since he had better knowledge ofthe animal behavior and devised better toolsto hunt them. He became their leader;members of his clan ate well, prosperedand he was able to father many children.

71


Then his children, when grown, killed orchased away other males of the clan. Thusthe lineage had a head-start and was able toprosper. There are probably also otherreasons.

There is anecdotal evidence that people ofEast Indian descent in Canada have a muchhigher incidence of cardio-vasculardiseases than other nationalities. Thesediseases affect primarily individuals pasttheir best reproductive years (Ogilvie2008). Therefore, in light of the highpopulation numbers with the R1a1 geneticmarker, it would be reasonable to expectthat people with this genetic marker mayhave had better resistance to other formsof disease, during their reproductive years.Such an advantage could have providedthem with better survival rates with respectto other 152 lineages.

Also part of the answer will probably befound to be in the evidence that the age ofHg R1a1 is considerably older than theestimates of Kharkov et al (2004) of2,500-3800 years. Passarino et al (2001)presented two different dates for the ageof R1a1 M17 lineage, namely, 7,654 yearsand 13,031 years. However, they domention that when an attempt was made toestimate the age of mutations M1 73 andM1 7, the values obtained were compatible

with a Palaeolithic origin.

We estimate that mutation is in allprobability much older; we estimate the ageat more than 100,000 years based oncompounding calculations and the resultsagree with the straight line estimates (Skulj2007). In addition to the antiquity of thisgenetic marker, the carriers of R1a1 mustalso have had a tremendous Darwinianadvantages mentioned above, to surpass theother Y-chromosome genetic competitorsin their reproductive fitness.

Furthermore, their data shows that thehighest frequency of what could be theoldest c-haplotype, namely c-Ht 17 of theM17 lineage, occurs in India, where it wasobserved in 10.5% of the males or ~57.5million men. In Eastern Europe, it occursat 9.5% or in ~12 million males, in theBalkans at 3.8%, in Western Europe at0.3% and Middle East at 2.5%. Anotherhaplotype, c-Ht 19 has been found almostexclusively in the Balkans, Eastern Europeand India. Here again India represents 8%,Eastern Europe 4%, Balkans 0.5% andWestern Europe 0.2% of the malepopulation with this haplotype. Thepercentages and absolute numbers suggestthe direction of the gene flow. Thesestatistics are also an indication that thegene flow appears to be from India to

72


Europe.

Using Alinei’s ‘lexical self-dating’, thereis evidence that a common agro-pastoralorigin of Sanskrit ‘gopati’, ‘gospati’ andSlavic ‘gospod’, ‘gospodin’ meaning lord/master/gentleman occurred more than8,000 years ago (Skulj et al. 2006).Therefore, the people who invented thisterminology must have had their originprior to that period of human history whenthe domesticated cattle were already partof the wealth of certain individuals.

There is a common belief, primarily basedon the linguistic similarities between theIndo-Aryans and the Europeans, that theiroriginal common home was Europe (An•ur2006). However, as discussed earlier,despite the linguistic and genetic similaritybetween Indo-Aryans and Slavs, there isevidence to the contrary. Thedomestication of cattle and sheep on theIndian sub-continent, the absence of Hg Iand Hg N3 in India and their highfrequencies in Europe are indicators thatthe gene flow was not from Europe to India,but from India to Europe in the distant past- pre 10,000 years ago, along with theprecursor of the ‘satem’ Indo-Europeanlanguages.

Conclusions

In many instances, the Slovenian languageappears to be gramatically closer toSanskrit than other Slavic languages andeven Indic languages such as Hindi, Bengaliand Gujarati.

Genetic and linguistic affinities betweenthe Indo-Aryan and Slavic speakingpopulations indicate that a large percentageof their ancestors had a common sojournduring the pre-pastoral and also during thepastoral age.

Linguistic evidence suggests that theseparation of the Indo-Aryans and theancestors of present day Slavs occurredprior to the innovation of the cerealfarming in agriculture.

Hg R1a1-M17 lineage appears to havecome to Europe, via the ancestors of thepresent day Slavs, from the Indian sub-continent, before the spread of farming~9000 years ago.

Genetic evidence does not support a largescale invasion of India from Europe duringthe prehistoric times, since no evidenceof Hg R1*-M173, Hg I-M170 or of HgN3-TAT has been found in India, althoughthese Haplogroups are very frequent inEurope (Rosser et al. 2000, Sengupta etal. 2006).

73


The coalescence of Hg R1a1, the mostfrequent genetic marker in Indo-Aryan andSlavic populations, very likely occurredmore than 100,000 years ago. Only if themost recent common ancestor of such alarge percentage of Indo-Aryans and the

Alinei M 2003. Interdisciplinary and linguistic evidence for Paleolithic continuity of Indo-European, Uralicand Altaic populations in Eurasia with excursus on Slavic ethnogenesis,Paper read at the Conference: Ancient Settlers in Europe, Kobarid, Slovenia, 29.-30. May,2003 Alinei M 2004. The problem of dating in Linguistics, (Translation from Italian by S. Kostiæ ).Origin of European Languages, Vol. 1, The Continuity Theory, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1996 An•ur M 2006.

Vojaška zgodovina bodoèih Slovanov, Ljubljana, Jutro, p. 88. ISBN-10961-6433-77-6 Bandelt HJ, Macaulay V, Richards M. 2002. What Molecules Can’t Tell Us about the Spreadof Languages and the Neolithic, in Examining the farming/language dispersal hypothesis,eds. Bellwood & Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,99-107. ISBN: 1-902937-20-1 Beekes, S.P. 1995. Comparative Indo-European Linguistics. Amsterdam/

Philadelphia: JohnBenjamins Behar DM, Thomas MG, Skorecki K, Hammer MF, et al 2003. Multiple Origins of AskenaziLevites: Y Chromosome Evidence for Both Near Eastern and European Ancestries, Am.J. Hum. Genet. 73: 768-779

Borenstein S 2007. Human family tree redrawn, Toronto Star AA3, Aug 9, 2007 Bradley DC 2000.Mitochondrial DNA Diversity and Origins of Domestic Livestock, in

Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistory of Europe, eds. Renfrew & Boyle,Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 315-320. ISBN: 1-902937-08-2 Cohen MN 2002. The Economies of Late Pre-farming and Farming Communities and theirRelation to the Problem of Dispersals, in Examining the farming/language hypothesis,eds. Bellwood & Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research,41-47. ISBN: 1-902937-08-2 Chatterji SK, 1988. Race-Movements and Prehistoric Culture, in The History

and Culture ofthe Indian People: The Vedic Age, eds. Majumdar RC, Pusalker, Majumdar AK, Bombay,Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan , 169-170 Cordaux R, Aunger R, Bentley G, Nasidze I, et al 2004. Independent

Origins of Indian Casteand Tribal Paternal Lineages, Current Biology Vol. 14: 231-235 Curta F, 2001. The Making of the Slavs:

History and Archaeology of the Lower Danube Regionc. 500-700, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press, p. 7 (ISBN 0 521 80202 4) Dal’ V I,1994.

Poslovitsi Russkogo Naroda (Proverbs of Russian People), Moscow, HHH, pp.563-567. Edwards CJ, Bollongino R, Scheu J, Chamberlain A, et al. 2007. Mitochondrial DNA analysisshows a Near Eastern Neolithic origin for domestic cattle and no indication of domesticationof European aurochs, Proc Royal Soc., 274: 1377-1385 Firasat S, Khaliq S, Mohyuddin A,

Papaioannou M, et al. 2007. Y-chromosomal evidence fora limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of Pakistan, Eur. J. Hum. Genet.15:121-126

Forster P, Röhl A, Brinkmann C, Zerjal T, et al 2000. A short tandem repeat-based phylogenyfor the human Y chromosome, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 67: 182-196 Fuller D 2002. An Agricultural

Perspective on Dravidian Historical Linguistics: ArchaeologicalCrop Packages, Livestock and Dravidian Crop Vocabulary, in Examining the farming/language hypothesis, eds. Bellwood & Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for

Slavs lived more than 100,000 years ago,could the male population with this geneticmarker grow to such high absolute numbersof 325 million men representing more than~10 % of the world’s total male population.

References

74


Archaeological Research p.204. ISBN: 1-902937-20-1 Gayden T, Cadenas AM, Regueiro M, Singh NB,Zhivotovsky LA, Underhill PA, Cavalli-Sforza

LL, Herrera RJ 2007. The Himalayas as a Directional Barrier to Gene Flow, Am. J. Hum.Genet. 80: 884-894 Ghosh BK 1951. The Aryan Problem, in The History and Culture of the Indian

People: TheVedic Age, eds. Majumdar RC, Pusalker AD, Majumdar AK, Bombay, Bharatiya VidyaBhavan pp. 213, 214, 220, 248 Haak W, Forster P, Bramanti B, Matsumura S, et al. 2005. Ancient DNA

from the First EuropeanFarmers in 7500-Year-Old Neolithic Sites. Science 310: 1016-1018 Hanson R, 2000. Long - Term Growth

As A Sequence of Exponential Modes, http://hanson.gmu.edu/longgrow.html Hawks J, Huntley K, Lee HS, Wolpoff M, 2000. Population Bottlenecks and

Pleistocene HumanEvolution, Molecular Biology and Evolution 17(1):2-22. Herodotus The Persian Wars transl. by

George Rawlinson, Random House USA, 1942 pp.259-261

Hurst L 2008. Was she the first European? Toronto Star ID3, April 6 Karafet T M, Zegura S L, Posukh O,Osipova I, et al. 1999. Ancestral Asian source(s) of New

World Y-chromosome founder haplotypes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66: 817-831 Karafet T, Xu L, Du R,Wang W, et al. 2001. Paternal Population History of East Asia: Sources,

Patterns and Microevolutionary Processes. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 69: 615-628 Kayser M, Roewer L,Hedman M, Henke J, et al. 2000. Characteristics and frequency of

germline mutations at microsatellite loci from the human Y chromosome, as revealed bydirect observation in father/son pairs. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 66: 1580-1588 Kerchner C F 2007. An

Overview and Discussion of Various DNA Mutation Rates and DNAHaplotype Mutation Rates. http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm Kharkov V N, Stepanov V

A, Borinskaya S A, Kozhekbaeva Zh M, et al 2004. Rus. J. Genet.40(3): 326-331 Kivisild T, Papiha S S, Rootsi S, Parik J, et al 2000. An Indian Ancestry: a Key for

UnderstandingHuman Diversity in Europe and Beyond. Archaeogenetics: DNA and the population prehistoryof Europe, eds. Renfrew & Boyle, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch pp.267-283. ISBN: 1-902937-08-2 Kivisild T, Rootsi S, Metspalu M, Metspalu E, et al 2002. The

Genetics of Language andFarming Spread in India, in Examining the farming/ language dispersal hypothesis, eds.Bellwood & Renfrew, Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research pp.215-222. ISBN: 1-902937-20-1 Kremer M. 1993. Population Growth and Technological Change: One

Million B.C. to 1990.QuartelyJ. Economics 108: 681-716 Laitinen V, Lahermo P, Sistonen P, Savontaus M-L 2002. Y-

Chromosomal Diversity Suggeststhat Baltic Males Share Common Finno-Ugric-Speaking Forefathers, Human Heredity53: 68-78 Little W, Fowler HW, Coulson J, Onions CT, Oxford International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Leland Publishing Company, Toronto, 1957.

Loftus RT, MacHugh DE, Bradley D, Sharp PM, et al. 1994. Evidence for two independentdomestications of cattle, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91: 2757-2761

Malyarchuk B, Derenko M, Grzybowski T, Lunkina A, et al 2004. Differentiation of MitochondrialDNA and Y Chromosomes in Russian Populations. Human Biology 76(6): 877-900 Marjanovic D,

Fornarino S, Montagna S, Primorac D, et al 2005. The Peopling of ModernBosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome Haplogroups in the Three Main Ethnic Groups.Ann. Human Genetics 69: 1-7 McEvedy C, Jones R 1978. Atlas of World Population History, U.S.

Census Bureau July 16,2007, http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html

Meier-Brügger, M. 2003. Indo-European Linguistics. Berlin, NY: Walter de Gruyter Meillet A. 1964.Introduction àl’ étude comparative des langues indo-européennes. Forge Village,

Massachusetts: University of Alabama Press Monier-Williams M, 2005. A Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, ISBN

75


81-208-0069-9 Narale R, 2005. Hindi Teacher for English Speaking People, Prabhat Prakashan, NewDelhi,

ISBN 81-7315-536-4 Narale R, 2004. Sanskrit for English Speaking People, Prabhat Prakashan, NewDelhi, ISBN

81-7315-481-3 Nasidze I, Quinque M, Dupanloup I, Cordaux R, Kokshunova L, Stoneking M 2005.Genetic

Evidence for the Mongolian Ancestry of Kalmyks, Am.J. Physical Anthropol. 120 (Publishedon line in Wiley Interscience www.interscience.wiley.com) Ogilvie M 2008. A coronary mystery.

Toronto Star ID4, Saturday, March 1 Passarino G, Semino O, Magri C, Al-Zahery N, et al 2001. The 49a,fhaplotype 11 is a New

Marker of EU 19 Lineage that Traces Migrations from Northern Regions of the Black Sea,Human Immunol. 62: 922-932 Pericic M, Lauc LB, Klaric IM, Rootsi S, et al. 2005. High-Resolution

Phylogenetic Analysisof Southeastern Europe Traces Major Episodes of Paternal Gene Flow Among SlavicPopulations, Mol. Biol. Evol. 22(10): 1964-1975

Priestly T 1997. On the development of the Windischentheorie, Int. J. Sociol. Language 124: 75-98 QamarR, Ayub Q, Mohyuddin A, Helgason A, et al 2002 Y-Chromosomal Variation in

Pakistan, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 70: 1107-1142 Quintana-Murci L, Krausz C, Zerjal T, Sayar SH, et al 2001Y-Chromosome Lineages Trace

Diffusion of People and Languages in Southwestern Asia, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 68: 537-542 Ramusio J1604. Della Guerra di Constantinopoli http://www.geocities.com/serban- marin/

ramusioappendix1.html?200810 Rand McNally, 1980. Cosmopolitan World Atlas. Rand McNally &Company, Chicago/New

Yorkp.136-152 Renfrew C 1987. Archaeology & Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European Origins 1998London,

Pimlico, pp. 95, 132, 183, 266. ISBN 9-7126-6612-5 Rootsi S, Magri C, Kivisild T, Benuzzi G, et al 2004.Phylogeography of Y-Chromosome

Haplogroup I Reveals Distinct Domains of Prehistoric Gene Flow in Europe, Am. J. Hum.Genet. 75: 128-137 Rosser ZH, Zerjal T, Hurles ME, Adojaan M, et al 2000. Chromosomal Diversity in

Europeis Clinal and Influenced Primarily by Geography, Rather than by the Language, Am. J.Hum. Genet. 67: 1526-1543 Semino O, Passarino G, Oefner PJ, Lin AA, et al 2000. The Genetic Legacy

of PaleolithicHomo sapiens sapiens in Extant Europeans: A Y Chromosome Perspective, Science 290:1153-1159 Sengupta S, Zhivotovsky LA, King R, Mehdi SQ, et al 2006. Polarity and Temporality ofHigh-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous andExogeneous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists,Am. J. Hum. Genet. 78: 202-221

Skulj J & Sharda JC 2001. Indo-Aryan and Slavic Affinities, in Zbornik prve mednarodne konference: Venetiv etnogenezi srednjeevropskega prebivalstva/Proceedings of the First International Topical Conference:The Veneti within the Ethnogenesis of the Central-European Population, Perdih A & Rant J eds. Ljubljana,Slovenia: Jutro, pp 112-121. ISBN 961-6433-06-7

Skulj J, Sharda JC, Narale R, Sonina S 2006. Lexical Self-dating: An Evidence for Common Sanskrit and SlavOrigin, Vedic Science 8(1): 5-24

Skulj J 2007. Y-Chromosome Frequencies and the Implications on the Theories Relating to the Origin andSettlement of Finno-Ugric, Proto-Hungarian and Slavic Populations, in Zbornikpete mednarodnekonference: Izvor Evropejcev/Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference: Origins of Europeans.Perdih A ed. Ljubljana, Slovenia: Jutro, pp. 27-43. ISBN 961-6433-83-9

Skulj J, Sharda JC, Sonina S, Narale R 2007. 100,000 Year Old Indus Valley Ancestor, Vedic Science 9(4): 121-145

Snoj M 1997. Slovenski etimološki slovar, Ljubljana, Mladinska knjiga. ISBN 86-11-14772-3Sotiroff G 1971. Phoenicians, Vencyans, Heneti, Veneti and Wendi, Anthropol. J. Canada 9(4): 5-10Šavli J, Bor M, Toma•iè I, trans. Škerbinc A, 1996. Veneti: First Builders of European Community, Wien

Austria and Boswell B.C. Canada, Editiones Veneti, p. 74 (ISBN 0-9681236-0-0)

76


The Economist June 16th 2007 pp. 29-30, Briefing Europe’s populationThe Economist September 22nd 2007 p. 57, 150,000 Years Ago, Humans Started Talking and Language Has

Been Changing ever sinceTyler-Smith C 2005.1.5 m Chinese ‘descendants of one man’, BBCNews Tuesday, 1 November, http://

news.bbc.co.Uk/l/hi/world/asia-pacific/4396246.stmU.S. Census Bureau 2007. Historical Estimates of World Population, http://www.census.gov/ ipc/www/

worldhis.htmlWells S 2003. The journey of man: a genetic odyssey, 2nd ed. New York, Random House Trade Paperback

Edition, p. 84,167. ISBN 0-9129-7146-9Zerjal T, Pandya A, Santos FR, Adhikari R, et al. 1999. The use of Y-chromosomal DNA variation to investigate

population history: recent male spread in Asia and Europe, in Genomic diversity: applications in humanpopulation genetics. Papiha SS, Deka R, Chakraborty R, eds. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 91-102

Zerjal T, Wells RS, Yuldasheva N, Ruzibakiev R, Tyler-Smith C 2002. A Genetic Landscape Reshaped byRecent Events: Y-Chromosomal Insights into Central Asia, Am. J. Hum. Genet. 71: 466-482

Zhivotovsky LA, Underhill PA, Cinnioglu C, Kayser M, et al 2004. The Effective Mutation Rate at YChromosome Short Tandem Repeats, with Application to Human Population-Divergence Time, Am. J.Hum. Genet. 74: 50-61

The Y Chromosome Consortium 2002. A Nomenclature System for the Tree of Human Y-Chromosomal BinaryHaplogroups, Genome Research 12: 339-348

Dictionaries and Textbooks consultedAvasthi S, Avasthi I, Chambers English Hindi Dictionary, Allied Publishers, New Delhi

1995. Bajec A, Kolariè R, Legiša L, Moder J, Rupel M, Sovre A, Šmalc M, Šolar J, Tomšiè F, Slovenskipravopis, Dr•avna Zalo•ba Slovenije, Ljubljana, 1962.

Betteridge HT, Cassell’s German & English Dictionary, Cassell & Company, London, 1966. Chaturvedi M,Tiwari BN, A Practical Hindi-English Dictionary, National Publishing House,

New Delhi 1994. ISBN 81-214-0450-9

Grad A, Škerlj R, Vitoroviè N, Veliki angleško-slovenski slovar=English-Slovene Dictionary,DZS, Ljubljana, 1998. ISBN 86-341-0824-4

Komac D, Angleško-Slovenski in Slovensko-Angleški Moderni Slovar: English-Slovene and Slovene-English Modern Dictionary, Cankarjeva Zalo•ba, Ljubljana, 2004. ISBN 961-231-041-6 Little

W, Fowler HW, Coulson J, Onions CT, Oxford International Dictionary of the EnglishLanguage, Leland Publishing Company, Toronto, 1957. Monier-Williams M, A Sanskrit-English

Dictionary, Motilal Banarsidass, Delhi, 2005. ISBN81-208-0069-9 Narale R, Hindi Teacher for English Speaking People, Prabhat Prakashan, New Delhi,

2005.ISBN 81-7315-536-4 Narale R, Sanskrit for English Speaking People, Prabhat Prakashan, New Delhi,

2004. ISBN81-7315-481-3 O’Brian MA, New Russian-English and English Russian Dictionary, Dover

Publications, NewYork, 1954. ISBN 0-486-20208-0

Pleteršnik M, Slovensko nemški slovar, Knezoskofijstvo, Ljubljana, 1894. Snoj M, Slovenski etimološkislovar, Mladinska Knjiga, Ljubljana, 1997. ISBN 86-11-14772-3 Stein J, Hauck LC, Su PY, The Random HouseCollege Dictionary, Random House, Toronto,

New York, 1980. ISBN 0-394-43500-1 Williams M, A Dictionary English & Sanskrit, MotilalBanarsidass, Delhi, 1982. ISBN 0-

89581-169-3

77


APPENDIX

LINGUISTIC COMPARISONS

Transliteration and Pronunciation

Slovenian: Pronunciation: c is pronuciated as TS; è as CH; j as Y; š as SH; • as ZH.

Russian: Transliteration of Cyrillic alphabet follows Slovenian orthography. Apostropheat the end of a word marks a palatalized consonant. The letter <y> represents central [i]sound, [+] in the IPA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_central_unrounded_vowel).

Sanskrit: Transliteration of Devanagari follows primarily A Sanskrit-EnglishDictionary” compiled by Sir Monier Monier-Williams and Sanskrit for EnglishSpeaking People by Acharya Ratnakar, where English is used as the base but: æ ispronounced as CH; œ as SH sometimes as S; dot under a letter denotes a cerebral letter.

Hindi: Transliteration follows the Sanskrit, m. means masculine; f. feminine; n.neuter; f.pl. feminine plural; v. verb

A) ELEMENTAL

Four elementsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindiair in motion veter m. veter m. vata vât, vâyu f.fire ogon’ m. ogenj m. agni, vahni agniground, earth zemlja f. prst f., zemlja f., tla f. pithvî f., tala prthvî, sthalwater voda f. voda f. udan. pânîAstronomyand seasons

English Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindibright (be) svet (brightness) svetiti, svitati se svit (svetate) suspash karnâday den’ dan m. dina n. dindarkness t’ma tem a f. tam a tam asdawn svetat’ (to dawn) svit m. svetanâ ushâ kâllight, brightness svet, luè (ray) luè f., svit rucf. rashmî (ray)month mesjac m. mesec m. mâsam. orn. mukh

78


moon mesjac m. mesec m. mâs m. mâsanight noc noc f., tema f. nisâ f., tamâ f. tamsky nebo n. nebo n. nabha nabhaspring vesna vesna vasanta vasântsun solnce n. sonce n., solnce n. surya suryawinter, cold zima f. zima f. him a sît kâl

Weather and geography

English Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindi

cloud oblako n. megla f, oblak m. megha meghdew, moisture rosa f. rosa f. rasa rasadryness suš suša f. úushikâ f. sûkhapanheat (to) topit’ topiti tap (tapati) tapânâheat teplo(ta) n. toplota f. tâpa tâpalake ozero jezero,jezer sara n. sarovarmountain gora f. gora f. giri m. giriopen space lug (meadow) loka (meadow) loka ãarâgahrain (to) (idjot) do•d’ padati pat (pâtayati) varsha padanâriver reka drava (name of river) dravantî dariyasprinkle (to) pryskat’ pršiti pish (parshate) chhirikanâvapour dym m. dim m. dhûma vâshpwarm teplo topel m. topla f. tapta taptwet, moist vlaga f. voden voda, ârdra gîla

Primary actionsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindi

ask (to), beg prosit’ prašati, prositi prach (piææhati) puchhnâabide(to) live, exist byt, byvat’ bivati, biti bhû (bhavati) honâbake (to) peè’ peèi paæ (paæyate) pakânâbe (imperative) bud’ bodi < biti bodhi <bhû hobeing, existence bytije bitje n. bhûti f. hastîcome forth (to) prijti priti pre (praiti) âgeânâcopulate, have sex jebat’ (vulgar) jebati (vulgar) yabh (yabhati) sambhog

karnâcopulation jeblja( vulgar) jebanje(vulgar) yabhana n. maithundelight (to) bytprijatnym prijati prî (priyate) priya honâgladdendesire (to) long for ljubit’ ljubiti lubh (lubhati) lobh honâdevour(to) po•yrat’ basati se, •reti bhas (babhasati) harapanâconsume

79


die (to) umirat’ mreti mi (mriyate), maranâ(marati)

drink (to) pit’ piti pî (pîyate), pâ pînâ(pibati)

drink (causing to) pojit’ pojitiv.,pojenjen. pâyana n. pîlânâdry(to) sušit’ sušiti œush (œushyati) sûkhanâeat (to) jest’, pojedat’ jesti, jedati ad (atsyati, âdayati) khanâexcrete (to) srat’ (vulgar) srati si (sâryate) utsarjit karnâfall (to) padat’ padati pad (padyate) patan honâfear, be afraid bojat’sja f. bati se (bojim se) bhî (bhayate) bhaya honâ

English Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindifearful, timid bojazlivji bojazen, bojazljiv bhijasâna bhîrufree (to set), release rešit’ rešiti rî (reshyati) chhodanâgive (to) dat’ dati, dajati dâ (dadâti, dâti), dây den â

(dâyati)go (to) idti iti i(eti) jânâkill, hurt (to) kolot’ (kill klati krath, klath mârânâ

animals) (klathati)know (to) znat’, vedat’ znati, vedeti jñâ (jânâti), vid jânnâ

(vetti)knowledge znanije znanje n., veda f. jñâna, veda gyânlead away (to) otvest’ odvesti udvah (udvahati) lejânâlive (to) •it’ •iveti jîv (jîvati) jînâmurder (to) morit’ (archaic) moriti mi (mâryati) mârnânibble (to), gnaw kusat’ (bite) (po)kušati kush (kushati) kutarnâopen mouth (to) zevat’ (yawn) zijati, zehati (yawn) jeh (jehate) jâbha:nâpleased, fond of rad (a) rad, rada adj. rata adj. ratpleasure, delight radost’ f. radost f. rati f. rati f.remove (to), ubrat’ odvzeti, odvezati udvas (udvasayati) vichchhinseparate honâsetting free otvjaz (yvanije) odveza f. udvâsa m.report (to) obvinit’ (accuse) ovaditi âvid (âvidati) âvedan karnârevolve (to), turn vertet’ vrteti vit (vartate) vartan karnârun (to), hasten be•at’ drveti dru (dravati) druti karnâscream (to) krièat’ rjuti, krièati ru (rauti) ronâsee (to) videt’ opaziti,paziti paœ (paœyati) dekanâsit upon (to) sidet’ sedeti sad (sadati, sîdati) baithnâshine (to), glitter bljestet’ blesteti, blešèati bhlâú (bhlâúati) âbhâs honâsleep (to) spat’ spati svap (svapiti) sonâspeak (to) govorit’ govoriti, praviti bru (bravîti) prakad karnâstand (to) stojat’ stati sthâ (tishhati) sthan lenastand firm (to) stojat’ trvjordo stalen (biti) sthal (sthalati)state, condition sostojanije stanje n. sthâna n.stop at a place (to) vstat’ vasovati vas (vasati) vasnâswim (to) plavat’ plavati plu (plavate) tairnâthirsty (to be) •a•dat’ •ejati jeh (jehati) pyâsâ honâ

80


understand (to) uvidet’ (to see) uvideti vid (vedati), ave jananâ(avaiti)

violate (to), rob grabit’ ropati rup (rupyati) lup chhînanâ(lumpati)

wake (to) budit’ buditi budh (budhyate) jâgnâwaken (to) probudit’ prebuditi prabudh jagânâ

(prabodhayati)ward off (to), hide vorovat’ varovati, varati vi (varati) âvaran karnâyell (to) krièat’ krièati kruœ (kroœati) chînkhanâ

Life and life sustaining substancesEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindialive •ivoj, -a, -o (m., f. n.) •iv, -a, -o (m., f., n.) jîva m., n. jivâ f. jivâ m.animal •ivotnoje n. •ival f. jîvî m. jîvî m.cover, membrane : ko•a (skin) ko•a f.(skin, hide) koœa m. koshadwelling ves (little village) vas f.(village) vasa m. âvâsfood pišèaf., jedaf. •ive•m.,jedf.,pièaf. jîvatu (m., n.), adana, jivan

pitu m.honey mjod medm. madhu n. madhuhome dom dom dam, dama dhâmliving being •ivyje •ivina (f.pl.) (cattle) jîvin jîvîmeat mjaso n. meso n. mâs n. = mans mânsraft plot splav m. plava latthaseat sidenje sede• m. sadas n. âsanskin, hide sdirat’ (to skin, to dreti (to skin, to flay) ditim.,krittif.

flay)tree derevo n. drevo n. dru, taru m. taruwood drova n.pl. drva f.pl. dam driksh

Wild Animals and Prey

English Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindibear medved’ medved m. madhvad (honeyeater) bhâlû

bird ptica, ptaha ptiè m. ptica f. patat m. pakshideer, wild beast zver’ m. mrha?, mrhaè (bear) miga mrigflock staja (of birds) jata yûtha yûthhunter ohotnik ujeda (bird of prey) vyâdha vyâdhlouse voš’ ušf. yûkâ yûkâmouse myš’ miš, miška f. mûsh m. f., mûshika mûshakotter vydra f. vidra f. udra jalamarjarawolf volkm. volk m. vika bheiâ

81


B) PASTORALEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindibeef govjadina f. goveje meso gomânsa n. gomânscattle skot m. govo, govedo n. gâva gâyencow korova f. krava f. go, gaus, gava gâu, gâya.grass trava f. trava f. tria n. triherd stado n. paša f. pâúava n. pashuherdsman pastuh pastir, pašnikar m. gopa, paúupâla pashupâlaklamb jagnjonokm. bac m., jagnje n. vatsa bachchaamaster, owner gospodin, gospod, gospodar pati, gopati pati, gopatimilk (thickened) syr (cheese) sir m. (cheese) kshîra n. kshirmutton baranina f. ovèje meso n. avimânsa n. goœtapasture pastbišèe n. pašnik m. paœavya n. pashucharram baran m. oven m. avi meshsheep ovca f. ovca f. avikâ bheshepherd ovèar m. ovnar, ovèar m. avipâla charavâhâwool šerst’ f. / runo n. volna f., runo n. urâ ûnyoke jarmo n. / igo n. igo n., jug m., jarem m. yuga yoktra

C) FARMINGFarmerEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindifarmer krestjanin m. kmet m. krishaka, kshetrî krishakaplough man pakhar’m. oraè, oratar, oravec krishaka, sairika halvâhâreaper •njec m. •anjec m, •anjica f. lavaka, æhedaka lavanâsower sejatel’ m. sejaè, sejavec m. vaptâ m., vijavaptâ bîj bonevâlâwinnower vejatel’ m. vejaè, vejavec m. pâvaka pâvak m.thresher molotil ’šèik m. mlatiè m. mardana m. mardan m.

FieldEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindifield pole n. niva f. polje n., njiva f. kshetra n., bhûmi f. khadfield (ploughed) pašnja f. zorana zemlja f. sîtyakshetra n.furrow borozda, pašnja f. brazda f. sîtâ f. harâîgarden sadm. vrt m. udyana, upavana n. udyânmanure, dung navoz m. gnoj m., sranje n. gomaya, sâra gobar

InstrumentsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindiplough(wooden) soha f. drevo n. hala n., sîra, gokîla halplough (metal) plug m. plug m, oralo n. larigala n. lângalaflail cep’ m. cep/cepec m. kandani f., musala mûsalharrow borona f. brana f. koiœa hengâ m.hoe motyga f. motika f. khanitra, khâtra n. khanitramill mel’nica f. mlin m. peshaa, æatra n. chak-kiscythe kosa f. kosa f. khadgika, lavitra n. hansiyâsickle serp m. srp m. lavitra n. dâtra n. dâtrîthreshing-floor gumno n. gumno n. khala m. khaliyân m.

82


Products for humans

English Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindi

bread hleb m. kruh m.(hleb-loaf) pûpa, abhyusha rotî

flour braðno n. muka f. moka f. (braðnofood) úaktu, godhûmacûrna âttâ

sheaf snop m. snop m. stamba m. gattha pulindâ

Food for animalsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindiforage korm m. krma f. gavâdana n. chârâgrass trava f. trava f. trina n. ghâshay seno n. seno n. œushkatria n. chârâ

Agricultural activity verbs and gerundsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindifurrow (to) borozdit’, pahat’ brazditi sîtam kri, hal (halati) hal chalânâharrow (to) boronit’ branati koikshetrena bhûmim kri chalânâharrowing - branitva, branitev f. krashanam hengâ chalanâhoe (to) moty•it’, ryhlit’ okopati, rahljati khanitrea khan khodanâ

(khanati)mill (to) molot’ mleti cûr (cûrayati) pîsnâmilling pomol m. mletva, mletev f. cûratva n. pîsnâplough (to) pahat’ orati halena krish (karshati) hal chalânâploughing pašnja f. oratva, oratev f. halanam hal chalânâreap (to) •at’ •eti lû (lunâti) kâtnâreaping, harvest •atva •etva, •etev f. lavanam lavanâseed (to) seyat dati seme, posejati vîjam dâ bîjanâsow (to) seyat, zasevat’ sejati vap (vapati), vapanam bonâ

krisowing posevm., sejanje n. setevf., sejanje n. vapanam bonâthresh (to) molotit’ mlatiti dhânyâdi mrid pitnathreshing molot’ba f. mlatitva, mlatitev f. mardanam pitnawinnow (to) vejat’ vejati œudh (œodhayati) osâvâwinnowing vejanie n. vejanje n. vejatev f. prasphoanam osânâ

Cultivated plantsEnglish Russian Slovenian Sanskrit Hindicereals, grain •ito n. •ito n. dhânya n., sîtya n. dhânyubarley jaèmen’ m. jeèmen m. yava, yavaka javf.beet svjokla f. pesa pâlanga hukandarcabbage kapusta f. zelje n., kapus m. úâkaprabheda, úâka bandgobhîcarrot morkov’ f. koren m. garjara gâjarcucumber ogurec m. kumara f. karkaî khîrâflax ljon m. lan m. atasî, umâ, mâlikâ sanhemp konoplja f. konoplja f. œaa n., bhariga pauâ

83


millet proso n. proso n. au, priyarigu bâjrî, juâr f.nut oreh m. oreh m. dridhaphalam dhibrîoats ovjos m. oves m. osangnaka jaîf.onion lukm. luk m., èebula f. palandu, nîãabhojya pyâjpea goroh m. grah m. kalâya, hareu maarrowen otava f. otava f. X

rye ro•’ f., •ito n. r•f. X

spelt polba f. pira f. X

swede brjukva f. repa f. X

turnip repa f. repa f. griññana shalgamwheat pšenica f. pšenica f. godhûma gehûn

PRESS & REGISTRATION OF BOOKS ACTREGISTRATION OF NEWSPAPERS (Central) Rules, 1965 Form IV (Sec Rule8)

Statement about ownership and other particularsabout journal VIVEKANANDA KENDRA PATRIKA

1. Place : Chennai2. Periodicity of its Publications : Half-Yearly3. Printer’s Name : L.Madhavan Nationality : Indian Address : 5, Singarachari Street, Triplicane,

Chennai 600005.4.Publisher’s Name : L.Madhavan Nationality : Indian Address : 5, Singarachari Street,Triplicane, Chennai 600005.5.Editor’s Name : P.Parameswaran Nationality : Indian Address : Vivekananda Rock Memorial and

Vivekananda Kendra5, Singarachari Street.Triplicane,Chennai -600005.

Name and Address of Individuals : Vivekananda Rock Memorial andVivekananda Kendra5, Singarachari Street,Triplicane, Chennai 600005.

I, L.Madhavan, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of my knowledge andbelief.

Date : 28.02.2011 (Sd.) L.Madhavan Signature of the Publishers

84


A researcher analyzing the soundsin languages spoken around theworld has detected an ancient

signal that points to southern Africa as theplace where modern human languageoriginated.

The finding fits well with the evidence fromfossil skulls and DNA that modern humansoriginated in Africa. It also implies, thoughdoes not prove, that modern languageoriginated only once, an issue ofconsiderable controversy among linguists.The detection of such an ancient signal inlanguage is surprising. Because wordschange so rapidly, many linguists think thatlanguages cannot be traced very far backin time. The oldest language tree so farreconstructed, that of the Indo-Europeanfamily, which includes English, goes back9,000 years at most.

Quentin D. Atkinson, a biologist at theUniversity of Auckland in New Zealand, hasshattered this time barrier, if his claim iscorrect, by looking not at words but at

Phonetic Clues Hint Language Is Africa-Born NICHOLAS WADE

[This news feature shows how our knowledge of linguistic evolution is undergoing aparadigm shift and in the light of these new understanding AIT-AMT models need tobe abandoned and a new model needs to be considered as an approximation to

what happened in the deep time of human evolution.]

phonemes — the consonants, vowels andtones that are the simplest elements oflanguage. Dr. Atkinson, an expert atapplying mathematical methods tolinguistics, has found a simple but strikingpattern in some 500 languages spokenthroughout the world: A language area usesfewer phonemes the farther that earlyhumans had to travel from Africa to reachit.

Some of the click-using languages ofAfrica have more than 100 phonemes,whereas Hawaiian, toward the far end ofthe human migration route out of Africa,has only 13. English has about 45phonemes.

This pattern of decreasing diversity withdistance, similar to the well-establisheddecrease in genetic diversity with distancefrom Africa, implies that the origin ofmodern human language is in the region ofsouthwestern Africa, Dr. Atkinson says inan article published on Thursday in thejournal Science.

85


Language is at least 50,000 years old, thedate that modern humans dispersed fromAfrica, and some experts say it is at least100,000 years old. Dr. Atkinson, if hiswork is correct, is picking up a distant echofrom this far back in time.

“We’re uneasy about mathematicalmodeling that we don’t understandjuxtaposed to philological modeling thatwe do understand,” Brian D. Joseph, alinguist at Ohio State University, said aboutthe Indo-European tree. But he thinks thatlinguists may be more willing to accept Dr.Atkinson’s new article because it does notconflict with any established area oflinguistic scholarship.

“I think we ought to take this seriously,although there are some who will dismissit out of hand,” Dr. Joseph said.

Another linguist, Donald A. Ringe of theUniversity of Pennsylvania, said, “It’s tooearly to tell if Atkinson’s idea is correct,but if so, it’s one of the most interestingarticles in historical linguistics that I’veseen in a decade.”

Dr. Atkinson’s finding fits with otherevidence about the origins of language. TheBushmen of the Kalahari Desert belong to

one of the earliest branches of the genetictree based on human mitochondrial DNA.Their languages belong to a family knownas Khoisan and include many click sounds,which seem to be a very ancient feature oflanguage. And they live in southern Africa,which Dr. Atkinson’s calculations point toas the origin of language. But whetherKhoisan is closest to some ancestral formof language “is not something my methodcan speak to,” Dr. Atkinson said.

His study was prompted by a recent findingthat the number of phonemes in a languageincreases with the number of people whospeak it. This gave him the idea thatphoneme diversity would increase as apopulation grew, but would fall again whena small group split off and migrated awayfrom the parent group.

Such a continual budding process, whichis the way the first modern humansexpanded around the world, is known toproduce what biologists call a serialfounder effect. Each time a smaller groupmoves away, there is a reduction in itsgenetic diversity. The reduction inphonemic diversity over increasingdistances from Africa, as seen by Dr.Atkinson, parallels the reduction in geneticdiversity already recorded by biologists.

86


For either kind of reduction in diversity tooccur, the population budding processmust be rapid, or diversity will build upagain. This implies that the humanexpansion out of Africa was very rapid ateach stage. The acquisition of modernlanguage, or the technology it madepossible, may have prompted theexpansion, Dr. Atkinson said.

“What’s so remarkable about this work isthat it shows language doesn’t change allthat fast — it retains a signal of its ancestryover tens of thousands of years,” said MarkPagel, a biologist at the University ofReading in England who advised Dr.Atkinson.

Dr. Pagel sees language as central to humanexpansion across the globe.

“Language was our secret weapon, and assoon we got language we became a reallydangerous species,” he said.

In the wake of modern human expansion,archaic human species like theNeanderthals were wiped out and largespecies of game, fossil evidence shows,fell into extinction on every continentshortly after the arrival of modern humans.[Newyork Times: April 14 2011]

87


Abstract

Many major rival models of theorigin of the Hindu castesystem co-exist despite

extensive studies, each with associatedgenetic evidences. One of the majorfactors that has still kept the origin of theIndian caste system obscure is theunresolved question of the origin of Y-haplogroup R1a1*, at times associatedwith a male-mediated major genetic influxfrom Central Asia or Eurasia, which hascontributed to the higher castes in India.Y-haplogroup R1a1* has a widespreaddistribution and high frequency acrossEurasia, Central Asia and the Indiansubcontinent, with scanty reports of itsancestral (R*, R1* and R1a*) and derivedlineages (R1a1a, R1a1b and R1a1c). To

Some Modern Genetic Studies on the AryanInvasion Issues (2009-2011)

Journal of Human Genetics 54, 47-55 (January 2009)

The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1* substantiates the autochthonous originof Brahmins and the caste systemOrigin of paternal haplogroup R1a1*

Authors:Swarkar Sharma, Ekta Rai, Prithviraj Sharma, Mamata Jena, Shweta Singh, KatayoonDarvishi, Audesh K Bhat, A J S Bhanwer, Pramod Kumar Tiwari and Rameshwar N K

Bamezai

resolve these issues, we screened 621 Y-chromosomes (of Brahmins occupying theupper-most caste position and schedulecastes/tribals occupying the lower-mostpositions) with 55 Y-chromosomal binarymarkers and seven Y-microsatellitemarkers and compiled an extensive datasetof 2809 Y-chromosomes (681 Brahmins,and 2128 tribals and schedule castes) forconclusions. A peculiar observation of thehighest frequency (up to 72.22%) of Y-haplogroup R1a1* in Brahmins hinted atits presence as a founder lineage for thiscaste group. Further, observation of R1a1*in different tribal population groups,existence of Y-haplogroup R1a* inancestors and extended phylogeneticanalyses of the pooled dataset of 530Indians, 224 Pakistanis and 276 CentralAsians and Eurasians bearing the R1a1*

88


haplogroup supported the autochthonousorigin of R1a1 lineage in India and a triballink to Indian Brahmins. However, it isimportant to discover novel Y-

chromosomal binary marker(s) for a higherresolution of R1a1* and confirm thepresent conclusions.

89


Human Y-chromosome haplogroupstructure is largelycircumscribed by continental

boundaries. One notable exception to thisgeneral pattern is the young haplogroupR1a that exhibits post-Glacial coalescenttimes and relates the paternal ancestry ofmore than 10% of men in a wide geographicarea extending from South Asia to CentralEast Europe and South Siberia. Its originand dispersal patterns are poorlyunderstood as no marker has yet beendescribed that would distinguish EuropeanR1a chromosomes from Asian. Here wepresent frequency and haplotype diversityestimates for more than 2000 R1a

European Journal of Human Genetics (2010)18, 479–484

Separating the post-Glacial coancestry of European and Asian Y chromosomes withinhaplogroup R1a

AuthorsPeter A Underhill, Natalie M Myres, Siiri Rootsi, Mait Metspalu, Lev A Zhivotovsky, Roy J King,Alice A Lin, Cheryl-Emiliane T Chow, Ornella Semino, Vincenza Battaglia, Ildus Kutuev, MariJärve, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Qasim Ayub, Aisha Mohyuddin, S Qasim Mehdi, SanghamitraSengupta, Evgeny I Rogaev, Elza K Khusnutdinova, Andrey Pshenichnov, Oleg Balanovsky,Elena Balanovska, Nina Jeran, Dubravka Havas Augustin, Marian Baldovic, Rene J Herrera,Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Vijay Singh, Lalji Singh, Partha Majumder, Pavao Rudan, DraganPrimorac, Richard Villems and Toomas Kivisild

chromosomes assessed for several newlydiscovered SNP markers that introduce theonset of informative R1a subdivisions bygeography. Marker M434 has a lowfrequency and a late origin in West Asiabearing witness to recent gene flow overthe Arabian Sea. Conversely, marker M458has a significant frequency in Europe,exceeding 30% in its core area in EasternEurope and comprising up to 70% of allM17 chromosomes present there. Thediversity and frequency profiles of M458suggest its origin during the earlyHolocene and a subsequent expansionlikely related to a number of prehistoriccultural developments in the region. Its

90


primary frequency and diversitydistribution correlates well with some ofthe major Central and East European riverbasins where settled farming wasestablished before its spread furthereastward. Importantly, the virtualabsence of M458 chromosomes outsideEurope speaks against substantialpatrilineal gene flow from East Europeto Asia, including to India, at least sincethe mid-Holocene.

91


Abstract:

South Asia harbors one of the highestlevels genetic diversity in Eurasia,which could be interpreted as a

result of its long-term large effectivepopulation size and of admixture during itscomplex demographic history. In contrastto Pakistani populations, populations ofIndian origin have been underrepresentedin previous genomic scans of positiveselection and population structure. Herewe report data for more than 600,000 SNPmarkers genotyped in 142 samples from30 ethnic groups in India. Combining ourresults with other available genome-widedata, we show that Indian populations arecharacterized by two major ancestrycomponents, one of which is spread atcomparable frequency and haplotypediversity in populations of South and WestAsia and the Caucasus. The secondcomponent is more restricted to South

The American Journal of Human Genetics,Volume 89, Issue 6, 731-744, 9 December 2011

Shared and Unique Components of Human Population Structure and Genome-WideSignals of Positive Selection in South Asia

Authors

Mait Metspalu, Irene Gallego Romero, Bayazit Yunusbayev, Gyaneshwer Chaubey, ChandanaBasu Mallick, Georgi Hudjashov, Mari Nelis, Reedik Mägi, Ene Metspalu2, Maido Remm,Ramasamy Pitchappan, Lalji Singh, Kumarasamy Thangaraj, Richard Villems and Toomas Kivisild

Asia and accounts for more than 50% ofthe ancestry in Indian populations.Haplotype diversity associated with theseSouth Asian ancestry components issignificantly higher than that of thecomponents dominating the West Eurasianancestry palette. Modeling of theobserved haplotype diversities suggeststhat both Indian ancestry componentsare older than the purported Indo-Aryaninvasion 3,500 YBP. Consistent with theresults of pairwise genetic distancesamong world regions, Indians share moreancestry signals with West than with EastEurasians. However, compared to Pakistanipopulations, a higher proportion of theirgenes show regionally specific signals ofhigh haplotype homozygosity. Among suchcandidates of positive selection in India areMSTN and DOK5, both of which havepotential implications in lipid metabolismand the etiology of type 2 diabetes.

92


What is actually at stake in the Aryan Invasion Theory? Why do certain powerfulforces, both academic and political, want to perpetuate the myth of Aryan invasiontheory and Aryan race theory? There are larger issues at stake and we have threeexperts bringing out the hidden vested interests that operate behind the Aryanrace theories.

Dr. Koenraad Elst, an eminent Belgian Indologist, graduated in Philosophy,Chinese Studies and Indo-Iranian Studies at the Catholic University of Leuven.His research on the ideological development of Hindu revivalism earned himhis Ph.D. in Leuven in 1998. He has also published about multiculturalism,language policy issues, ancient Chinese history and philosophy, comparativereligion, and the Aryan invasion debate. He shows in the essay ‘The Politics ofthe Aryan Invasion Debate’ the ideological stands of various socio-political forcesin India and abroad vis-à-vis the Aryan race theory.

Subash Kak is Donald C. and Elaine T. Delaune Distinguished Professor ofElectrical and Computer Engineering and from 2007 the head of the ComputerScience department at Oklahoma State University. He is most notable for hissignificant Indological publications on history, the philosophy of science, ancientastronomy, and the history of mathematics. In this essay he argues quotingextensively the distinguished British anthropologist, Edmund Leach, that Aryanrace theory is kept living because of the Euro-centric bias, that is still persistentin humanities.

Prof. Dilip Kumar Chakrabarti is a noted Indian archaeologist and professor ofSouth Asian archaeology at Cambridge University. He is known for his studieson the early use of Iron in India and the archaeology of Eastern India. In this

PART III

93


lecture titled ‘Who Owns India’s Past’, which he delivered at the IndiaInternational Centre, Delhi, on 21 July, 2009, Prof. Chakrabarti shows how Indianarcheology is at the peril of losing its academic freedom. This lecture is includedhere because given the fact that Indian archeology has successfully demolishedsome of the corner stones of Aryan invasion theory, if it loses freedom, may be athrow-back to colonial days – a few centuries back.

The next paper presents the view of an academic who teaches history. Herperspective on Aryan debate presents the problem from the point of view of aperson who teaches history: what the history teaching establishment generallyneglects with respect to the the Aryan invasion debate. The author Dr. PadmaManian did her Ph.D. in History from Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. She taught‘World History’ for five years at the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse. Shenow teaches U.S. History and Women’s History at San Jose City College,California. The article published here is courtesy: ‘The History Teacher’, Vol.32, No. 1, Nov., 1998

The last article in this section, shows how Aryan race theory was used as anevangelical weapon and how this game has been played in almost all colonizedcountries by colonial powers resulting in genocides and civil wars.

94


Anumber of participants in theAryan invasion debate as relayedin the fall/winter 2002 issue of

the Journal for Indo-European Studies havealluded to the role of politicalpredilections in influencing and distortingthe argument. In particular, Aryan invasionskepticism, presented there by Prof.Nikolas Kazanas, is painted by some of itscritics as essentially a political ploy byHindu nationalist (or “Hindutva”) forces.In India, apolitical scholars known to havecrossed over to this position, most notablyarchaeologist B.B. Lal, have been accusedof political motives for doing so.Questioning the Aryan Invasion Theory(AIT) is now widely presented as a part ofthe alleged hinduization or “saffronization”of history by the BJP-led government inIndia.

This much is true, that in its tentative andclumsy manner, the BJP (Indian People’sParty) and the nationalist movement behindit, the RSS (National Volunteer Corps),have been trying to effect glasnost in the

The Politics of the Aryan Invasion Debate– Koenraad Elst

Marxist-dominated history establishment.Through the media, the West has vaguelyheard an echo of the commotion about thisdevelopment among Indian Marxisthistorians trying to hold on to their powerpositions. The focus has mostly been ondeplorable gaffes like the plannedintroduction of astrology as an academicsubject and the attempt to weed outreference to cow-slaughter in the Vedicage, not on the serious and perfectly validreasons for the attempted reform, esp. theentrenched distortions of history imposedby the Marxists. It is a pity that the BJPdoesn’t have the resources and thecompetent people to achieve a proper andsatisfactory overhaul of the textbooks (theMarxists having blocked Hindu-mindedyoung historians from access to academiccareers for decades), so that its reformshave been less than adequate and in a fewcases downright laughable. Fortunately,however, AIT skepticism is a trend far olderand wider than the recent politics of“saffronization”, and should be dealt withon its own terms.

95


European political uses of the Aryaninvasion theory:

Anyone familiar with the uncertaintiesinherent in historical research will beamazed to notice the immense self-assuredness with which most spokesmenfor either side in the Aryan invasion debateare making their case. In reality, a lot inthis question of ancient history isundecided: the Harappan script remainsundeciphered and the archaeologicalfindings (e.g. Lal 2002) are open tointerpretation. Analysis of the historicaldata in the Rg-Veda fails to find any traceof an Aryan invasion (pace Witzel1995:321, as shown by Elst 1999:164-166, Talageri 2000:425-476), though alongwith the Puranas it alludes to episodes ofAryan emigration (Renu 1994:26-33,Talageri 1993:359-370, 2000:140, 256-265), but these textual findings cannot bedeemed conclusive. Even if they areaccepted as solid historical data, scenariosof immigration at an earlier date thanhitherto assumed remain compatible withthem. So the claim by linguists that thegenealogy of the Indo-European languagefamily is best explained by an (as yet notfirmly dated) invasion scenario should notbe dismissed lightly. We are faced herewith an open and undecided question, a fit

object for intense but open-mindedresearch.

One of the reasons for the absolutistrhetoric bedevilling the Aryan invasiondebate is the enormous investment ofvarious political messages in thecompeting theories. Their political use inIndia will be discussed below; but theWestern scholar may be expected to knowabout their political uses in the West, whichpredate the Hindu nationalist involvementby at least a century. The Out-of-IndiaTheory (OIT) was briefly popular inEurope in the Romantic age as part of theOrientomanic fashion, but the AIT hadmany more political uses. By relating anancient instance of white colonization in adark subcontinent, it confirmed thecolonial worldview.

The AIT specifically justified the presenceof the British among their “Aryan cousins”in India, being merely the second wave ofAryan settlement there. It supported theBritish view of India as merely ageographical region without historicalunity, a legitimate prey for any invadercapable of imposing himself. It providedthe master illustration to the rising racialistworldview:

96


(1) the dynamic whites entered the land ofthe indolent dark natives;

(2) being superior, the whites establishedtheir dominance and imparted theirlanguage to the natives;

(3) being race-conscious, they establishedthe caste system to preserve their racialseparateness;

(4) but being insufficiently fanatical abouttheir race purity, some miscegenation withthe natives took place anyway, making theIndian Aryans darker than their Europeancousins and correspondingly lessintelligent and less dynamic;

(5) hence, for their own benefit they weresusceptible to an uplifting intervention bya new wave of purer Aryan colonizers.

The AIT was consequently a must in all Nazitextbooks on race (e.g. Günther 1932,1934). In this controversy, the AIT camphappens to be Hitler’s camp. I would liketo caution those who expect to trump theindigenist argument by insinuating politicalmotives: you have no chance of winningthat game, for no ugly name, not even“Hindu chauvinism”, can trump “Hitler” inbranding an opponent with guilt by

association and blowing him out of thearena.

Contemporary Euro-nationalists upholdthe pro-invasionist tradition, e.g.Meerbosch 1992, Van den Haute 1993.Certain rightist circles, vaguely known onthe Continent as the Nouvelle Droite,devote particular attention to the Indo-European heritage, invariably claiming aEuropean homeland, e.g. Schuon 1979; deBenoist 1997, 2000; Benoît 2001:13; orVenner 2002:63. This trend has enlisted thecontributions of eminent scholars, and theirpolitical views need not detract from thevalidity of their argumentation, but thepolitical dimension is undeniably andexplicitly present, e.g. AIT supportersVarenne (1967:25) and Haudry (1985,1987, 1997, 2000) are, or were membersof the Scientific Committee of the Frenchnationalist party Front National.Conversely, the French Left has tried todelegitimize any research into the “tainted”topic of Indo-European (“Aryan”!) cultureand origins, leading to the closure of theInstitut d’Etudes Indo-Européennes inLyons. Likewise in the US, the Journal forIndo-European Studies has been underattack for alleged rightist connections.

97


Indian political uses of the Aryaninvasion theory

Western AIT proponents, right-wing orotherwise, may not realize very well whotheir allies in India are, and vice versa. TheIndian uses of the AIT predate any politicaluse (or even the mere articulation) of theOIT. On this topic, the Western scholarswho so unhesitatingly parrot denunciationsof the Indian indigenists by Indianinvasionists, are simply babes in the wood.For their information, a brief overview ofthe several AIT-exploiting movements isgiven here:

(1) Dravidian Separatism. Sponsored bythe British colonial government, amovement of the middle castes in thesouthern Tamil region started attackingBrahmin and North-Indian interests andsymbols, taking the shape of a politicalparty, the Justice Party (later DravidaKazhagam) in 1916. Given the Brahminleadership in the independence movement,Dravidian self-assertion had obvious usesfor the colonial status-quo. To beef upDravidian pride, a claim was made that thewhole of Indian culture, or at least all thegood things in it (including, from ca. 1925onwards, the Harappan cities), belonged tothe aboriginal Dravidians, while the Aryans

had mostly brought destruction andreactionary social mores. Afterindependence, the movement opted for aseparate Dravidian state, a demand whichnever caught on outside Tamil Nadu and wasabandoned even there after the Chineseinvasion of 1962. In the next years themovement got integrated into the politicalsystem and after a split the two successorparties have been alternating with eachother in power at the state level ever since,but with an ever-decreasing fervour forDravidian separateness. The movement’sgreatest success was when, in 1965, itjoined hands with the English-speakingelite in Delhi to thwart the Constitutionalprovision that from that year onwards,Hindi rather than English be the sole linklanguage of India, — surely a fittingthanksgiving for the British patronagewhich had groomed the movement intopolitical viability.

(2) Dalit neo-Ambedkarism. Dalit,“broken” or “oppressed”, is a term appliedto the former Untouchable castes,sparingly by the late-19th-century reformmovement Arya Samaj, and more officiallyby mid-20th-century Dalit leader Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar and by his followersever since. Today, the term has eclipsed theGandhian euphemism Harijan. Ambedkar

98


himself (1917:21) rejected both the AITand its caste-racialist implication thatlower castes sprang from the native racewhile upper castes were the invaders’progeny. Yet, his followers (e.g. Theertha1941, Rajshekar 1987, Biswas 1995),along with his 19th-century precursor, theChristian-educated Jyotirao Phule, tookthe more conformist road of adapting theAIT and staking their political claims in thename of being “aboriginals” deprived oftheir land, culture and social status by the“Aryan invaders”. Among these neo-Ambedkarites, who claim Ambedkar’smantle but have turned against him on manypoints (e.g. favouring conversion toChristianity or Islam, which Ambedkarenergetically rejected in favour of nativereligions, esp. Buddhism), strangeinternational alliances abound, e.g. withIslamic militancy, Evangelicalfundamentalism and cranky AmericanAfrocentrism. Many of V.T. Rajshekar’sbrochures are transcripts of lectures atChristian institutions, and one wonders ifthe latter are aware of the more eccentricparts of his work, e.g. he is the only Indianto merit a mention in an authoritative study(Poliakov 1994) of contemporary anti-Semitism. His anti-Brahminism is alsomoulded after the anti-Semitic model, e.g.just like both capitalist plutocracy and

Bolshevism have been blamed on the Jews,Rajshekar (1993) treats both religiousBrahminism and Brahmin-led IndianMarxism as two hands of a single Brahminconspiracy. Note that his anti-Brahmin pleaopens with a profession of belief in the AIT:“The fair-skinned foreigners, the Aryanbarbarians, who strayed into India, cameinto clash with India’s dark-skinnedindigenous population - the Untouchables”(1993:1). This kind of company ought toworry those who rely on the principle of“guilt by association” in their argumentagainst the AIT skeptics.

(3) Tribal separatism. Whereas the firsttribal revolts of the colonial age (SantalHool, Birsa rebellion) had a distinctly anti-British and anti-missionary thrust,administrators and missionaries tried toredirect tribal frustration and aspiration inan anti-Hindu and anti-Indian sense. Thiscaught on quite well among the moreperipheral, least “aryanized” tribes,particularly in the Northeast. The claim ofbeing primeval Indians displaced from thefertile plains by the Aryan invaders was alogical rallying-point for their new self-consciousness. To a very large extent, this“pre-Aryan” identity was a total noveltytutored by the Christian missions, whomade the tribals their privileged focus of

99


activity and rechristened them as“aboriginals” ( div sî), a pseudo-indigenousterm falsely suggesting that non-tribals hadall along been seen as foreign intruders.Given the frequency with which journalistsand even scholars swallow the invasionistimplication of the term div sî, this coinagedeserves a gold medal as a brilliantlysuccessful one-word disinformationcampaign. Some of the Northeastern tribeshave been converted to Christianity in totoand refuse to give “Indian” as theirnationality during the census, preferringtheir tribal identities as “Naga” or “Mizo”instead, thus confirming Hindu nationalistsuspicions against Christianity. Ironically,it is these Northeastern tribes who have theleast right to be called “aboriginal”, as theirimmigration from the East in the medievalperiod, much later than any Aryan invasion,is well-documented. Even the olderMunda-speaking tribes are widely assumedto originate in Southeast Asia, still thecentre of gravity of their Austro-Asiaticlanguage family; while the Dravidians havevariously been traced to Central Asia, Elamand even Africa. If the Aryans must perforcepass as invaders, they are not the only ones.

(4) Christian mission. The single biggestpromoter of the AIT as the bedrock of newpolitical group identities has undeniably

been the Christian mission, incidentallyalso the biggest operator of eliteeducational institutions in India and a majormedia owner, hence a powerful moulderof public opinion. Christian missionaryauthors in the 19th century such as SirMonier Monier-Williams, Friedrich MaxMüller, Bishop Robert Caldwell and Rev.G.U. Pope laid the intellectual groundworkfor Dravidian, Tribal and Dalit politicalmovements and for a new fragmented self-perception of Hinduism. Quite deliberately,Hindu self-esteem was undermined bybreaking the Hindu pantheon into a set ofnative gods like Shiva and a set of Aryan-invader gods like Indra; by redefiningreform movements like Buddhism andBhakti as “revolts of the natives againstAryan-Brahminical impositions”; and byreinterpreting the Dharma-Sh stras asnothing but an elaborate apartheidlegislation for preserving the race anddominance of the Aryan invader castes.

(5) Indian Islam. In recent years, militantMuslims such as Muslim India monthly’seditor Syed Shahabuddin have tried tointegrate the AIT in their anti-Hindupolemics. The thrust of their argument isthat if Hindus see Muslims as foreigners,they should be told that they themselves,at least the Aryan elite among them, once

100


were foreign intruders. And that notMuslims but Aryan Hindus were the trail-blazers of destructive invasions pillagingand destroying native centres ofcivilization. Further, building on theerroneous but by now widespread beliefthat most Indian Muslims were low-casteHindus who sought equality by convertingto Islam, it is argued that they are largelypart of the native stock, hence more Indianthan Hindu nationalists, who are (equallyerroneously) identified as upper-caste andhence as Aryan invaders.

(6) Indo-Anglian snobbery. Englisheducation and more recently thewesternization of the workplace, ofpopular music and other everydaycircumstances have generated a class ofIndians quite alienated from and ignorantof native culture. More than the English-employed Babus of yore, they delight inmocking and belittling native culture. Intheir hands, the AIT is simply an instrumentto tease Indian “chauvinists” anddeconstruct the very notion of a distinctIndian or Hindu civilization. With thedecline of ideology and the rise of thecommercial outlook in the media, thissupercilious and nihilistic attitude is nowa rising force in the opinion landscape, butit has always been around in non-Marxist

sections of independent India’s anglicisedelite.

(7) Indian Marxism. Among the English-educated elite, a class of Marxistintellectuals has been very active andincreasingly influential since the 1930s.Around the time of independence, theyemphasized the Leninist theory of nationalself-determination, favouring the creationof a Muslim state Pakistan and the furtherpartition of India into separate linguisticstates. Though not actively militating forseparatism later on, they kept on promotingnotions like “Bengali nationhood” andrefused to accept the Indian state, for “Indiawas never the solution”, according toMarxwadi Communist Party politburomember Ashok Mitra (1993). In thatdiscourse, the AIT didn’t figure veryprominently at first because as Marxiststhey focused on present social realitiesrather than the distant “feudal” past. Wellinto the 1980s, as long as they thought interms of socio-economic class, theyrefused to cultivate casteist and ethnicidentities and consequently took only alimited interest in AIT-based identitypolitics. But with the decline of worldCommunism, the Indian comradesincreasingly compromised withidentitarian populism, in some states even

101


with Islamic fundamentalism, in fact withany force deemed hostile to the perceivedruling class, characterized as upper-casteHindu. In the 1990s, when the AIT wasgetting challenged, they became its mostardent and most effective defenders, videe.g. Thapar 1996; Sharma 1995, 1999.While the other above-mentioned anti-Hindu or anti-Indian groups merely assumeand use the AIT, the Indian Marxists haveseriously invested in intellectuallyupholding it.

The common denominator in all these usesof the AIT is that it undermines orcontradicts India’s sense of unity. In Hindunationalist parlance, the AIT is “anti-national”. The reason why the votaries ofHindutva have recently rallied around theposition of AIT skepticism is simply tocounter these anti-national uses of the AIT.

Ideological power equation in India

To grasp the political dimension of theAryan invasion debate, it is necessary toclarify the political power equation in thedominant media and academic institutionsin India. As former Times of India editorGirilal Jain (sacked in 1989 for developingHindutva sympathies) used to say: “Nothingever dies in India.” Movements long dead

in the West are still alive and vigorous inIndia. That is why the last Communist willnot be called Popov or Zhang or Kim, butChatterji or Bose. Numerically, theCommunists’ power base in India wasalways small, but in a few key sectors,including the bottlenecks in theinformation flow to the West, theirpresence was overwhelming and remainsdisproportionate even now.

Around 1970, entryist policies(Communists entering Congress, theministerial offices and the culturalinstitutions) and a very gainful quid pro quowith a besieged Prime Minister IndiraGandhi made Marxism the dominantideology in the Indian state and parastatalinstitutions such as the Indian HistoryCongress and the National Centre forEducational Research and Training. Whileruling parties came and went, theentrenched Marxists defended theirposition and reserved access for their ownkind. The first BJP government at thecentre (1998-99) made no dent in theMarxist academic hegemony, and thesecond one (1999-present) only verypartially. Even then, the Marxists didn’t takekindly to this first fresh breeze of glasnost,hence their campaign against new anti-

102


colonial and allegedly “saffron” accents inthe textbooks.

The Marxists don’t like to be caught in thesearchlight. One of the most respectedMarxist scholars, Romila Thapar, chidesher critics thus: “Those that question theirtheories are dismissed as Marxists!”(1996:17) Well, apart from her relianceon a Marxist conceptual framework in herpublications, she is also confirmed to be arepresentative of the Indian Marxist schoolof historiography in an authoritativeMarxist source, the Dictionary of MarxistThought (Bottomore 1988), under its entry“Hinduism”, along with R.S. Sharma. Forthose still in doubt, Irfan Habib, one of thedeans of the Marxist school, has put hiscards on the table in a book subtitled“Towards a Marxist Perception” (1995).Among the print media, the one most activein the anti-indigenist crusade is theChennai-based fortnightly Frontline, aconsistent defender of the Cuban andNorth-Korean regimes and of the Chineseoccupation of Tibet. After the mockreferendum in Iraq in the autumn of 2002,Frontline displayed its nostalgia for Sovietmock elections by treating SaddamHussein’s 100% approval rate as a genuinedemocratic endorsement. Judging from itsrecord, we may take the Frontline initiative

to prominently feature pro-AITcontributions by Asko Parpola and MichaelWitzel, participants in the present JIESdebate, to be motivated by something elsethan a concern for good scholarship.

To be sure, the Marxist motives of theFrontline editors and of the old historyestablishment have no logical implicationsfor the correctness or otherwise of thepro-invasionist argument. Of course not.But then it is not invasion sceptic Prof.Kazanas who tried to twist this debate tohis advantage by raising the issue ofpolitical motives; that was the doing ofsome of his critics. If they don’t feeltroubled by their de facto alliance withcrackpots like V.T. Rajshekar or with theMarxist school and its record of historydistortion, they have no reason to mobilize(false!) rumours of Hindu nationalistconnections against Prof. Kazanas.

Hindu nationalist approaches to theAryan invasion hypothesis

For all their focusing on the all-purposebogey of Hindu nationalism (or worseisms), it is remarkable that Indian Marxistsand their Western disciples havecompletely failed to study this ideology.During my Ph.D. research on this very

103


topic (vide Elst 2001/1), I found thatpractically all secondary publications in thefield, including some influential ones (e.g.Pandey 1993, McKean 1996, morerecently Hansen 1999), dispensed almostcompletely with the reading of primarysources. Typically, a few embarrassingquotations, selected by Indian critics ofHindutva from some old pamphlets (mostlyGolwalkar 1939), are repeated endlesslyand in unabashedly polemical fashion.

A shameful example of the total relianceof Western scholars on outright partisansecondary Indian sources while passingjudgment on a Hindu nationalist positionwas the Ayodhya temple/mosque dispute,as I discussed in detail in Elst 2002. Untilthe late 1980s, there was a completeconsensus among all Hindu, Muslim andWestern sources about the fact that themosque had been built in forciblereplacement of a temple, a very commonoccurrence throughout Muslim-conqueredterritories. This consensus, nowadaysmischaracterized as the Hindu nationalistposition, was since confirmed by newfindings and remained strictlyunchallenged by any counter-findings.Note indeed that all the official andunofficial argumentations against thetemple limited themselves to downplaying

the impact of some of the evidence for thetemple, and never offered even one pieceof positive testimony for an alternativescenario. Yet, the dominant Marxist circlesdecreed that there had never been a templeat the site (e.g. Sharma et al. 1991) andlambasted Western scholars who hadearlier confirmed the consensus ashandmaidens of Hindu fundamentalism(Gopal 1991:30),— enough to send thesescholars into prudent retirement from theAyodhya debate, vide Van der Veer1994:161. Lately the Marxists have had toswallow that maximalist position andrevert to the more reasonable politicalposition that temple demolitions of the pastdo not justify mosque demolitions in thepresent; but for more than a decade, theirleaden dogma has stifled the history debate,viz. that the temple demolition was merelya “Hindu chauvinist fabrication”.

Those who stuck to the old consensus view,the one confirmed by the evidence, havehad tons of mud thrown at them not just byIndian Marxists but by their Western dupesas well, e.g. Hansen 1999:262. Not one ofthe latter ever took issue with the actualevidence, behaving instead as obedientsoldiers carrying out and amplifying theIndian Marxist ukase. At the time of thiswriting, Indian archaeologists are digging

104


up more Hindu religious artefacts fromunderneath the temple/mosque site (Mishra2003), yet the Financial Times (Dalrymple2003) carries a long article extollingRomila Thapar and Irfan Habib, ridiculingthe consensus view on Ayodhya along withthe non-invasionist “myth”, denouncingAyodhya consensus representative K.S.Lal (conveniently dead and unable todefend himself), and bluffing about “all theevidence” disproving the Ayodhya temple’sexistence but not actually mentioning anyof it.

The same pattern, though less extreme, isin evidence concerning the specificinvolvement of declared Hindu nationalistsin the Aryan invasion debate. Theirpositions are systematically ignored ormisrepresented, and false motives areattributed to them according to theaccuser’s convenience. A brazen-facedexample is Thapar 1996:8, about the Vedicrevivalist movement Arya Samaj, a social-reformist society founded in 1875 whosespokesmen incidentally also rejected theAIT: “The Arya Samaj was described by itsfollowers as ‘the society of the Aryanrace’. The Aryas were the upper castes andthe untouchables were excluded.” In reality,the Arya Samaj made its mark in Indianhistory by working, often at great personal

sacrifice, to undo the exclusion of theuntouchables; and by redefining “Arya” as“Vedic”, away from both its old Indiancasteist and its new Western racistinterpretation. As for the expression“society of the Aryan race”, while I amunaware of its application to the Arya Samajspecifically, it is true that around the turnof the 20th century, the expression “Aryanrace” was fairly commonly used by Indiannationalists in the sense of “Indian nation”,neither more nor less.

Romila Thapar’s use of “Aryan” citedabove, by contrast, is a transparent attemptto play on its post-Nazi connotations, as ifits meaning hadn’t radically changed atsome dramatic point between 1875 and1996 (this exploitation of the confusionand hysteria about the term “Aryan” isstandard fare in Indian anti-indigenistpolemic, e.g. Sikand 1993). And yet,Romila Thapar remains the most celebratedIndian historian among Western India-watchers, a status recently confirmed byher honorary doctorate at the Sorbonne. Inthe laudatio, the authorities of France’smost prestigious university repeated thewell-known Indian Marxist rhetoric against“saffronization”, with the unusual extra ofspecifically denouncing the French pro-Indian journalist François Gautier, a well-

105


known critic of the AIT (1996). Nobodytook the trouble to verify the criticismsraised against the scholarly performanceof the honorary doctor.

If we want to know about Hindu nationalistinvolvement in the Aryan invasion debate,the Indian Marxist school and its Westernspokesmen cannot help us. The one extantcritical review of the various Hindunationalist positions regarding the Aryanproblem was written by Shrikant Talageri,ironically but significantly a declaredHindu nationalist himself. The followingmuch briefer review is indebted to hisinput.

(1) Acceptance of the AIT

A number of Hindu nationalists haveaccepted the AIT. Most prominent amongthem is Hindu nationalist seed ideologueVinayak Damodar Savarkar. In hisinfluential booklet Hindutva (“Hinduness”),he wrote of how migrations had “weldedAryans and non-Aryans into a commonrace” (1923:8) and how “not even theaborigines of the Andamans are withoutsome sprinkling of the so-called Aryanblood in their veins and vice-versa”(1923:56). This way, he rejected thedivisive implication of the AIT that India

was composed of several distinct nations,arguing instead that they had biologicallymingled and culturally fused into a singleHindu nation. Like his leftist opponentJawaharlal Nehru, he accepted that thenation was a product of historicalprocesses, not an age-old God-givenessence. There is no organic link betweenSavarkar’s positions on nationalism andancient history: as a non-specialist, hemerely accepted the dominant paradigmand tried to accommodate it into hispolitical views. But note at any rate, all youwho identify OIT with Hindutva, that thefounder of the Hindutva ideology was anAIT believer.

Sharply to be distinguished from Hindunationalists, who are modernists and socialreformers for the sake of national unity,there is also a dwindling school of Hindutraditionalists. Among them, you findpandits who are steeped in Sanskritic loreand have never even heard of an Aryaninvasion, which is after all unattested inVedic literature. The one traditionalist whomust be mentioned here as accepting theAIT was a Western “honorary Hindu”, theFrench musicologist Alain Daniélou(1971, 1975), companion of thetraditionalist leader Swami Karpatri. Hereagain, there is no organic link between his

106


Hindu-traditionalist view of society and hishistorical beliefs, which were borrowedwholesale from the dominant Westernschool of thought.

The most well-known Hindu nationalist toactively support the AIT and explore itsimplications was Bal Gangadhar Tilak, anIndian National Congress leader in the early20th century. His chronology, worked outin dialogue with Hermann Jacobi (and stillupheld by archaeo-astronomers, e.g. Kak2003), was sharply incompatible with thecurrently dominant theory: he put the Rg-Veda ca. 4000 BC rather than 1500 BC(Tilak 1893, 1903). If the Vedas were thatold, the invasion would have to be pushedback accordingly, as the Vedic geographicalsetting is obviously South-Asian; but Tilaksolved this problem by having the Vedicseers compose their hymns far outsideIndia, in an Indo-European homelandsituated in the Arctic region. Except for ahandful of European rightist non-scholars,nobody takes this eccentric scenarioseriously anymore, not even the Tilakloyalists in Maharashtrian Brahmin circleswhich happen to be the cradle of both theSavarkarite and RSS-BJP strands within theHindu nationalist movement. All the same,Tilak’s acceptance of a version of the AIT

again disproves the identification of theOIT with Hindu nationalism.

(2) Rejection of the AIT

Few among the Hindu nationalists havereally studied the relevant evidence. Someeven reject the whole notion of historicalevidence as pertinent to this question. FromJaimini’s Mim ns -Sûtra (BCE) down toArya Samaj founder Swami Dayananda’sSaty rtha Prakash (ca. AD 1875), a schoolof Vedic scholars has believed that theVedas were not a human creation, but werecreated by the Gods aeons ago and thenrevealed in complete form to the Vedicseers. Oddly, for people who held the Vedasin such awe, their theory flies in the faceof the Vedic testimony itself: unlike theQuran, the Vedas never take the form of astatement by God addressing man. Instead,they take the form of hymns in which manis addressing the Gods. The names of theseers composing the hymns are also given,and they are put in a historical context,often with their mutual relations,genealogical kinship and faction feudsdetailed in the texts themselves. Moreover,a number of presumably historical eventsare described or alluded to, most famouslythe Battle of the Ten Kings. All this pointsto the historicity of the Vedas: they came

107


about as a creation of human poetry in aspecific society at a specific phase in itsdevelopment. But Vedic enthusiasts likeDayananda and to a lesser extent SriAurobindo Ghose chose to disregard thisinformation and reinterpreted all thesemundane data as spiritual metaphor.Though they also happened to reject theinvasion hypothesis, they excluded theVedic information as possible source ofevidence for their own indigenist position.Aurobindo’s correct observation(1971:242-251) that the Vedas contain nomention of an Aryan invasion, therebyloses its force.

After Aurobindo’s death, his otherwiseloyal secretary K.D. Sethna (1982, 1992)abandoned this position and started usingVedic data on material culture to argue thechronological precedence of Rg-Vedicover high Harappan culture, e.g. that theHarappan cultivation of cotton goesunmentioned in the older Vedic layers sothat its early-Harappan introduction mustcoincide with some mid-Vedic date. Moreperhaps than the archaeologists’acknowledged inability to discover anyremains of an Aryan invasion (Shaffer1984, Rao 1991, Lal 1987, 2002, etc.),Sethna’s theses truly were the opening shotin the Hindu nationalist mobilization

against the AIT. Within the Aurobindocircle, this work was continued by Danino& Nahar 2000.

Since Sethna’s publications, many Hinduauthors of divergent levels of qualificationhave felt emboldened to contribute to theanti-invasionist argument. Some of themlose themselves in projects they are notup to, such as the decipherment of the Indusscript, but in matters of textualinterpretation and of matchingarchaeological and genetic data withcultural history, they are often betterequipped than their invasionist opponents.Those who care to read this literature, willnotice how it belies its characterization byhostile commentators as “far-rightist” andthe like. It actually taps into the discourseof anti-colonialism, anti-racism and anti-orientalism (e.g. Rajaram 1995, 2000),which most Westerners wouldspontaneously describe as leftist. A loneIndian Marxist (Singh 1995) has alsocontributed to the anti-invasionistargument, predictably focusing on materialand economic data suggesting Harappan-Aryan continuity, and thus upholding themore usual Third World Marxist traditionof anti-colonialism as opposed to theIndian card-carrying Marxists’

108


championing of the colonial view ofhistory.

Conclusion

The political instrumentalization oftheories about Indo-European origins hasyielded coalitions of strange bedfellows.On the side of the hypothesis of an Aryaninvasion of India, we find old colonialapologists and race theorists and theirmarginalized successors in thecontemporary West along with a broadalliance of anti-Hindu forces in India, mostarticulate among them the Christianmissionaries and the Marxists who havedominated India’s intellectual sector forthe past several decades. This dominantschool of thought has also carried along

some prominent early votaries of Hindunationalism. On the side of the non-invasionist or Aryan-indigenist hypothesis,we find long-dead European Romanticsand a few contemporary Western Indialovers, along with an anti-colonialist schoolof thought in India, mainly consisting ofcontemporary Hindu nationalists.Obviously, among the subscribers to eitherview we also find scholars without anypolitical axe to grind. And even in thewritings of politically motivated authors,we do come across valid argumentations.Consequently, it is best to continue thisresearch without getting sidetracked by thereal or alleged or imagined politicalconnotations of certain scholarly lines ofargument.

Bibliography

Ambedkar, B.R., 1917: “Castes in India”, included in Writings and Speeches, vol.1, Government ofMaharashtra, Mumbai 1986.

Aurobindo Ghose, Sri, 1971: The Secret of the Veda, Aurobindo Ashram, Pondicherry (originally ca.1922?).

Benoist, Alain de, 1997: “Indo-Européens: à la recherche du foyer d’origine”, Nouvelle Ecole 49,Paris, p.13-105.

—, 2000: « Les Aryens en Inde: présentation », Nouvelle Ecole 51, Paris, p.127-133.

Benoît, Jérémie, 2001: Le Paganisme Indo-Européen, L’Age d’Homme, Lausanne.

Biswas, S.K., 1995: Autochthon of India and the Aryan Invasion, Genuine Publ., Delhi.

Bottomore, Tom 1988: Dictionary of Marxist Thought, Blackwell, Oxford.

Dalrymple, William, 2003: “Washing off the saffron”, Financial Times, London, 24 March 2003.

109


Daniélou, Alain, 1971: Histoire de l’Inde, republished by Fayard, Paris 1983.

—, 1975 : Les Quatre Sens de la Vie. La Structure Sociale de l’Inde Traditionnelle, republished byBuchet-Chastel, Paris 1984.

Danino, Michel, and Nahar, Sujata, 2000 : The Invasion that Never Was, 2nd ed., Mira Aditi, Mysore.

Elst, Koenraad, 1999: Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.

—, 2001/1: Decolonizing the Hindu Mind. Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism, Rupa,Delhi.

—, 2001/2: The Saffron Swastika. The Notion of ‘Hindu Fascism’, 2 vols., Voice of India, Delhi.

—, 2002: Ayodhya, the Case against the Temple, Voice of India, Delhi.

Gautier, François, 1996: Rewriting Indian History, Vikas Publ., Delhi.

Golwalkar, M.S., 1939: We, Our Nationhood Defined, Bharat Publ., Nagpur.

Gopal, Sarvepalli, ed., 1991: Anatomy of a Confrontation. The Babri Masjid Ram JanmabhumiIssue, Penguin, Delhi.

Günther, Hans F.K., 1932: Die nordische Rasse bei den Indogermanen Asiens, (re-edited by VerlagHohe Warte, Pähl 1982).

—, 1934: Frömmigkeit nordischer Artung (French translation: Religiosité Indo-Européenne, Pardès,Paris 1987).

Hansen, Thomas Blom, 1999: The Saffron Wave. Democracy and Hindu Nationalism in ModernIndia, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Haudry, Jean, 1985: Les Indo-Européens, PUF, Paris.

—, 1987 : La Religion Cosmique des Indo-Européens, Arché, Milan.

—, 1997: « Les Indo-Européens et le Grand Nord », Nouvelle Ecole 49, Paris, p.119-142

—, 2000: «Les Aryens sont-ils autochtones en Inde ? » (a reply to Koenraad Elst), Nouvelle Ecole51, Paris, p.147-153.

Kak, Subhash, 2003: “Babylonian and Indian astronomy: early connections”, www.arXiv:physics/0301078v1.

Lal, B.B., 1997: The Earliest Civilization of South Asia, Aryan Books, Delhi.

—, 2002: The Saraswati Flows On. The Continuity of Indian Culture, Aryan Books, Delhi.

McKean, Lisa, 1996: Divine Entreprise: Gurus and the Hindu Nationalist Movement, University ofChicago Press, Chicago.

110


Meerbosch, Janus, 1992: Héritage Européen, L’Anneau, Brussels.

Mishra, Dina Nath, 2003: “Digging history”, The Pioneer, Delhi, 23 March 2003.

Mitra, Ashok, 1993: “India was nooit de oplossing”, interview in NRC Handelsblad, Rotterdam, 20March 1993.

Pandey, Gyanendra, 1993: Hindus and Others: the Question of Identity in India Today, Viking, Delhi.

Poliakov, Léon, ed., 1994: Histoire de l’Antisémitisme 1945-93, Editions du Seuil, Paris.

Rajaram, Navaratna S., 1995: The Politics of History. Aryan Invasion Theory and the Subversion ofScholarship, Voice of India, Delhi.

—, 2000: Profiles in Deception: Ayodhya and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Voice of India, Delhi.

Rajshekar (Shetty), V.T., 1987: Dalit, the Black Untouchables of India, Clarity Press, Atlanta.

—, 1993: Dialogue of the Bhoodevatas: Sacred Brahmins versus Socialist Brahmins, Dalit

Sahitya Akademi, Bangalore.

Rao, S.R., 1991: Dawn and Devolution of the Indus Civilization, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.

Renu, L.N., 1994: Indian Ancestors of Vedic Aryans, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai.

Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar, 1923: Hindutva, republished by Swatantryaveer Savarkar RashtriyaSmarak, Mumbai 1999.

Schuon, Frithjof, 1979: Castes et Races, Arché, Milan.

Sethna, K.D., 1982 : Karp sa in Prehistoric India, Impex India, Delhi.

—, 1992 : The Problem of Aryan Origins, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.

Shaffer, Jim, 1984: “The Indo-Aryan invasions: cultural myth and archaeological reality” in John R.Lukacs, ed.: The Peoples of South Asia, Plenum Press, New York, p.74-90.

Sharma, Ram Sharan, 1991: Ramjanmabhumi Baburi Masjid, a Historians’ Report to the Nation,People’s Publishing House, Delhi.

—, 1995: Looking for the Aryans, Orient Longman, Delhi.

—, 1999: Advent of the Aryans in India, Manohar, Delhi.

Sikand, Yoginder, 1993: “Exploding the Aryan myth”, Observer of Business and Politics, Delhi, 30October 1993.

Singh, Bhagwan 1995: The Vedic Harappans, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.

Talageri, Shrikant, 1993: Aryan Invasion Theory and Indian Nationalism, Voice of India, Delhi.

111


—, 2000: The Rigveda, a Historical Analysis, Aditya Prakashan, Delhi.

Thapar, Romila, 1996: “The theory of Aryan race and India”, Social Scientist, January-March 1996,Delhi, p.3-29.

Theertha, Swami Dharma, 1941: The Menace of Hindu Imperialism, republished as History ofHindu Imperialism, Dalit Educational Literature Centre, Madras 1992.

Tilak, Bala Gangadhara, 1893: Orion, or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas, Pune.

—, and Jacobi, Hermann, 1903: The Arctic Home in the Vedas, Kesari, Pune.

Van den Haute, Ralf, 1993: “Le Mah bh rata ou la mémoire la plus longue”, L’Anneau #22-23,Brussels.

Van der Veer, Peter, 1994: Religious Nationalism. Hindus and Muslims in India, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley.

Venner, Dominique, 2002: Histoire et Tradition des Européens, Editions du Rocher, Paris.

Witzel, Michael, 1995: “Rgvedic history: poets, chieftains and polities”, in Erdosy, George: The Indo-Aryans of Ancient South Asia, Walter De Gruyter, Berlin, p.307-352.

(April 2003)

112


Our narratives about the past arescraps of evidence joined with theglue of imagination. So there can

be many narratives and many retellings asthe vocabulary changes with time. This isall ancient history can be and we should besatisfied with that. It is sensible to acceptthat our reconstructions of the past aresubjective.

But what does one do if a narrative is atvariance with the evidence and yet, becauseof endless repetition, it has becomeentrenched in popular imagination as wellas in scholarly discourse? And what if sucha narrative is accepted as the only truth?

Here I am talking of the fabrication of thenarrative of Aryan invasions of the 2ndmillennium BC. All evidence we have goesagainst it: There is biological continuityin the skeletal record for 4500-800 BC;the archaeological record has been seento belong to the same cultural traditionfrom 7000 BC to historical times; theliterary texts know of no other geographybut that of India; and so on. Furthermore,the texts remember several astronomical

Racism and Indology

Prof. Subash Kak

events that took place during 5000 BC to1000 BC; they also state that the Sarasvatiflowed to the sea, which is memory of aperiod prior to 2000 BC, because we nowknow that the river dried up around thattime. Here it is not my intention to reviewthe evidence for which broad consensusexists amongst archaeologists.

So what should we do if some textbookscontinue to repeat this fabrication? Thereare those who say that history doesn’tmatter and so let’s not worry about whatthe books say and in due course betterbooks will be published.

Maybe true. But isn’t it foolish to let wrongthings be taught in schools and colleges?How does it help education if we assaultthe intelligence of the youth and tell themsomething to be a fact for which there isno evidence?

Indology and Racism

It is bad enough if a fabrication— a story—is palmed off as the truth, but what if the

113


fabrication is driven not just by poor logicbut by racism?

Ten years ago, the distinguished Britishanthropologist, Edmund Leach, wrote afamous essay on this problem titled “AryanInvasions Over Four Millennia”.Published in a book called “CultureThrough Time” (edited by Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney, Stanford University Press, 1990),this essay exposed the racist basis of the19th century construction of Indianprehistory and, perhaps more important forus, it showed how racism persists in theacademic approach to the study of India.

The implication of Leach’s charge is thatmany of the assumptions at the basis of theacademic study of Indian socialorganization, language development, andevolution of religion are simply wrong!Here are some excerpts from this essay:

Why do serious scholars persistin believing in the Aryaninvasions?... Why is this sort ofthing attractive? Who finds itattractive? Why has thedevelopment of early Sanskritcome to be so dogmaticallyassociated with an Aryaninvasion?…Where the Indo-

European philologists areconcerned, the invasion argumentis tied in with their assumptionthat if a particular language isidentified as having been used ina particular locality at aparticular time, no attention needbe paid to what was there before;the slate is wiped clean.Obviously, the easiest way toimagine this happening in reallife is to have a military conquestthat obliterates the previouslyexisting population! The details ofthe theory fit in with this racistframework... Because of theircommitment to a unilinealsegmentary history of languagedevelopment that needed to bemapped onto the ground, thephilologists took it for grantedthat proto-Indo-Iranian was alanguage that had originatedoutside either India or Iran. Henceit followed that the text of the RigVeda was in a language that wasactually spoken by those whointroduced this earliest form ofSanskrit into India. From this wederived the myth of the Aryaninvasions. QED. The origin mythof British colonial imperialism

114


helped the elite administrators inthe Indian Civil Service to seethemselves as bringing ‘pure’civilization to a country in whichcivilization of the mostsophisticated (but ‘morallycorrupt’) kind was already nearly6,000 years old. Here I will onlyremark that the hold of this mython the British middle-classimagination is so strong that eventoday, 44 years after the death ofHitler and 43 years after thecreation of an independent Indiaand independent Pakistan, theAryan invasions of the secondmillennium BC are still treated asif they were an established fact ofhistory.

In editorial comments, Emiko Ohnuki-Tierney summarizes Leach’s argumentsregarding the fabrication:

Seemingly objective academicendeavors are affected by thementality of the culture to whichthey belong. Leach describes howcherished but erroneousassumptions in linguistics andanthropology were acceptedwithout question. If the mentality

of the academic culture was inpart responsible for thefabrication, geopolitics was evenmore responsible for upholdingthe Aryan invasion as history. Thetheory fit the Western or Britishvision of their place in the worldat the time. The conquest of Asiancivilization needed a mythicalcharter to serve as the moraljustification for colonialexpansion. Convenient, if notconsciously acknowledged, wasthe Aryan invasion by a fair-skinned people, speaking the so-called Proto-Indo-Europeanlanguage, militarily conqueringthe dark-skinned, peasant Dasa(Dasyu), who spoke a non-European language and withwhom the conquerors lived, asLeach puts it, in a ‘system ofsexual apartheid.’ ...A remarkablecase of Orientalism indeed.

The Hegemonic Circle

According to the postmodern theoristLalita Pandit conventions of history writingare more often than not marked byintellectual bad faith that serves andmaintains hegemonic ideologies. She adds,

115


it is nearly impossible to alter the premisesof hegemonic claims, because hegemoniesare founded in such retellings, and passingoff of myth for fact and history, non-truthfor belief. In part at least, all hegemoniesare founded in discourses. Discourseconventions are automatically set to dealwith exigencies. When a contrary, anti-hegemonic view comes out strong,historiagraphic conventions, havingbecome habit or mind-sets, are all set totransform the contrary view and absorb intoa grand paradigm that ultimately onlyserves the hegemonic ideology. At thesame time, hegemonic institutions areautomatically set up to not validate, notgive authority to contrary views. After all,what is considered truth is what comesfrom the horse’s mouth, and who decideswho this privileged horse, the subject whoknows the truth is?’ One example of thisphenomenon is the interesting strategydevised by the defenders of the Invasiontheory to beat back criticism. They say: Thecritics are Hindu nationalists motivated bypolitical considerations and besides theyare not from academic departments. Thisis nonsense. The issue is the message andit shouldn’t matter who the messenger is.Anyway, this charge that the Invasion/migration theory has been criticised only

by independent scholars and nationalists isfalse. Edmund Leach was not a Hindunationalist. Neither are Jim Shaffer andDiane Lichtenstein, perhaps the foremostmodern scholars of Indian prehistory, whowrite in a recent essay:

The South Asian archaeologicalrecord reviewed here does notsupport ... any version of themigration/invasion hypothesis.Rather, the physical distributionof sites and artifacts,stratigraphic data, radiometricdates, and geological data canaccount form the Vedic oralpopulation movement.

Shaffer and Lichtenstein go to the heart ofthe matter when they further say about theInvasion/migration theories:

[These theories] are significantlydiminished by Europeanethnocentrism, colonialism,racism, and antisemitism. Surely,as South Asian studies the twenty-first century, it is time to describeemerging data objectively ratherthan perpetuate interpretationswithout regard to the data

116


archaeologists have worked sohard to reveal.

A Question of Method

Let’s for a moment forget the sorry historyof the construction of India’s past; EdmundLeach has covered that ground very well inhis essay. I am prepared to concede thatwhat Leach called racism in Indic studiesmay not be obvious to the protagonists.Wearing the blinkers of the tradition intheir subspeciality, they may believe thatthey are merely following in the footstepsof their predecessors. But if a method iswrong the incremental “advances” in theframework will only lead one more astray.There are many examples of this such asthe research during the Lysenko regime inthe Soviet Union or the work done by thebelievers in cold fusion.

The basic error in the Orientalist enterpriseof Indian prehistory is the “logic” ofapportionment of credit for culture to one“race” or another. It is comparable to thesearch for Aryan and Jewish componentsin modern science, the absurdity of whichis clear to everyone excepting extremistracist groups. Yet it has become commonin Indic studies to write whole volumes onthe discovery of the “Aryan” and

“Dravidian” components of Indian culture!Words and cultural ideas that have evolvedover all of India are now being examinedto find which elements of these are Aryanand Dravidian! These are questions towhich no definitive answers can be found.If nothing else this is a colossal waste ofacademic resources.

There are studies, for example, which tracethe caste system to the Indo-Europeantripartite scheme, and there are still othersthat trace it to the Dravidian socialorganization! The Puranas are seen bysome to be an organic outgrowth of theVedic system, and by others to be anexpression of the earlier DravidianHinduism. This and that of the cultural lifeare assigned to Aryans and Dravidians withno consistent logic. This list goes on andon.

Edmund Leach ridiculed the method usedby Indo-Europeanists. He commended apaper, “Did the Dravidians of India obtaintheir culture from Aryan immigrants?”,written by P.T. Srinivas Iyengar in 1914(Anthropos, vol. 9, pp. 1-15) that clearlyshows the propositions of the Invasionsit/migrationsts are “either fictitious orunproved.” Iyengar has some fun in theprocess: “It was reserved for the

117


philologists of the first half of the 19thcentury to discover that Arya and Dasyuwere names of different races. Theydiligently searched the Veda for indicationof this, and their discoveries remind us ofthe proverbial mouse begotten of themountain.” The philological edifice hasbeen punctured by Swaminathan Aiyar inhis remarkable “Dravidian Theories” whichappeared in 1975.

Discourse as Theatre

Geertz’s eloquent argument, in 1980, fora ‘theatre state’ interpretation of theBalinese kingdom provides us with a usefulinsight for the examination of the Indianprehistory paradigm. In a discipline as atheatre, the continuing ‘elaborations’ of thebasic schema are part of a ritual that hasnothing to do with the reality of theevidence. Geertz seems to be addressingus when he says, “The state [is a]metaphysical theatre: theatre designed toexpress a view of the ultimate nature ofreality and, at the same time, to shape theexisting conditions of life to be consistentwith that reality: that is, theatre to presentan ontology of the world and, by presentingit, to make it happen—make it actual.” Thetheatre of Indian prehistory has likewisemoulded the current conditions to conform

to its reality. It is not physical force butwords and ideas (or shall we call themmantras) that bind people.

In the hour of defeat, the theatre stateexpired with the puputans, the royal parade,with parasols and all, into the fire of theattacking Dutch troops. Is such masssuicide the only end possible for a theatrestate? Can there be a peaceful resolution?

Coda

Edmund Leach was a great anthropologist,a sober man, who was for many years aprofessor at Cambridge and later provostat King’s College. He used the charge ofracism against Indo-Europeanistsdeliberately. He said,

“[To] bring about a shift in thisentrenched paradigm is liketrying to cut down a 300-year-old oak tree with a penknife. Butthe job will have to be done oneday.”

Academic study on ancient India willremain “like a patient etherized upon atable” unless it finds a proper center andfresh energy. This center will be locatedonly as a result of critiques like that of

118


Leach. But what about energy? Will it beprovided by the financial support of Indiansin the West, who have made enormousfortunes in the electronic and computerindustry? I don’t think so, at least not inthe near future. The racism at the basis ofIndic studies, which Indians haveexperienced in their own education and ofwhich they continue to hear from theirchildren in college, has made themreluctant to support academic programs.

The Aryan affair is, nevertheless, of greatinterest to the anthropologist. ParaphrasingLeach, one may raise questions like: Whydo serious people spend their lives in theelaboration of a racist paradigm? It seemsto be like the scholiasts of the Middle Agesspinning volumes on how many angels canrest on the point of a needle!

References:

· Aiyar, R. Swaminathan. DravidianTheories. The Madras Law JournalOffice, Madras, 1975.

· Geertz, C. Negara: The theatre state innineteenth-century Bali. PrincetonUniversity Press, Princeton, 1980, p.104.

· Iyengar, P.T. Srinivas. “Did theDravidians of India obtain their culturefrom Aryan immigrant?’’ Anthropos,vol. 9, 1914, pp. 1-15.

· Leach, Edmund. “Aryan invasions overfour millennia.’’ In Culture throughTime, Anthropological Approaches,edited by E. Ohnuki-Tierney, StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford, 1990, pp.227-245.

· Pandit, Lalita. “Caste, Race, andNation:History and Dialectic inRabindranath Tagore’s Gora”. InLiterary India: Comparative Studies inAesthetics, Colonialism, AndCulture.” Eds. Patrick Colm Hoganand Lalita Pandit. Albany, New York:State University of New York Press,1995.

· Shaffer, Jim and Lichtenstein, Diane.“Migration, philology and South AsianArchaeology.’’ In Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence,Interpretation and Ideology, edited byJ. Bronkhorst and M. Deshpande,CSSAS, Univ of Michigan, 1999.

119


The question ̃ who owns the past?”is not a rhetorical question. On theone hand, it is tied to the issue of

identities, which has played a major rolein archaeological research since its veryinception, and on the other, it is bound upwith the various features of culturalresource management including the thornyrelationship between the mainstreamarchaeology and the rights of indigenouspeople in the countries like USA, Australiaand Canada.

There is a vast amount of literature on boththemes. The first one, i.e. the question ofidentity, is linked to the establishment ofnational identity as well as various othercollective identities like gender, ethnicityand religion. The issue of identity mayassume many forms and generate manydebates. In the context of Israel and thePalestinian territory, it has been argued [1],for instance, that there are four types ofdesired pasts there :

(1) Israeli desired past which is sought bythe Israeli state and the Jewishorganizations of the United States;

Who Owns India’s Past?

Prof: Dilip K. Chakrabarti

(2) Conservative Christian past which ischampioned by the Christianfundamentalist organizations, the AmericanSchool of Oriental Research and theBiblical Archaeological Society;

(3) Palestinian desired past favored by thePalestinian rights organizations andPalestinian archaeologists andintellectuals; and finally,(4) Diplomatic desired past, as representedby the appointed officials of the US Statedepartment.

Issues such as these have always been partsof archaeological research tradition, but inthe modern world where the publicawareness of such issues is much sharper, archaeological literature has to beconcerned with the process and nature ofvarious identity-formations.

The second theme is equally visible,although currently at its sharpestonly in the United States and Australia. TheNative American Graves Protection andRepatriation Act, a federal law requiringagencies and institutions in receipt of

120


federal funding to return native Americanhuman remains, funerary objects, sacredobjects and objects of cultural patrimonyto their respective peoples, was passed in1990. Similarly, the recognition of thetraditional land-rights of the Australianindigenous people has also led to therecognition of their control over thecultural objects, sacred places and humanremains found in their land [2].

As I wrote in 2004, all the people of thesubcontinent are, in one way or another,the inheritors of the Indus civilization [1].The Indian past represented by thiscivilization belongs to them.

Let me conclude this by pointing out adanger which is increasingly facing Indianarchaeology today. If one goes through thearchaeological literature on Egypt andMesopotamia, the areas where Westernscholarship has been paramount since thebeginning of archaeological research inthose areas, one notes that the contributionmade by the native Egyptian and Iraqiarchaeologists is completely ignored inthat literature. The Bronze Age past ofEgypt, Mesopotamia and the interveningregion is completely appropriated by theWestern scholarship. Also, when Westernarchaeologists write on Pakistani

archaeology, they seldom mention thecontribution made by the Pakistaniarchaeologists themselves. There areexceptions but they are very rare. AfterIndependence, the Archaeological Surveyof India pursued a policy of relativeisolation, which enabled archaeology as asubject to develop in the country andhelped Indian archaeologists to find theirfeet.

The policy seems to be changing now, andsupercilious articles like the one byLawler are an indication of the effect ofthis change. There is a great deal ofarrogance and sense of superiority inthat segment of the First Worldarchaeology which specializes in the ThirdWorld. Unless this segment of theFirst World archaeology changes its wayand attitude, it should be treated with a greatdeal of caution in the Third World.

As a British author, William Dalrymple,possibly well-known in Delhi, is supposedto have commented in an interview to theChannel 4 of the British television, “Oneshould protect one‘s own history and fightfor it by tooth and claw, as others willalways try to change.”

121


References:[1] Sandra Scham, Diplomacy and desiredpasts, Journal of Social Archaeology, 9(2),2009, pp. 163-199

[2] N.Ferries, Between colonial andindigenous archaeologies: legal and extra-legal ownership of the archaeological pastin north America. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 27(2), 2003, pp. 154-190 ;D.Ritchie, Principles and practice of siteprotection laws in Australia. In,Charmichael, D., Hubert, J., Reeves, B andSchanche , .eds. Sacred Sites, SacredPlaces London, 1994: Routledge, pp. 227-244

122


IN THIS ERA OF GLOBALIZATION it isimportant for the general public to havesome knowledge of the histories and

cultures of people around the world. The mainsource of information for most people wouldbe a world history course. What they learn maynot, however, be as accurate as one might wish.I have found that, to some extent, world historytexts suffer from a Eurocentric bias when dealingwith the histo-ries of non-European peoples. Iwill illustrate this point by looking at how nineworld history texts treat the Harappan (alsocalled Indus) civilization and the Aryans in ancientIndia. These are the texts:1

L.S. Stavrianos, A Global History: From

Prehistory to the PresentPeter Stearns and others,

World Civilizations: The GlobalExperience

William McNeill, A History of theHuman Community

Anthony Esler, The Human VentureKevin Reilly, The West and the World

Richard Greaves and others,Civilizations of the World

Harappans and Aryans:Old and New Perspectives of Ancient Indian

History*Padma Manian De Anza College

Walter Wallbank and others,Civilization: Past & Present

Stanley Chodorow and others, TheMainstream of Civilization

John McKay and others, A History ofWorld Societies

I will begin by looking at what these texts sayabout the Indus civiliza-tion and the Aryans underfour categories: their description of the Induscivilization, the causes of its decline, the entranceof the Aryans, and the aftermath of theirappearance in India. Then I will analyze thesources from which these texts drew theirmaterial. Finally I will discuss alterna-tive ideasas seen in some old and new scholarship.

All the texts mention Harappa andMohenjodaro, the two sites of the Induscivilization that were first discovered. Theydescribe general fea-tures of the cities such aswell-planned streets, extraordinary drainagesystems, citadels, granaries, and the great bathat Mohenjodaro. They also mention the manyartifacts excavated such as pottery, and statues.All of them note that the Indus script found onthe numerous seals is undeciphered. Greaves andcoauthors and McKay and coauthors give the

123


size of the area over which the civilization hadexisted as half a million square miles and over1.25 million square kilometers respectively. OnlyGreaves and coauthors mention Kalibangan,another big excavated city. Most mention thattwo hundred “village sites” have been excavatedwhile Chodorow and coauthors say that threehundred sites have been exca-vated. McKayand coauthors and Stearns and coauthors alonedevote some attention to the neolithic settlementswhich were antecedents to the Indus civilization.

The texts all date the beginning of the Induscivilization to the third millennium BCE. Exceptfor Greaves and coauthors, who give 3000 BCE

as its origin, the rest have opted for 2500 BCE.Again Greaves and coauthors alone give 2000BCE as the end of the civilization whereas allothers state that it ended in 1500 BCE. The year1500 BCE is also significant in another way forthese texts in that they all state that as the yearwhen the Aryans entered India.

We now turn to the next issue at hand, namelywhat causes led to the decline of the Induscivilization. I found that the texts could generallybe put into two groups according to the causesthey attributed for the decline. The first groupunequivocally see the Aryans as the destroyerswho massacred and enslaved the Indus people,while the second group say that environmentalchanges led to the civilization’s decline. Four ofthe texts; Reilly, McNeill, Stavrianos, and Esler

fall into the first cat-egory. Greaves andcoauthors, McKay and coauthors, andChodorow and coauthors, belong to the secondcategory. The other texts, Stearns and coauthors,and Wallbank and coauthors straddle the twogroups.

In the words of Reilly, the civilization was“burned, destroyed, and left in rubble by invadingAryan-speaking tribes from the North.” Hebe-lieves that this was part of a worldwide seriesof Aryan invasions ca. 1500 BCE when “nomadictribes in chariots invaded and destroyedcivilizations such as Minoan and Indus.”Stavrianos writes that the Indus people were“overrun by tribes people who, with the militaryadvantage of iron weapons and horse-drawnchariots, easily overwhelmed the copperweap-ons and ox-drawn carts of the natives.The invaders called themselves the Aryans.”While he clearly sees the Aryans as destroyers,in another chapter Stavrianos also states that theIndus civilization “may have been literallydrowned in mud. Subterranean volcanic activity,according to this theory, caused a huge upwellingof mud, silt, and sand that dammed the Indusand formed a huge lake, swamping the capital,Mohenjo-daro.” The third text belonging to thisgroup, by Esler, states “the fall of the Harappanworld was almost certainly due to the intrusionof a new people into northwestern India: theAryans.” McNeill also states the same opin-ion.2

124


On the other hand, Greaves and coauthorsemphatically state that the Aryans entered Indiaafter the Indus civilization collapsed. They saythat the Aryan invaders could never have seenthe Indus civilization in its prime and are thusunlikely causes for its decline. Instead “the Induspeople encountered some specific problemsresulting from their desert or semiaridenvironment, problems that may quickly havebecome over-whelming.”3 However it must bepointed out that while they did not say that theAryans destroyed the Indus civilization, theynonetheless saw them as conquerors whodestroyed other indigenous people whom theyencountered. Chodorow and coauthors see that“environmental factors such as devastatingfloods, a shift in the course of the Indus River,and exhaustion of soil fertility may haveaccounted for the demise of the civilization.”4

Wallbank and coauthors who straddle theabove two interpretations first suggest that thedecline set in 1700 BCE culminating in 1500 BCE

“when a series of floods caused by earthquakesaltered the course of the Indus and broughtchaos.” However the authors also find an Aryanhand in its destruction when they said “thesemibarbaric invaders brought an end to whatlittle was left of Indus civilization.”5 Similarly,Stearns and coauthors say that “a dramatic visionof a wave of “barbarian” invaders smashing towndwellers’ skulls made for good story-telling but

bad history.” Instead, they explain the demise interms of natural factors. Nevertheless, later onin writing about the Aryan displacement of theHarappans, they suggest “that there was a gooddeal of violent conflict in this transition cannotbe ruled out.”6

All the texts believe that the Aryans werepastoral nomads. Reilly says that the Aryansoriginally came from the grasslands of EasternEurope and Western Asia. Stavrianos states thatthey came from the region of the Caspian Sea.According to Chodorow and McKay and theircoauthors, the Aryans were from Anatolia. Esleridentifies the steppes of European Russia,perhaps north of the Caspian Sea, as the Aryanhomeland. Greaves and coauthors say that theAryans came from south-central Asia, includ-ingwhat is now Iran. Stearns and coauthors believethat the Aryans originally came from the areabetween the Caspian and Black seas. Wallbankand coauthors merely say that they came fromthe north. And McNeill is silent on this topic.7 Inaddition, the texts led by Reilly, Stearns,Wallbank, McNeill, Stavrianos, Greaves andEsler also believe that these nomads came notonly with their cattle but also in horse-drawnchariots across the difficult northwesternmountain passes of the Himalayas. Except forGreaves and coauthors, the rest also state thatthe Aryans came with iron weapons which helpedin their conquest of the Indus people who had

125


only bronze weapons. Chodorow and coauthorsmake no mention of Aryan metallurgy. Stearnsand coauthors merely state that the Aryan metal-tipped spears were more effective than theweapons of the indigenous peoples withoutspecifying the nature of the metal. Greaves andcoauthors differ from the rest in stating that theAryans came to use iron only after they migratedinto India.

A few conclusions can be drawn from thisreview of the texts. First, all of them believe thatthe Aryans came from outside India in 1500 BCE.Second, whether it was destroyed by invadingAryans or by environmen-tal factors, the Induscivilization ceased to exist with the arrival of theAryans. Third, they all assume that the civilization,its people, or culture was mutually exclusive ofthe Aryans and their culture.

This brings us to the fourth issue, the aftermathof the Aryan invasion. It is indisputably takenfor granted by the texts that the Aryan invasionin India culminated in their victory over the Indusor other people they encountered. So who werethe vanquished people, be they the Indus peopleor others? How did the Aryans perceive them?How did they relate to and treat the conquered?All the texts arrive at their answers through theirunderstanding of the caste system (varna)mentioned in the Vedas, the sacred texts ofHinduism composed by the Aryans. They

identify the four varnas; namely brahmana,kshatriya, vaisya, and shudra as the four castes.

Stavrianos sees the Aryans as a race whowere “very conscious of their physical features”and describes them as “tall, blue-eyed, fair-skinned.” He further states that the image ofthem from the Vedas was that of a “virile people,fond of war, drinking, chariot racing, andgambling.” In contrast, the conquered peoplehe found, were called the Dasas or “slaves” inthe Vedas, and were “short, black, noseless.”Based on their fair and dark skin colors,Stavrianos concludes that they belonged to twodifferent races. He projects such racialinterpretations further into his discussion of varnaor the caste system: “With their strong sense ofracial superiority, the Aryans strove to preventmixture with their despised subjects.Ac-cordingly they evolved a system of fourhereditary castes. The first three comprised theirown occupational classes, the priests(brahmans), the warrior nobles (kshatriyas), andthe farmers (vaishyas). The fourth caste (shudras)was reserved for the Dasas who were excludedfrom the reli-gious ceremonies and social rightsenjoyed by their conquerors.” How-ever, hethinks that “this arrangement ceased tocorrespond to racial reality with the passage oftime” because he finds that in present-day Indiathere are “black Southern Indian Brahmans”

126


who enjoy a high status and “light-skinned grey-eyed untouchables” in Northern India.8

Stearns and coauthors understand that whenthe Aryans entered India, they were alreadydivided into three main social groups of warriors,priests, and commoners. The Aryans enslavedthe conquered indigenous people who thenformed the fourth group of “slaves or serfs.”These authors also see “a physical dimension tothe sharp division between the free and enslaved.The Aryans pictured themselves as light-skinnedconquerors in a sea of dark-skinned Dasas.”9

Esler, Wallbank and coau-thors, and Chodorowand coauthors also present a similar racialinterpre-tation. They go further in identifying theAryans and Dravidians as the two races in India.Esler also reads varna in the Vedas to mean skincolor when he says that it was “clearly referringto the old racial differences between theconquerors and conquered.” Chodorow andcoauthors are of a similar opinion: “the dark-skinned conquered people who formed thefourth order, were the shudras, who werereduced to serfdom and forced to performmenial tasks.” Wallbank and coauthors state thatthe shudras were the non-Aryan dark-skinnedDasas mentioned in the Vedas.’0

Reilly has a different understanding of the castesystem. He sees the “untouchables” as the“lower outcaste group of darker, non-Aryanindig-enous peoples who were required to do

the work that all other groups considered“polluting.” These “other groups” consisted ofbrahmanas, kshatriyas, vaishyas, and theshudras. He also does not put the shudras in thenon-Aryan category as the other texts do. Yethe says that they were denied the same rights asthe other three castes.”

With the coming in of the Aryans, these textssee a clear divide in India between the fair anddark skin colors of Aryans and non-Aryansrespec-tively, suggesting that the Aryansregarded themselves as the superior race. Itought to be pointed out that none of the authorsof these texts appears to be a specialist in ancientIndian history and that they have all presentedthe views of other scholars of India. It is nowpertinent to look at the work of some of thepioneering scholars of Indian studies to see thedevelopment of ideas about ancient Indianhistory. Sir William Jones was a distinguishedlinguist and a British judge in Bengal. He was aprincipal founder of western scholarship onancient India. He was also highly influenced byhis Christian beliefs. Upon studying Sanskrit hemade the remarkable discovery in 1786 that ithad striking similarities with Greek, Latin, Gothic,and Celtic. He was one of the first scholars toclearly put forward the idea that the languagesof India and Europe constituted one family. Hebelieved that this came about because thespeakers of all these languages were descended

127


from Ham, one of Noah’s sons. Indians musttherefore have come into India from the Biblicallands of West Asia where, presumably, Noahand his sons settled after the Great Flood andbefore the dispersal of the nations.12 We can seethe Aryan invasion theory prefigured in his workin that he proposed a migration into India fromoutside to explain the relationship between thelanguages of India and Europe.

Among the many linguists who studied theIndo-European languages after Jones, MaxMtiller stands out as one of the most significantscholars of Indo-European language studies.Born in Germany, he lived and worked inEngland and made a translation of the Vedasfrom Sanskrit to English and was influential inhis dating of the Vedas. As we shall see below,the dating of the Vedas is crucial to the dating ofthe Aryan invasion to 1500 BCE. Like Jones,Miiller assumed that the stories of the Bible werehistorical facts. But unlike Jones, he believed thatIndo-Europeans descended from Japeth,an-other of Noah’s sons rather than Ham.13

Navaratna Rajaram describes in detail howMUiller arrived at his dates for the compositionof the Vedas.14 In short, since Miiller subscribedto a literal interpretation of the Bible, thedescendants of Japeth would have left for Indiaafter the dispersal of the nations following theconstruction of the Tower of Babel after theFlood. This would be around 2500 BCE as

calculated from the genealogies of the Bible. TheBuddha can be reliably dated to around 500BCE and since most of the Vedas already existedin the Buddha’s time, Miiller knew that the Vedashad to be composed between 2500 BCE and500 BCE. From the differences in language indifferent portions of the Vedas, Muiller sawseveral stages in their compo-sition. He assumedaround two hundred years for each stage andalso assumed that the latest stages of the Vedicliterature were composed after the time of theBuddha. Miiller assigned 200 BCE for thecomposition of the last of the Vedic literatureand 1200 BCE for its earliest composition. Thisis a span of a thousand years which allowed fivestages of 200 years each. Therefore thedescendants of Japeth must have invaded Indiaa few centuries earlier or around 1500 BCE.

When the belief in the literal veracity of theBible decreased after the publication of Darwin’swork on evolution, interest in Indo-Europeanlanguages took a different turn. Scholars werethen primarily driven by the belief that the firstspeakers of an Indo-European language, termedby them proto-Indo-European, comprised anethnic group (the Aryans) who inhabited anoriginal homeland from which they then dispersedinto various parts of the world. Incidentally, theword Aryan was appropriated from the word“arya” which occurs in the Vedas as an adjectivemeaning honorable. The usage of “arya” in the

128


Vedas has no racial connotation since potentiallyany person can be “arya” or honorable. Thesearch for the Aryan homeland was thenconducted by the enterprise of historicallinguistics or linguistic paleontology.15 Themethodology of this disci-pline consisted ofbuilding up the vocabulary of the hypotheticalproto-Indo-European language by studying whatwas common to specific cognate words in thedifferent Indo-European languages. Next, basedon this lexicon, inferences were made. Oneconclusion to which these schol-ars arrived wasthat the Aryans were pastoral nomads since thehypotheti-cal vocabulary that they created hadmany words for domesticated ani-mals andfewer words for cereal grains. They then triedto identify the homeland where the Aryans firstpracticed nomadic pastoralism. Various widelyseparated places for the Aryan homeland weresuggested such as northern Europe, the Balkans,Anatolia, Southern Russia and the Caucasus; butIndia was not one of them. Therefore it wasbelieved that the first speakers of Indo-Europeanlanguages in India must have come from outside.

Thus was born the theory that India had beeninvaded by the Aryans. Max Miiller and othernineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarspropounded what Thomas Trautmann has calledthe “racial theory of Indian civilization.” This isthe notion: “that India’s civilization was producedby the clash and subsequent mixture of light-

skinned civilizing invaders (the Aryans) anddark-skinned barbarous aborigines (ofteniden-tified as Dravidians).”16I call this the firstor Miiller version of the Aryan invasion theory.This theory was based on the interpretation oflinguistic and literary evidence from the Vedasby MUiller and others and not on archaeology.

In 1921, Sir John Marshall and R.D. Banerjiidentified the ruins at Harappa and Mohenjodaroas the remains of the Indus civilization. Thiscivilization was found to have been flourishing inthe third millennium BCE. Since the invasion ofthe Aryans was accepted to have occurred in1500 BCE the authors of the Indus civilizationcould not have been the Aryans. Instead SirMortimer Wheeler who made furtherarchaeological investigations of the Induscivilization and whose name is now more closelyassociated with it, came up with his own theory.’7

He interpreted groups of skeletons which werecarelessly buried in Mohenjodaro as the victimsof a massacre by invading Aryans. He thenconcluded that these Aryans caused the Induscivilization to collapse. In the words ofStavrianos, the Aryans did the work of “empiresmashing.”’8 The racial theory of Indiancivilization thus underwent a metamorphosis intowhat I call the second version of the Aryaninvasion theory.

Unlike Miiller’s theory which saw the white-skinned Aryans as the superior race and the

129


civilizers, Wheeler’s theory saw them as thebarbar-ians and the dark-skinned Dravidiannatives as the civilized ones. How-ever racialand cultural stereotypes were not abandoned.The Aryans were supposed to have broughtfresh vigorous blood, energy, and ideas to theold, conservative, hidebound civilization thatprevailed in India. We repeatedly see images ofthe “conquerors” and “conquered” in the worldhistory texts. To quote Gordon Childe, the notedarchaeologist:

At the same time the fact that the firstAryans were Nordics was not withoutimportance. The physical qualities of thatstock did enable them by the bare fact ofsuperior strength to conquer even moreadvanced peoples and so to impose theirlanguage on areas from which their bodilytype has almost completely vanished. Thisis the truth underlying the panegyrics of theGermanists: the Nordics’ superiority inphysique fitted them to be the vehicles of asuperior language.19

Since the discovery of Harappa andMohenjodaro, archaeologists have uncoveredseveral hundred Harappan village and city sitesspread over a wide area. It is now clear that theHarappan civilization was the most extensive interms of area of any of the ancient civilizationsbefore the second millennium BCE. It also has

become clear that the urban phase of theHarappan civilization had ended by 2000 BCE.20

This has presented a problem for the secondAryan invasion theory’s notion that the end ofthe Indus civilization was caused by the Aryaninvasion. Scholars were not willing to abandonthe theory that the Aryans invaded with theircattle and chariots in 1500 BCE. SO they modifiedthe invasion theory to say that the Induscivilization declined for other reasons and thatthe Aryans came into India when there was nourban civilization left. This is the third version ofthe Aryan invasion theory.

In examining the texts we see that Esler,Stavrianos, Chodorow and coauthors, andMcNeill presented the second version of theAryan inva-sion theory while the otherspresented some combination of the second andthird versions. We can be thankful that none ofthe texts presented the first version.

Let us now turn to what some of the morerecent scholars say about the Aryan invasiontheory and with it the Indus civilization and theVedas. Their findings, archaeological andliterary, have refuted and challenged the old ideasof Mtiller, Wheeler, and their subscribers suchas the world history texts reviewed here. JimShaffer, an archaeologist of South Asia, says:“that current archaeological data do not supportthe existence of an Indo-Aryan or Europeaninvasion into South Asia at any time in the pre-

130


or proto-historic period. Instead it is possible todocument archaeologically a series of culturalchanges reflecting indigenous culturaldevelopments from prehistoric to historicperiods.”21 For example, Shaffer in anotherarticle, discussed the Painted Grey Ware Potterywhich some archaeolo-gists identified as thework of Aryans and echoed by Stearns andcoau-thors when they said “rapid changes inpottery suggest a series of sudden waves ofmigrants into the region.”22 Shaffer pointed outthis pottery’s absence along the supposed routethe Aryans would have taken to reach theGanga-Yamuna region where this pottery wasfound. In addition he noted that the Painted GreyWare pottery was a continuation of earlier stylesnative to that area.23

Colin Renfrew, another archaeologist,criticized historical linguistics saying that while itcould be useful in establishing relationshipsbetween languages, its precision in determiningthe homeland of the original speakers of theIndo-European language family isquestionable.24 Thus the identification ofSouthern Russia, Anatolia, or any other placeas the original homeland of the Aryans basedonly on historical linguistics is largely speculative.He does not see any evidence in the Rig Vedathat the Aryans were invaders in India or thatthey were nomads. He adds: “Indeed the chariotis not a vehicle especially associated withnomads.” He further says that “we should, in

other words, seriously consider the possibilitythat the new religious and cultural synthesis whichis repre-sented by the Rig Veda was essentiallya product of the soil of India and Pakistan, andthat it was not imported, ready-made, on thebacks of the steeds of the Indo-Aryans.”25

Kenneth R. Kennedy, a physicalanthropologist and archaeologist studied all theskeletons recovered from several Harappan sitesincluding those of the alleged massacre victimsof Mohenjodaro. He found that only two skullsshowed signs of injury and that even those twoindividu-als did not die immediately from theseinjuries but rather several months later possiblyfrom other causes.26 Mortimer Wheeler’smisinterpretation of these and other skeletalremains as those of massacre victims causedEsler to write that the invading Aryans “left thecorpses of their foes to rot in the streets ofMohenjodaro” and Stearns and coauthors towrite that “groups of skeletons with smashedskulls or in postures of flight have been found onthe stairways at some sites.”27 Kennedy furtherstates that after examining the skeletons of theHarappans, he “recognizes a biologi-calcontinuum of many of their morphometricvariables in the modern populations of Punjaband Sindh.”28 This finding is not favorable to theAryan invasion theory because the “tall, blue-eyed, fair-skinned” Aryans were supposed tobe so unlike the “short, black, noseless” natives

131


that they defeated. The invasion of the Aryansshould have resulted in a significant changebetween the Harappans and the present-daypeople.

Robert H. Dyson, also an archaeologist, intalking about the Aryan invasion theory says that“the invasion thesis also becomes a paradigm oflimited usefulness. By freeing themselves fromthis hypothesis drawn from earlier linguisticstudies, archaeologists may now focus theiratten-tion on the archaeological evidence in itsown terms.”29

Trautmann, Shaffer and Lichtenstein, andRajaram and Frawley have shown hownineteenth-century scholarship on India wasinfluenced by Victorian racial thought.30 Scholarsincluding Max Mtiller went out of their way tofind references in the Vedas to racial differencesbetween the Aryans and their enemies the Dasasand Dasyus. Unfortunately, for all their laborsthey could come up with precious little—justthree passages. Even these three passages hardlygave unambiguous support to the notion that theVedic Aryans were conscious of a racialdifference between themselves and their Dasyuand Dasa enemies. In one of those passages,Max Miiller found the enemies described as“anasa.” Muiller interpreted that to mean thatthey were noseless or snub-nosed which wefound earlier was a description Stavrianos usedin his text. However, Trautmann showed that the

medieval commentator Sayana’s interpretationthat it was a figurative description referring tosomeone without speech as more reasonable.Thus it had nothing to do with the shape or sizeof the Dasyus’ noses.”1

The other two passages referred to enemieswith dark skins. Neverthe-less, two referencesto dark skin do not imply that the Dasas orDasyus were despised on account of their skincolor. In many more passages it is clear that theAryans considered the Dasyus despicablebecause of their irreligiosity and uncouthlanguage. Rajaram and Frawley have suggestedthat the battles between the Aryans and theirenemies should be symboli-cally interpreted asstruggles between the forces of light anddarkness and not between light-skinned anddark-skinned people.32 I might also add thatmany highly respected sages and mythical figuresin India were said to have dark skin. The mostwell-known and popular is Lord Krishna, thehuman incarnation of the Lord Vishnu. His veryname means the dark-skinned one.

Let us move on to varna or caste. Varna doesmean color. Conditioned no doubt by theEuropean experiences with nonwhite people inthe last few centuries, Max Miiller as well asmany of the texts did not hesitate to give a racialinterpretation to caste. They claimed that thehighest castes

132


Harappans and Aryans: Old and New weredescended from light-skinned Aryans and thelowest castes were descended from the dark-skinned people defeated by the Aryans. But thecolors associated with the various castes are“heraldic” colors and not the color of the skin asshown by Trautmann and the Vedic scholarDavid Frawley.33 The brahmana caste is assignedthe color white because this is the caste which isdevoted to spirituality and enlightenment. Thekshatriya or warrior caste is supposed to have afiery and courageous temperament and thereforethe associated color is red. The vaishya caste’sfunction is commerce leading to the accumulationof wealth and its emblematic color is the yellowof gold. The shudra laboring caste is supposedto have neither the discipline and self-sacrificerequired for spiritual pursuits, nor the courageof the warriors, nor the enterprise of the traders,but instead has to labor at the direction of oneof the other castes and the emblematic color isthe black of the darkness of ignorance. Whateverthe significance of the caste system, there is noevidence that it was a division of society by skincolor or race. To interpret caste as race wouldbe a “fantastic back-projection of systems ofracial segregation in the American South and inSouth Africa onto early Indian history.”34

The Aryan invasion theory, as Rajaram andFrawley have pointed out, has created aparadox in Indian history.35 There are plenty of

archaeologi-cal remains of the largest civilizationof ancient times but if the Aryan invasion theoryis accepted, there are apparently no survivingliterary records from this extensive civilization.On the other hand, the Aryans have left noarchaeological trace of their supposed invasionbut in the form of the voluminous Vedas haveleft the most massive literature from ancient times.However, this paradox can be resolved if weaccept that the Harappans were themselvesfollowers of the Vedic religion. In none of theancient literature of India is there any mention ofan invasion from outside India, in contrast to theBible, which relates the story of how theIsraelites took possession of their promised landfrom the Canaanites. Therefore when Europeansbeginning to study Indo-European languagescreated the Aryan invasion theory it was as newto India as it was to the rest of the world.

The Aryan invasion theory also has some otherweaknesses. I have already noted that chariotsare not especially associated with nomads. Itseems implausible that relatively unorganizedbands of semi-barbarous nomads could movewith their chariots across the difficult desertterrain of Afghanistan and the high mountainpasses of the Himalayas. Even if these Aryannomads did manage to do so, they would havehad to conquer the far more numerous inhabitantsof India and then impose their language andculture upon them. Now, when we look at the

133


cases of the barbarian conquests of Rome or ofthe Mongol conquest of China, we see that thebarbarians got romanized and the Mongolssinicized. In the analogous case of the Aryaninvasion of India, why should the culture of theless-sophisti-cated group prevail? Anexplanation in terms of the “Nordics’ superiorphysique” will not be acceptable at the close ofthe twentieth century.

Yet another weakness of this theory concernsthe use of metals. Most of the texts mentionedthat one of the advantages that the Aryans hadover the Harappans was iron weapons.However, both the reputed historian A.L.Basham, and Frawley have pointed out that thiswas not necessarily so. This idea was based onthe fact that the word “Ayas” which occurred inthe Rig Veda was interpreted as iron.36 But inthe opinion of Basham and of Frawley, “Ayas”simply meant metal. I must also point out herethat in one chapter Stavrianos said that the ironweapons of the Aryans defeated the Induscivilization, but in another chapter of the verysame book he contradicted himself by sayingthat the Aryans’ expansion into the Gangetic plainfrom the Indus valley was “slow at first, sinceonly stone, bronze, and copper axes wereavailable. But iron was introduced about 800BCE, and the expansion pace quickened.””37

Maybe the Aryans forgot their iron technology

after they defeated the Harappans in 1500 BCE

and remembered it 700 years later!

Historians have long referred to the ancientIndian civilization as the Indus civilization.However even that is now challenged in the lightof new geological findings. Rajaram and Frawleyhave shown that the river Saraswati, and not theIndus river, was the most prominent and sacredriver in the Rig Veda (playing the same role thereas the River Ganges in later Hinduism). TheVedas described the Saraswati as a mighty riverflowing from the mountains to the sea.38 Buttoday the Saraswati, known now as the Ghaggar,is a much smaller stream which gets lost in theThar desert. A large number of Harappan siteshave been found along the banks of the now-dry Saraswati or Ghaggar (see for example themap from McNeill). Recent geologicalinvestigations have shown that the Saraswati wasindeed once a very substantial river flowing tothe sea but that it dried up around 1900 BCE

when the Yamuna ceased flowing into it, andinstead flowed east to join the Ganges. Thedecline of the urban phase of the Harappancivilization seems to be correlated with that event.Rajaram and Frawley have argued that since theVedas speak of the Saraswati as a big river, theVedic people must have been present in Indiawell before 1900 BCE. They have also suggestedthat the civilization should now be renamed asthe Indus-Saraswati civilization. Saraswati hasalways had a sacred place in Hindu traditions.

134


Scholars such as Basham knew of the importanceof the Saraswati in the Vedas and also that it isnow a small stream but they were unaware ofthe recent geological information regarding whenit dried up.39

Rajaram andFrawley have also shown howastronomical statements in the Vedas could beused to date them.40 The Vedic people madeobserva-tions of the positions of the Sun withrespect to the fixed stars at the time of theequinoxes and solstices and recorded them inthe Vedas. Because of the phenomenon of theprecession of the equinoxes, the equinoxes inancient times occurred in different positions fromwhere they occur now. This information can beused to date the Vedas. Another source ofinformation about the date of the compositionof the Vedas is that they mentioned observationsof a pole star. Again because of the precessionof the equinoxes, only at certain periods ofhistory was there a pole star. Scholars have beenaware of these astronomical references for a longtime. However, they studied the Vedas withouta knowledge of astronomy and dismissed datesderived from those observations since the dateswere much more ancient than they were willingto accept. Rajaram and Frawley be-lieved thatthe astronomical observations in the Vedasindicated that the Vedas were composed before3000 BCE. Acceptance of such an early datewould mean giving up belief in an Aryan invasionof India in 1500 BCE.

The present is clearly a time when longaccepted views on ancient Indian history arebeing radically challenged. Clearly many of thewriters of the world history texts have beeninfluenced by older authorities. For example, seeShaffer and Lichtenstein’s criticism of Piggottand Wheeler who were very influential in themiddle parts of this century.41 Many of the detailsof the newer findings are still coming in and thestory that is forming is certainly less violent thanthe one we find in many of these texts. Let usnow sketch out some of what is emerging fromrecent scholarship and from a reinterpretationof long-available evidence.

It appears that cultural developments in theIndian subcontinent go back a very long timeand are largely independent of developments inWest Asia. Previously it was thought thatagricultural techniques as well as the food cropsthemselves came into India from West Asia.42

The large neolithic settlement at Mehrgarhdiscovered in 1974 by a French ar-chaeologicalteam has been dated to the seventh millenniumBCE and attests to the antiquity of agriculture inIndia.43 There appears to be an underlyingcontinuity in the culture of India which Shafferand Lichtenstein have called the Indo-Gangetictradition, and changes that have occurred in itseem to be largely due to internal factors ratherthan external influences and invasions. Thereappears to be a west-to-east movement of

135


people within India around the second millenniumBCE due to the drying up of the Saraswati andother ecological changes in Western India butthere is no archaeological or literary evidence ofintrusions of people from outside India.44 TheVedas would, then, not be the composition ofinvaders but of people long resident in India. Ifwe accept the chronology of Rajaram andFrawley, the Vedas were composed before 3000BCE.45 It is not possible to reconcile this with the1200 BCE date that is often quoted for the startof the composition of the Vedas. Max Miller wasright in seeing several stages in language evolutionin the Vedas. However the Vedas are sacredtexts and as such change in them should be veryslow. Max Miiller’ s attribution of 200 years foreach stage may be too low and a larger numberwould result in a much more ancient date for theVedas.

The Aryan invasion theory of India, as wehave seen, was proposed in order to accountfor the similarities in the Indo-European familyof languages. This theory can be analyzed asconsisting of three hypotheses. The first is thenotion that there was an ancestral language toall the present-day Indo-European languagescalled proto-Indo-European which wasoriginally spoken by a small group of peoplecalled Aryans. The second is that these Aryansoriginally occupied a homeland outside of India.The third hypothesis proposes that they invaded

India in 1500 BCE with the Vedas supposedlydocumenting the defeat of the “short, black,noseless” natives by the “tall, blue-eyed, fair-skinned” Aryans. Thus we see that though longaccepted as fact, the Aryan invasion theory ofIndia is a series of unproved hypotheses. Theevidence described in this article shows that thethird hypothesis (invasion in 1500 BCE) is wrong.Shrikant Talageri accepts only the first hypothesisand further believes that India is the originalhomeland of the Aryans from where they tookthe language family to Europe.46 Anotherpossibility that occurs to me is that perhaps therewas an Aryan homeland outside India but thatthe Aryans came into India at a very early datewell before the seventh millennium BCE at whichtime we already have evidence of cattlehusbandry and agriculture at Mehrgarh. I leaveit for further work to decide between these andpossi-bly other theories which seek to explainthe origin of the Indo-European languages. Atthe present state of research the provenance ofthe Aryans is a matter for hypothesis notcertitude.

Much more work needs to be done to fill inthe details. The question then is what can bedone to improve the world history texts. I wouldsuggest that they leave out old incorrect ideassuch as a massacre at Mohenjodaro. Theyshould leave out references to race and colorwith respect to ancient Indian history and as an

136


explanation of the caste system. And if authorswish to present the Aryan invasion theory theyshould explain the evidence for and against itinstead of simply stating it as fact. Thefragmentary evidence is susceptible to more thanone inter-pretation. The Aryan invasion theoryis just that; a theory.

The central event in the twentieth century iscertainly the second world war and the Holocaustperpetrated by the “Aryans” of Nazi Germany.The Nazis were influenced in their ideology bythe work of scholars such as Max Muiller whoproduced the “racial theory of Indiancivilization.” As we have seen, many of thedistinguished historians who have authored thetexts reviewed in this article have repeated theerroneous theories of the same scholars. Wheneven the best-informed hold such opinions,surely the picture of Aryans in the popular mindis much in need of correction.

Notes

1. L. S. Stavrianos, A Global History: From

Prehistory to the Present, 6th ed.

(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995);

Peter N Stearns, Michael Adas, and Stuart B. Schwartz,

World Civilizations: The Global Experience, vol. 1,

2nd ed. (New York: Harper Collins College Publishers,

1996); William McNeill, A History of the Human

Community: Prehistory to 1500, vol. 1, 5th ed. (Upper

Saddle River, New Jersey:

Simon & Schuster, 1997); Anthony Esler, The Human

Venture: The Great Enterprise: A World History to

1500, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice

Hall, 1992);

Kevin Reilly, The West and the World: A History of

Civilization, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Collins,

1989); Richard Greaves et al, Civilizations of the

World: The Human

Adventure, vol. 1, To the Late 1600s, 3rd ed. (New

York: Longman, 1997); Walter Wallbank

et al, Civilization: Past & Present, vol. 1, To 1774, 8th

ed. (New York: Harper Collins,

1996); Stanley Chodorow et al, The Mainstream of

Civilization to 1500, 6th ed. (Fort Worth,

TX: Harcourt Press, 1994); and John McKay, Bennett

Hill, and John Buckler, A History of World Societies,

vol. 1, To 1715, 4th ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,

1996).

2. Reilly, The West, pp. 61, 69; Stavrianos, A

Global, pp. 66, 58; and Esler, The Human, pp. 72.

3. Greaves et al, Civilizations of the World, p.

51.

4. Chodorow et al, The Mainstream, p. 146.

5. Wallbank et al, Civilization, p. 108.

137


6. Stearns et al, World Civilizations, pp. 51,

52.

7. Wallbank et al, Civilization, p. 27; Reilly,

The West, p. 8; Stavrianos, A Global,

p. 61; Chodorow et al, The Mainstream, p. 8;

McKay et al, A History, p. 30; Esler, The

Human, p. 72; and Greaves et al, Civilizations of the

World, p. 52.

8. Stavrianos, A Global, p. 66.

9. Stearns et al, World Civilizations, p. 54.

10. Esler, The Human, p. 73; Wallbank et al,

Civilization, p. 108, and Chodorow et

al, The Mainstream, p. 146.

11. Reilly, The West, p. 61.

12. Thomas R. Trautmann, Aryans and British

India (Berkeley and Los Angeles:

University of California Press, 1997), pp. 37-52.

13. Ibid., pp. 172-78.

14. Navaratna S. Rajaram, The Politics of

History: Aryan Invasion Theory and the

Subversion of Scholarship (New Delhi: Voice of

India, 1995), pp. 91-96.

15. Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and

Language: The Puzzle of Indo-European

Origins (London: Penguin Books, 1987), p. 14.

16. Trautmann, Aryans (Berkeley and Los

Angeles: University of California Press,

1997), p. 4.

17. Sir Mortimer Wheeler, Civilizations of the

Indus Valley and Beyond (London:

Thames and Hudson, 1966), p. 83.

1. 32 Padma Manian

18. Stavrianos, A Global, p. 61.

19. V. Gordon Childe, The Aryans: A Study of

Indo-European Origins (1926;

reprint, Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1970),

p. 212.

20. Jim G. Shaffer, “Indus Valley, Baluchistan

and the Helmand Drainage (Af-

ghanistan),” in Chronologies in Old World

Archaeology, vol, 2, 3rd ed., ed. Robert W.

Ehrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992),

pp. 441-64.

21. Ibid., p. 441.

22. Stearns et al, World Civilizations, p. 51.

23. Shaffer, “The Indo-Aryan Invasions:

Cultural Myth and Archaeological Real-

ity,” in The People of South Asia: The Biological

Anthropology of India, Pakistan, and

Nepal, ed. John R. Luckacs (New York: Plenum

Press, 1984), p. 84.

24. Renfrew, Archaeology and Language, p.

77.

25. Ibid., pp. 182, 196.

26. Kenneth R. Kennedy, “Skulls, Aryans, and

Flowing Drains: The Interface of

138


Archaeology and Skeletal Biology in the Study of

the Harappan Civilization,” in Harappan

Civilization: A Contemporary Perspective, ed.

Gregory L. Possehl (New Delhi: Oxford

and IBH Publishing Co., 1982), p. 291.

27. Esler, The Human, p. 72.

28. Kennedy, “Skulls,” 291.

29. Robert H. Dyson, Jr., “Paradigm Changes in

the Study of the Indus Civiliza-

tion” in Harappan, ed. Possehl, p. 422.

30. Trautmann, Aryans; Shaffer and Diane A.

Lichtenstein, “The Concepts of

‘cultural tradition’ and ‘palaeoethnicity’ in South

Asian archaeology” in The Indo-Aryans

of Ancient South Asia: Language, Material

Culture and Ethnicity, ed. G. Erdosy (Berlin:

Walter de Gruyter), 127-8; Rajaram and Frawley,

Vedic “Aryans. “

31. Trautmann, Aryans, pp. 211-216.

32. Navaratna S. Rajaram and David Frawley,

Vedic “Aryans” and the Origins of

Civilization (New Delhi: Voice of India, 1995), p. 27.

33. Trautmann, Aryans, p. 210; and Frawley,

Gods, Sages and Kings: Vedic Secrets

of Ancient Civilization (Salt Lake City, UT: Passage

Press, 1991), pp. 261-62.

34. Trautmann, Aryans, p. 211.

35. Rajaram and Frawley, Vedic “Aryans, “ p. 23.

36. A. L. Basham, The Wonder that was India:

A Survey of the Culture of the Indian

Sub-Continent before the Coming of the Muslims

(New York: Glove Press, 1954), p. 37; and Frawley,

Gods, p. 252.

37. Stavrianos, A Global, pp. 66, 116.

38. Rajaram and Frawley, Vedic “Aryans,” p. 49.

39. Basham, The Wonder, p. 32.

40. Rajaram and Frawley, Vedic “Aryans, “ pp.

98-99

41. Shaffer and Lichtenstein, “The Concepts,”

126-30.

42. Ibid.

43. Jean-Francois Jarrige and Richard H.

Meadow, “The Antecedents of Civiliza-

tion in the Indus Valley,” Scientific American 243,

no. 2 (August 1980): 122-133 and

Jarrige, “Excavations at Mehrgarh: Their

Significance for Understanding the Background

of the Harappan Civilization,” in Harappan, ed.

Possehl, pp. 79-84.

44. Shaffer and Lichtenstein, “The Concepts.”

45. Rajaram and Frawley, Vedic “Aryans,” p.

143.

46. Shrikant G. Talageri, The Aryan Invasion: A

Reappraisal (New Delhi: Aditya

Prakashan, 1993).

139


Of the various theories of historythat have over the years beendiscredited for lack of evidence,

ill-founded or baseless assumptions, orhave been simply undermined by superiorscholarship, few have been dismantledquite so thoroughly as Aryan Race Theory.Yet, as historian James Schaffer notesabove, few other discredited theories haveso stubbornly and inexplicably retainedcredence among the public, the media, andeven some academic circles, in spite ofdirect evidence to the contrary. Aryan racetheory is a fabrication, evolved into a myth,that survives today as an unexamined‘truth.’

The Missionary’s Swastika: Racism as anEvangelical Weapon

S. Aravindan Neelakandan

We reject the historical interpretations, which date back to the eighteenthcentury, that continue to be imposed on South Asian culture history. These stillprevailing interpretations are significantly diminished by Europeanethnocentrism, colonialism, racism, and antisemitism. Surely, as South Asianstudies approaches the twenty-first century, it is time to describe emerging dataobjectively rather than perpetuate interpretations without regard to the dataarchaeologists have worked so hard to reveal.’ [1]

And few other spurious ‘truths’ have beenso insidious — or so destructive.Responsible for subjugation of millions ofIndians under British rule, Aryan RaceTheory continued its wretched legacy wellinto the twentieth century, mutating intothe horrific pseudo-science thatrationalized Hitler’s Final Solution, andlingering in the bloody ethnic convulsionsof modern Sri Lanka, Rwanda, and othertroubled areas of the post-colonial world.

Far from being merely an academicexercise, though, Aryan Race Theory is infact the brainchild of Christian evangelist-scholars, fashioned and tempered in thenineteenth century as a weapon for

140


European expansionism in India.Promulgated to generations of Indianchildren in British-created schools, itcreated, like so many other Western creedsand dogmas, social divisions where nonehad hitherto existed, resulting in jealousy,mistrust, and suspicion amongcommunities where peaceful coexistencehad been the norm. This theory, whichposits the invasion of ancient India by awhite-skinned race (the ‘Aryans’) whoconquer an indigenous, dark-skinnedpopulation, therefore worked ingeniouslywith the British divide-and-conquerstrategy for rule in India. The theory andits variants continue to be used today bythe Vatican and other Christian enterprisesin their campaign to ‘harvest’ tribals andother vulnerable communities of Hindus.For these spiritual imperialists, spuriousracial theories still hold their divide-and-conquer appeal.

The roots of the theory reach back muchfurther than the pseudo-scholarship ofEuropean missionaries, however. As earlyas 1312 CE, the Ecumenical Council ofVienna declared that ‘the Holy Churchshould have an abundant number ofCatholics well versed in the languages,especially in those of the infidels so as tobe able to instruct them in the sacred

doctrine.’ This not only defined the earlyChurch’s strategy for evangelizing the‘infidels,’ but also established the verystudy of language, and the linguistic andphilological scholarship that wouldemerge in later centuries, as tools ofevangelism. Thus, when the university (aswith society’s other institutions) wasrecruited into the national effort ofempire-building, its agents — many ofthem pious Christians and nationalists,trained in a predominantly parochial(Catholic, Anglican, etc.) academic system— enthusiastically pursued knowledge notfor the sake of truth, but for the sake ofChristianity.

Throughout its history, Christianity hasnever been above the endorsement offabricated ‘truths’ in order to spread itscreed throughout the globe. So, it is notsurprising that when the Boden Chair forOriental Studies was established in OxfordUniversity in 1832, Colonel Boden, whobequeathed 25,000 pounds (a generoussum for that time) to establish that chair,stated explicitly that the aim of study ofSanskrit literature was not for the sake ofknowledge, but natives of India to theChristian religion.’ It was the Boden chairwhich later emerged as the academicepicenter of Aryan Race Theory.

141


In fact, it was an Oxford Professor ofSanskrit who vigorously propagated thenotion of the Aryan race. Fredrich MaxMuller, a staunch German nationalist andChristian missionary, was Professor ofSanskrit at Oxford labored for yearstranslating the Vedas into English. Mullerwould comment unequivocally regardingthe motives of his life’s work,

‘. . . [t]his edition of mine and translationof Vedas will hereafter tell to a very greatextent on the fate of India and on the growthof millions of souls in that country. It isthe root of their religion and to show themas to what their root is, I feel sure, is theonly way of uprooting all that sprang fromit during the last 3000 years.’ [2

Muller’s objective, it is seen, was not tomake the achievements of Hinducivilization accessible to his Europeanfellows, but to expose them to the scrutinyof his fellow evangelists, so that they maybecome better in deconstructing them.

In 1851 Muller wrote his first article inEnglish wherein he used the word ‘Aryan’for the first time in the sense of a race.Max Muller’s good friend and fellowIndologist Paul then popularized the word

‘Aryan’ in France. Soon many Christianscholars were seized upon by the theoryof Aryan race. In 1859 Swiss linguistAdolph Pictet wrote that the Aryan race wasthe

‘. . . one destined by Providence to reignone day supreme over the entire earth . . .They were the race of Aryans. . . . Thereligion of Christ became the torch ofhumanity. The genius of Greece adapted it.The power of Rome propagated it.Germanic energy gave it new strength. Thewhole race of the European Aryans cameto be the main instrument of God’s planfor the destiny of mankind’. [3]

Wrote Ernest Renan, the French historianof religion in 1860, ‘[t]he Semites areincapable of doing that which is essential.Let us remain Germans and Celts; let uskeep our eternal gospel Christianity . .. .After the Semitic race declined, the Aryanrace alone was left to lead the march ofhuman destiny.’ [4] The notion of ‘Aryan’had become, in a few short years, theemblem of European manifest destiny overthe world, a signet coined in the languageof scholarship which gave Europeans aracial and religious mantle of superiority.

142


Not all scholars of the time acceptedMuller’s ideas, however. In 1861, afterMuller gave three lectures titled ‘Scienceof Languages’ in which he justified histheory with quotes from Vedas, Americanhistorian Louis B. Synder noted that

‘Max Muller repeatedlyhammered away at the idea thatthe terms Indo-European andIndo-Germanic must be replacedby Aryan because the peoplewho lived in India and whospoke the Sanskrit languagecalled themselves Arya. Thisprimitive Aryan languageindicated that there was anAryan race, the commonancestors of Germans, Celts,Romans, Slavs, Greeks,Persians, and Hindus.’ [5]

Synder then went on to remark that ‘allattempts to correlate the Aryan languageto Aryan race were not only unsuccessfulbut also absurd’. [5] Even at that time manyacademics opposed the Aryan invasiontheory. Noted scholars such as Jacoby,Hillebrant and Winternitz strongly opposedthe racial theory, noting that Indiansthemselves had had no idea about any

distinct Aryan racial identity in their ownliterature.

Why, then, was a theory that had nogrounding in fact so readily accepted andpromoted in the Western academic circlesand imposed on Indians? Because thetheory of the Aryan race and its invasionof India were formulated, and thenvigorously promulgated, by Christianmissionaries. As W. W. Hunter, anotherwell-known Indologist of missionarypersuasion, candidly admitted, their‘scholarship is warmed with the holy flameof Christian zeal.’ [6] As an example, someelements of the theory are clearlyattributable to Biblical scripture. Forinstance, ideas like the existence of anAryan proto-language were associated withand inspired by the Biblical myth of thetower of Babel. Even the date of creationof the Vedas was fixed by Max Muller totailor-fit a Biblical creation time scale. [7]Clearly, those members of the academicestablishment who promoted the theoryhad vested political and religious interestsin mind, and the propaganda of religiousand racial superiority sanctified by AryanRace Theory served those interests well.This marriage of racial superiority and the‘holy flame of Christian zeal’ would ensurethe future development of the ugly racist

143


theories that would culminate in Europe’sconcentration camps and final solutions.

The primary political motive of nineteenth-century Britain was, of course, expansionof its empire, and the theory of Aryan raceprovided a veneer of benevolence thatjustified colonial rule in India. Protestantmissionary John Wilson, President of theAsiatic Society of Bombay from 1836 to1846, wanted the Indian population to bedivided into Aryan and non-Aryan groupsso that special target groups like tribalscould be easily identified by themissionaries for conversion. In 1856Wilson delivered a lecture titled ‘India3000 years ago,’ in which he preached theAryan invasion of India and the theory ofAryan race as historical facts. Wilsondeclared

‘[w]hat has taken place sincethe commencement of theBritish rule in India is only areunion, to a certain extent, ofthe members of the same family.’Naturally, this happy reunionhad now brought India intocontact ‘with the mostenlightened and philanthropicnation in the world.’ [8]

The racist ‘scholarship’ conducted by themissionaries also helped to diminish anyof the pride Indians had developed for theirown heritage. Max Muller in his addressto the International Congress ofOrientalists openly remarked that, thanksto the work of the missionary-scholars, ‘amore intelligent appreciation had taken theplace of the extravagant admiration of thework of their old poets.’ [9] In other words,Indians’ appreciation of their own epicliterature was to be cut down to size by anapplication of ‘proper’ critical scrutiny,righteously applied by Muller and hisChristo-centric cohorts.

British cultural ‘re-education’ of the Indianpopulace was accomplished throughimposition of a colonial educationalsystem. To do this the indigenous systemof education had to first be eradicated. Bythe first half of the nineteenth century, thecolonial rulers along with theirmissionaries had already destroyed the vastnetwork of indigenous schools which forgenerations had proven more efficient andeffective than the contemporary Britisheducational system. Parliamentarian KeirHardie observed, based on the strength ofofficial documents and the reports ofmissionaries in the field, that prior to

144


British occupation of India, in Bengal alonethere had been 80,000 native schools,meaning one school for every 400 of thepopulation. This would change radicallyonce colonization was underway. Ludlow,in his History of British India, says, ‘[i]nevery Hindoo village which has retained itsoriginal form all children were able to read,write and cipher, but where we have sweptaway the village system as in Bengal therethe village school has also disappeared.’

The 1823 report of the British Collectorof Bellary, A. D. Campbell, is telling. Hefirst lauds the indigenous educationsystem, saying:

‘The economy with whichchildren are taught to write inthe native schools and thesystem by which the moreadvanced scholars are taught toeducate the less advanced andat the same time to confirm theirown knowledge is certainlyadmirable and well deserved theimitation it has received inEngland,’

but he then goes on to remark, ‘[o]f nearlya million souls not 7000 are now at school.’The decimation of the Indian education

system thus created a vacuum that then hadto be filled. Into that vacuum, eager andwaiting, went the missionaries, who swiftlyset up their own church-sponsored schoolsand taught Indian children their ownliterature and history according to thegospel of Max Muller.

It is by now a well-established fact thateducation was a means to Christianize and‘domesticate’ the native population andrender it loyal to the British empire.Thomas Macaulay, member of the SupremeCouncil of India and instrumental indestroying the indigenous educationalsystem and in introducing English languageeducation in India, remarked in his nowfamous Minute of 1835,

‘. . . the dialects commonly spokenamong the natives of this part ofIndia contain neither literary norscientific information,’ and thuswere not worthy of preservation.However, Macaulay’s interest wasnot educational, but decidedlyreligious. In a letter to his fatherhe proclaimed, ‘It is my firm beliefthat, if our plans of education arefollowed up, there will not be asingle idolater among the

145


respectable classes in Bengalthirty years hence.’

Macaulay’s boastful predictions,fortunately, would not come to pass. Butas the eighteenth century came to a close,Aryan RaceTheory had been taught tomillions of Indian children in schoolsoperated by the Macaulay-Missionary axis.The damage was done. The effect ofindoctrinating generations of young Indianswith a fabricated, racist interpretation oftheir history was the division of Indiansociety into ‘Aryan’ and ‘non-Aryan’communities, polarizing North and SouthIndia. In South India, Anglican Bishop R.Caldwell began promoting the idea thatSouth Indians were descendents of a non-Aryan ‘race,’ called Dravidians, who wereracially different and culturally superior tothe Aryans from the North. Soon manySouth Indians had accepted these theories,and their new alienation from the Hindi-speaking (‘Aryan’) North lead to deeppolitical division. Dravidian politicalparties were formed which, in oppositionto the ‘Aryan’ mainstream, were decidedlypro-British. These parties passedresolutions demanding, among otherthings, that the British should not leaveIndia, even as Indian nationalists werefighting for their country’s freedom.*

After independence, racial theorycontinued to be used by the Church as aploy to further balkanize the Indianpopulace. As late as the 1950s and 1960s,high Church officials continued to publiclyassert that Dravidian Race Theory was a‘time bomb’ planted by the Church todestroy Hinduism. Though Macaulay’spredictions failed, zealous proselytizersstill nurse their bigoted ambitions toeradicate ‘idolatry.’

Today, insurgency and terrorism inNortheast India continue to be enflamedby the divisive propaganda of Christianmissionaries. In neighboring Sri Lanka, theviolent ethic conflict can also be directlytraced to the promulgation of racialtheories by Christian missionaries amongthe Sinhalese and Tamils, who hadpreviously lived together in relative peace.Ana Pararaja Singham, secretary of theAustralasian Federation of TamilAssociations, remarked while discussingthe ethnic conflict in the island,

‘. . . While legends and myths ofthe [founding of Sri Lanka]formed the basis of Sinhalanationalism, the presentnationalism is also due to the

146


considerable influence wieldedby Europeans throughout the19th and 20th centuries. Thisdealt with racial concepts suchas ‘Aryan’. The notion that theSinhalese were an Aryan peoplewas not a Mahavamsa inspiredmyth, but an opinionattributable to Europeanlinguists who classified thelanguages spoken by the Sinhalaand Tamil people into twodistinct categories.’

The racial polarization of Sri Lanka beganas early as 1856, when Robert Caldwell,in his A Comparative Grammar of theDravidian South Indian Family ofLanguages , argued that there was ‘no directaffinity between the Sinhalese and Tamillanguages.’ Max Muller, meanwhile,weighed in with his Lectures on theScience of Language (1861), in which hedeclared that after ‘careful and minutecomparison’ he was led to ‘class the idiomsspoken in Iceland and Ceylon as cognatedialects of the Aryan family of languages’.Though contrary views were expressed byother scholars, Muller’s Aryan RaceTheory was lent support by a number ofprominent European scholars, and thetheory therefore held sway.

Kamalika Pieris , a Sinhalese intellectual,agrees. In his article, ‘Ethnic conflict andTamil Separatism,’ he examines the originof the conflict and traces it to the racetheories proposed by the missionary-scholars:There developed the notion of an‘Aryan race’ consisting of anybody whospoke an Aryan language, the Dravidian raceconsisting of anybody who spoke aDravidian language, and the Jews whospoke neither. Max Muller, the Germanlinguist spoke of the ‘Aryan Race’ in 1888.Earlier Robert Caldwell had spoken ofDravidian languages in 1856. ThePortuguese and the Dutch brought into SriLanka the prejudices available in theircountries. Notably the Christianantagonism to Islam and other ‘heathen’religions like Hinduism and Buddhism. Butthe concept of ‘race’ was introduced to thecountry during the British period, in the19th century. The British labelled theSinhala community as ‘Sinhalese race’ and‘Tamil race’ in 1833 or 1871. 1833 sawthe first communal representation in theLegislative Council and 1871 was the yearof the first British Census of Ceylon. [10]

A century later, the fruits of Aryan RaceTheory would be clearly seen in Sri Lanka,with devastating results. One of the first

147


Sri Lankans to realize the enormouspolitical gain to be reaped throughexploiting the Mahavamsa mindset was S.W. R. D. Bandaranaike, who, ironically, wasa member of the elitist ChristianBandaranaike-Obeyasekera clan. At thegeneral election of 1956, Bandaranaike ‘bulldozed his way into political power bysuccessfully marshalling popular Sinhalasupport on a chauvinistic platform.’ [11]The polarization of the Tamil and Sinhalesecommunities would eventually lead to thecivil war which ravages the island to thisday.

It is not only the Indian Subcontinent whereChristian evangelists have used dubiouspseudo-science to foment racial division.Missionaries have concocted numerousversions of the Aryan RacialTheory,tailored to the history and circumstancesfound in various ex-colonial ‘target’populations. For example, commenting onthe recent Hutu-Tutsi conflicts, the Frenchanthropologist Jean-Pierre Langellierreveals:

‘The idea that the Hutusand the Tutsis werephysically different wasfirst aired in the 1860s bythe British explorer John

Speke. The history ofRwanda (like that of muchof Africa) has beendistorted by missionaries,academics and colonialadministrators. They madethe Tutsis out to be asuperior race, which hadconquered the region andenslaved the Hutus.Missionaries taught theHutus that historicalfallacy, which was theresult of racist Europeanconcepts being applied toan African reality. At theend of the fifties, the Hutusused that discourse to reactagainst the Tutsis.’[12]

The horrific ethnic cleansing that occurredin Rwanda in the early 90s, then, can bedirectly attributed to a mindset of racialsuperiority engendered by Christianmissionary-scholars.

Conclusion

Racial theories and pseudo-sciencecontinue to be vigorously employed todayby the Vatican and other Western evangelistenterprises in their ongoing campaign to

148


harvest souls for Christianity. But it is notonly in the remote corners of the ThirdWorld where the unexamined ‘truths’ ofMax Muller and his missionary-scholarcontemporaries are still used as weaponsof propaganda. Aryan Race Theory is aliveand well in the United States. Take, forinstance, white supremacist David Duke,who in one of his recent books speaks ofthe hordes of Aryans pouring into ancientIndia:

‘Aryans, or Indo-Europeans(Caucasians) created the greatIndian, or Hindu civilization.Aryans swept over the Himalayasto the Indian subcontinent andconquered the aboriginal people.(. . .) The word Aryan has anetymological origin in the wordArya from Sanskrit, meaning

noble. The word also has beenassociated with gold, the noblemetal, and denoted the golden-skinned invaders (as compared tothe brown-skinned aboriginals)from the West. (. . .) Theconquering race initiated a castesystem to preserve their status andtheir racial identity. The Hinduword for caste is Varna, whichdirectly translated into Englishmeans color.’ [13]

Never mind that Duke is only regurgitatinga spurious and discredited interpretationof history. The lies of Aryan Race Theoryare as useful for white supremacists todayas they were for the Christian missionariesa century ago in their campaign not only toconvert the infidels but also to justify thecolonization of ‘heathen Hindoostan.’

References

1. James Schaffer (Case Western University) concluding his article, ‘Migration, Philology andSouth Asian Archaeology,’ in Aryan and Non-Aryan in South Asia: Evidence, Interpretation andHistory, edited by J. Bronkhorst and M. Deshpande (University of Michigan Press, 1998). [back]

2. The Life and Letters of the Rt. Hon. Fredrich Max Muller, vol I, edited by his wife (London:Longmans, 1902), 328. [back

3. Adolphe Pictet in Essai de paleontologie linguistique (1859), quoted by Michael Danino in hisThe Invasion That Never Was (1996). [back]

4. Ernest Renan, L’Avenir religieux des societes modernes (1860), quoted by Michael Danino op.cit. [back]

149


5. Louis B. Synder, The Idea of Nationalism: Its Meaning and History (New York: Von Nostrand,1962) [back]

6. See ‘Genesis of the Aryan race Theory and its Application to Indian History’ by DevendranathSwarup, published in Manthan - Journal of Deendayal Research Institute (New Delhi, April-September 1994). [back]

7. N. S. Rajaram, Aryan Invasion of India, The Myth and the Truth (Voice of India, 1993). [back]

8. Sri Aurobindo, ‘The Origins of Aryan Speech,’ The Secret of the Veda, p. 554. [back]

9. Quoted in Arun Shourie’s Missionaries in India - Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas (New Delhi:ASA, 1994), 149.[back]

10. The article can be found at http://www.lacnet.org/srilanka/politics/devolution/item1342.html

11. Ana Pararasasingam, ‘Peace with Justice.’ Paper presented at proceedings of theInternational Conference on the Conflict in Sri Lanka, Canberra, Australia, 1996. [back]

12. Quoted by N. S. Rajaram in his book, The Politics of History (New Delhi: Voice of India,1995). [back]

13. David Duke, My Awakening (Mandeville, LA: Free Speech Press, 1999), 517-518 . [back]

Note*As more and more secular scholars studied these racist theories they started questioning the integrityof Max Muller. During the 1880s Muller began refuting his own racist interpretation of the Vedas.The damage, however, had already been done. [back]

Further Reading:Missionaries in India - Continuities, Changes, Dilemmas by Arun Shourie (New Delhi: ASA, 1994).Breaking India: Rajiv Malhotra and Aravindan Neelakandan, Amaryllis, 2011

150


About Vivekananda Kendra

Swami Vivekananda, with intense love in his heart for the motherland undertookwanderings all over India. He came to Kanyakumari and sat on 25th, 26th and 27thDecember 1892 on the mid-sea rock meditating on India’s past, present and future.

It was on this Rock that he discovered the mission for glorious India and later shookthe world by India’s spirituality. On this sanctified place Mananeeya Sri Eknathji Ranade,with the participation of millions of people of India constructed the Vivekananda RockMemorial, which symbolizes the glorious mission of India as seen by SwamiVivekananda in his meditation. Millions of people visit this monument at Kanyakumariand the three permanent Exhibitions - “Arise Awake”, “The Wandering Monk” and“Gangotri” based on the Life and Message of Swami Vivekananda and Mananeeya SriEknathji get inspired to work for the nation.

Along with this Memorial, Sri Eknathji Ranade founded Vivekananda Kendra a “spirituallyoriented service mission” to translate Swami Vivekananda’s vision of glorious Indiainto action. Vivekananda Kendra calls upon those youth to be the life-workers anddedicate their life in the service of the nation.

For actualizing this vision, the Kendra has over 663 branch centres spread over 23states of India to work for all sections of the society to rebuild the nation. To achievethis, Life-workers and the local workers of the Kendra, carry out various serviceactivities through Yoga, Organizing Youth and Women, Rural Development, Education,Development of Natural Resources, and Publications based on the life and message ofSwami Vivekananda. The Kendra urges all to join in this task of national regeneration.

Documents

Aryan Invasion Theory - Fabrications and Fallout - Part 2prakashan.vivekanandakendra.org/sites/default/files/85323769... · ARYAN INVASION THEORY-FABRICATIONS AND FALLOUTS - VOLUME